text
stringlengths 991
34.9k
|
|---|
I'm assuming everyone here has watched a TED Talk online at one time or another, right? So what I'm going to do is play this. This is the song from the TED Talks online. (Music) And I'm going to slow it down because things sound cooler when they're slower. (Music) Ken Robinson: Good morning. How are you? Mark Applebaum: I'm going to -- Kate Stone: -- mix some music. MA: I'm going to do so in a way that tells a story. Tod Machover: Something nobody's ever heard before. KS: I have a crossfader. Julian Treasure: I call this the mixer. KS: Two D.J. decks. Chris Anderson: You turn up the dials, the wheel starts to turn. Dan Ellsey: I have always loved music. Michael Tilson Thomas: Is it a melody or a rhythm or a mood or an attitude? Daniel Wolpert: Feeling everything that's going on inside my body. Adam Ockelford: In your brain is this amazing musical computer. MTT: Using computers and synthesizers to create works. It's a language that's still evolving. And the 21st century. KR: Turn on the radio. Pop into the discotheque. You will know what this person is doing: moving to the music. Mark Ronson: This is my favorite part. MA: You gotta have doorstops. That's important. TM: We all love music a great deal. MTT: Anthems, dance crazes, ballads and marches. Kirby Ferguson and JT: The remix: It is new music created from old music. Ryan Holladay: Blend seamlessly. Kathryn Schulz: And that's how it goes. MTT: What happens when the music stops? KS: Yay! (Applause) MR: Obviously, I've been watching a lot of TED Talks. When I was first asked to speak at TED, I wasn't quite sure what my angle was, at first, so yeah, I immediately started watching tons of TED Talks, which is pretty much absolutely the worst thing that you can do because you start to go into panic mode, thinking, I haven't mounted a successful expedition to the North Pole yet. Neither have I provided electricity to my village through sheer ingenuity. In fact, I've pretty much wasted most of my life DJing in night clubs and producing pop records.
But I still kept watching the videos, because I'm a masochist, and eventually, things like Michael Tilson Thomas and Tod Machover, and seeing their visceral passion talking about music, it definitely stirred something in me, and I'm a sucker for anyone talking devotedly about the power of music. And I started to write down on these little note cards every time I heard something that struck a chord in me, pardon the pun, or something that I thought I could use, and pretty soon, my studio looked like this, kind of like a John Nash, "Beautiful Mind" vibe.
The other good thing about watching TED Talks, when you see a really good one, you kind of all of a sudden wish the speaker was your best friend, don't you? Like, just for a day. They seem like a nice person. You'd take a bike ride, maybe share an ice cream. You'd certainly learn a lot. And every now and then they'd chide you, when they got frustrated that you couldn't really keep up with half of the technical things they're banging on about all the time. But then they'd remember that you're but a mere human of ordinary, mortal intelligence that didn't finish university, and they'd kind of forgive you, and pet you like the dog. (Laughter)
Man, yeah, back to the real world, probably Sir Ken Robinson and I are not going to end up being best of friends. He lives all the way in L.A. and I imagine is quite busy, but through the tools available to me -- technology and the innate way that I approach making music -- I can sort of bully our existences into a shared event, which is sort of what you saw. I can hear something that I love in a piece of media and I can co-opt it and insert myself in that narrative, or alter it, even.
In a nutshell, that's what I was trying to do with these things, but more importantly, that's what the past 30 years of music has been. That's the major thread. See, 30 years ago, you had the first digital samplers, and they changed everything overnight. All of a sudden, artists could sample from anything and everything that came before them, from a snare drum from the Funky Meters, to a Ron Carter bassline, the theme to "The Price Is Right." Albums like De La Soul's "3 Feet High and Rising" and the Beastie Boys' "Paul's Boutique" looted from decades of recorded music to create these sonic, layered masterpieces that were basically the Sgt. Peppers of their day. And they weren't sampling these records because they were too lazy to write their own music. They weren't sampling these records to cash in on the familiarity of the original stuff. To be honest, it was all about sampling really obscure things, except for a few obvious exceptions like Vanilla Ice and "doo doo doo da da doo doo" that we know about. But the thing is, they were sampling those records because they heard something in that music that spoke to them that they instantly wanted to inject themselves into the narrative of that music. They heard it, they wanted to be a part of it, and all of a sudden they found themselves in possession of the technology to do so, not much unlike the way the Delta blues struck a chord with the Stones and the Beatles and Clapton, and they felt the need to co-opt that music for the tools of their day. You know, in music we take something that we love and we build on it.
I'd like to play a song for you.
(Music: "La Di Da Di" by Doug E. Fresh & Slick Rick)
That's "La Di Da Di" and it's the fifth-most sampled song of all time. It's been sampled 547 times. It was made in 1984 by these two legends of hip-hop, Slick Rick and Doug E. Fresh, and the Ray-Ban and Jheri curl look is so strong. I do hope that comes back soon.
Anyway, this predated the sampling era. There were no samples in this record, although I did look up on the Internet last night, I mean several months ago, that "La Di Da Di" means, it's an old Cockney expression from the late 1800s in England, so maybe a remix with Mrs. Patmore from "Downton Abbey" coming soon, or that's for another day.
Doug E. Fresh was the human beat box. Slick Rick is the voice you hear on the record, and because of Slick Rick's sing-songy, super-catchy vocals, it provides endless sound bites and samples for future pop records.
That was 1984. This is me in 1984, in case you were wondering how I was doing, thank you for asking. It's Throwback Thursday already. I was involved in a heavy love affair with the music of Duran Duran, as you can probably tell from my outfit. I was in the middle. And the simplest way that I knew how to co-opt myself into that experience of wanting to be in that song somehow was to just get a band together of fellow nine-year-olds and play "Wild Boys" at the school talent show. So that's what we did, and long story short, we were booed off the stage, and if you ever have a chance to live your life escaping hearing the sound of an auditorium full of second- and third-graders booing, I would highly recommend it. It's not really fun. But it didn't really matter, because what I wanted somehow was to just be in the history of that song for a minute. I didn't care who liked it. I just loved it, and I thought I could put myself in there.
Over the next 10 years, "La Di Da Di" continues to be sampled by countless records, ending up on massive hits like "Here Comes the Hotstepper" and "I Wanna Sex You Up." Snoop Doggy Dogg covers this song on his debut album "Doggystyle" and calls it "Lodi Dodi." Copyright lawyers are having a field day at this point. And then you fast forward to 1997, and the Notorious B.I.G., or Biggie, reinterprets "La Di Da Di" on his number one hit called "Hypnotize," which I will play a little bit of and I will play you a little bit of the Slick Rick to show you where they got it from.
(Music: "Hypnotize" by The Notorious B.I.G.)
So Biggie was killed weeks before that song made it to number one, in one of the great tragedies of the hip-hop era, but he would have been 13 years old and very much alive when "La Di Da Di" first came out, and as a young boy growing up in Brooklyn, it's hard not to think that that song probably held some fond memories for him. But the way he interpreted it, as you hear, is completely his own. He flips it, makes it, there's nothing pastiche whatsoever about it. It's thoroughly modern Biggie. I had to make that joke in this room, because you would be the only people that I'd ever have a chance of getting it. And so, it's a groaner. (Laughter)
Elsewhere in the pop and rap world, we're going a little bit sample-crazy. We're getting away from the obscure samples that we were doing, and all of a sudden everyone's taking these massive '80s tunes like Bowie, "Let's Dance," and all these disco records, and just rapping on them. These records don't really age that well. You don't hear them now, because they borrowed from an era that was too steeped in its own connotation. You can't just hijack nostalgia wholesale. It leaves the listener feeling sickly.
You have to take an element of those things and then bring something fresh and new to it, which was something that I learned when I was working with the late, amazing Amy Winehouse on her album "Back to Black." A lot of fuss was made about the sonic of the album that myself and Salaam Remi, the other producer, achieved, how we captured this long-lost sound, but without the very, very 21st-century personality and firebrand that was Amy Winehouse and her lyrics about rehab and Roger Moore and even a mention of Slick Rick, the whole thing would have run the risk of being very pastiche, to be honest. Imagine any other singer from that era over it singing the same old lyrics. It runs a risk of being completely bland. I mean, there was no doubt that Amy and I and Salaam all had this love for this gospel, soul and blues and jazz that was evident listening to the musical arrangements. She brought the ingredients that made it urgent and of the time.
So if we come all the way up to the present day now, the cultural tour de force that is Miley Cyrus, she reinterprets "La Di Da Di" completely for her generation, and we'll take a listen to the Slick Rick part and then see how she sort of flipped it. (Music: "La Di Da Di" by Slick Rick & Doug E. Fresh) (Music: "We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus) So Miley Cyrus, who wasn't even born yet when "La Di Da Di" was made, and neither were any of the co-writers on the song, has found this song that somehow etched its way into the collective consciousness of pop music, and now, with its timeless playfulness of the original, has kind of translated to a whole new generation who will probably co-opt it as their own.
Since the dawn of the sampling era, there's been endless debate about the validity of music that contains samples. You know, the Grammy committee says that if your song contains some kind of pre-written or pre-existing music, you're ineligible for song of the year. Rockists, who are racist but only about rock music, constantly use the argument to — That's a real word. That is a real word. They constantly use the argument to devalue rap and modern pop, and these arguments completely miss the point, because the dam has burst. We live in the post-sampling era. We take the things that we love and we build on them. That's just how it goes. And when we really add something significant and original and we merge our musical journey with this, then we have a chance to be a part of the evolution of that music that we love and be linked with it once it becomes something new again.
So I would like to do one more piece that I put together for you tonight, and it takes place with two pretty inspiring TED performances that I've seen. One of them is the piano player Derek Paravicini, who happens to be a blind, autistic genius at the piano, and Emmanuel Jal, who is an ex-child soldier from the South Sudan, who is a spoken word poet and rapper. And once again I found a way to annoyingly me-me-me myself into the musical history of these songs, but I can't help it, because they're these things that I love, and I want to mess around with them. So I hope you enjoy this. Here we go.
Let's hear that TED sound again, right?
(Music)
Thank you very much. Thank you.
(Applause) |
This is our life with bees, and this is our life without bees. Bees are the most important pollinators of our fruits and vegetables and flowers and crops like alfalfa hay that feed our farm animals. More than one third of the world's crop production is dependent on bee pollination.
But the ironic thing is that bees are not out there pollinating our food intentionally. They're out there because they need to eat. Bees get all of the protein they need in their diet from pollen and all of the carbohydrates they need from nectar. They're flower-feeders, and as they move from flower to flower, basically on a shopping trip at the local floral mart, they end up providing this valuable pollination service. In parts of the world where there are no bees, or where they plant varieties that are not attractive to bees, people are paid to do the business of pollination by hand. These people are moving pollen from flower to flower with a paintbrush. Now this business of hand pollination is actually not that uncommon. Tomato growers often pollinate their tomato flowers with a hand-held vibrator. Now this one's the tomato tickler. (Laughter) Now this is because the pollen within a tomato flower is held very securely within the male part of the flower, the anther, and the only way to release this pollen is to vibrate it. So bumblebees are one of the few kinds of bees in the world that are able to hold onto the flower and vibrate it, and they do this by shaking their flight muscles at a frequency similar to the musical note C. So they vibrate the flower, they sonicate it, and that releases the pollen in this efficient swoosh, and the pollen gathers all over the fuzzy bee's body, and she takes it home as food. Tomato growers now put bumblebee colonies inside the greenhouse to pollinate the tomatoes because they get much more efficient pollination when it's done naturally and they get better quality tomatoes.
So there's other, maybe more personal reasons, to care about bees. There's over 20,000 species of bees in the world, and they're absolutely gorgeous. These bees spend the majority of their life cycle hidden in the ground or within a hollow stem and very few of these beautiful species have evolved highly social behavior like honeybees.
Now honeybees tend to be the charismatic representative for the other 19,900-plus species because there's something about honeybees that draws people into their world. Humans have been drawn to honeybees since early recorded history, mostly to harvest their honey, which is an amazing natural sweetener.
I got drawn into the honeybee world completely by a fluke. I was 18 years old and bored, and I picked up a book in the library on bees and I spent the night reading it. I had never thought about insects living in complex societies. It was like the best of science fiction come true. And even stranger, there were these people, these beekeepers, that loved their bees like they were family, and when I put down the book, I knew I had to see this for myself. So I went to work for a commercial beekeeper, a family that owned 2,000 hives of bees in New Mexico. And I was permanently hooked.
Honeybees can be considered a super-organism, where the colony is the organism and it's comprised of 40,000 to 50,000 individual bee organisms. Now this society has no central authority. Nobody's in charge. So how they come to collective decisions, and how they allocate their tasks and divide their labor, how they communicate where the flowers are, all of their collective social behaviors are mindblowing. My personal favorite, and one that I've studied for many years, is their system of healthcare. So bees have social healthcare. So in my lab, we study how bees keep themselves healthy. For example, we study hygiene, where some bees are able to locate and weed out sick individuals from the nest, from the colony, and it keeps the colony healthy. And more recently, we've been studying resins that bees collect from plants. So bees fly to some plants and they scrape these very, very sticky resins off the leaves, and they take them back to the nest where they cement them into the nest architecture where we call it propolis. We've found that propolis is a natural disinfectant. It's a natural antibiotic. It kills off bacteria and molds and other germs within the colony, and so it bolsters the colony health and their social immunity. Humans have known about the power of propolis since biblical times. We've been harvesting propolis out of bee colonies for human medicine, but we didn't know how good it was for the bees. So honeybees have these remarkable natural defenses that have kept them healthy and thriving for over 50 million years.
So seven years ago, when honeybee colonies were reported to be dying en masse, first in the United States, it was clear that there was something really, really wrong. In our collective conscience, in a really primal way, we know we can't afford to lose bees. So what's going on? Bees are dying from multiple and interacting causes, and I'll go through each of these. The bottom line is, bees dying reflects a flowerless landscape and a dysfunctional food system.
Now we have the best data on honeybees, so I'll use them as an example. In the United States, bees in fact have been in decline since World War II. We have half the number of managed hives in the United States now compared to 1945. We're down to about two million hives of bees, we think. And the reason is, after World War II, we changed our farming practices. We stopped planting cover crops. We stopped planting clover and alfalfa, which are natural fertilizers that fix nitrogen in the soil, and instead we started using synthetic fertilizers. Clover and alfalfa are highly nutritious food plants for bees. And after World War II, we started using herbicides to kill off the weeds in our farms. Many of these weeds are flowering plants that bees require for their survival. And we started growing larger and larger crop monocultures. Now we talk about food deserts, places in our cities, neighborhoods that have no grocery stores. The very farms that used to sustain bees are now agricultural food deserts, dominated by one or two plant species like corn and soybeans. Since World War II, we have been systematically eliminating many of the flowering plants that bees need for their survival. And these monocultures extend even to crops that are good for bees, like almonds. Fifty years ago, beekeepers would take a few colonies, hives of bees into the almond orchards, for pollination, and also because the pollen in an almond blossom is really high in protein. It's really good for bees. Now, the scale of almond monoculture demands that most of our nation's bees, over 1.5 million hives of bees, be transported across the nation to pollinate this one crop. And they're trucked in in semi-loads, and they must be trucked out, because after bloom, the almond orchards are a vast and flowerless landscape.
Bees have been dying over the last 50 years, and we're planting more crops that need them. There has been a 300 percent increase in crop production that requires bee pollination.
And then there's pesticides. After World War II, we started using pesticides on a large scale, and this became necessary because of the monocultures that put out a feast for crop pests. Recently, researchers from Penn State University have started looking at the pesticide residue in the loads of pollen that bees carry home as food, and they've found that every batch of pollen that a honeybee collects has at least six detectable pesticides in it, and this includes every class of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and even inert and unlabeled ingredients that are part of the pesticide formulation that can be more toxic than the active ingredient. This small bee is holding up a large mirror. How much is it going to take to contaminate humans?
One of these class of insecticides, the neonicontinoids, is making headlines around the world right now. You've probably heard about it. This is a new class of insecticides. It moves through the plant so that a crop pest, a leaf-eating insect, would take a bite of the plant and get a lethal dose and die. If one of these neonics, we call them, is applied in a high concentration, such as in this ground application, enough of the compound moves through the plant and gets into the pollen and the nectar, where a bee can consume, in this case, a high dose of this neurotoxin that makes the bee twitch and die. In most agricultural settings, on most of our farms, it's only the seed that's coated with the insecticide, and so a smaller concentration moves through the plant and gets into the pollen and nectar, and if a bee consumes this lower dose, either nothing happens or the bee becomes intoxicated and disoriented and she may not find her way home. And on top of everything else, bees have their own set of diseases and parasites. Public enemy number one for bees is this thing. It's called varroa destructor. It's aptly named. It's this big, blood-sucking parasite that compromises the bee's immune system and circulates viruses.
Let me put this all together for you. I don't know what it feels like to a bee to have a big, bloodsucking parasite running around on it, and I don't know what it feels like to a bee to have a virus, but I do know what it feels like when I have a virus, the flu, and I know how difficult it is for me to get to the grocery store to get good nutrition. But what if I lived in a food desert? And what if I had to travel a long distance to get to the grocery store, and I finally got my weak body out there and I consumed, in my food, enough of a pesticide, a neurotoxin, that I couldn't find my way home? And this is what we mean by multiple and interacting causes of death.
And it's not just our honeybees. All of our beautiful wild species of bees are at risk, including those tomato-pollinating bumblebees. These bees are providing backup for our honeybees. They're providing the pollination insurance alongside our honeybees. We need all of our bees.
So what are we going to do? What are we going to do about this big bee bummer that we've created? It turns out, it's hopeful. It's hopeful. Every one of you out there can help bees in two very direct and easy ways. Plant bee-friendly flowers, and don't contaminate these flowers, this bee food, with pesticides. So go online and search for flowers that are native to your area and plant them. Plant them in a pot on your doorstep. Plant them in your front yard, in your lawns, in your boulevards. Campaign to have them planted in public gardens, community spaces, meadows. Set aside farmland. We need a beautiful diversity of flowers that blooms over the entire growing season, from spring to fall. We need roadsides seeded in flowers for our bees, but also for migrating butterflies and birds and other wildlife. And we need to think carefully about putting back in cover crops to nourish our soil and nourish our bees. And we need to diversify our farms. We need to plant flowering crop borders and hedge rows to disrupt the agricultural food desert and begin to correct the dysfunctional food system that we've created.
So maybe it seems like a really small countermeasure to a big, huge problem -- just go plant flowers -- but when bees have access to good nutrition, we have access to good nutrition through their pollination services. And when bees have access to good nutrition, they're better able to engage their own natural defenses, their healthcare, that they have relied on for millions of years. So the beauty of helping bees this way, for me, is that every one of us needs to behave a little bit more like a bee society, an insect society, where each of our individual actions can contribute to a grand solution, an emergent property, that's much greater than the mere sum of our individual actions. So let the small act of planting flowers and keeping them free of pesticides be the driver of large-scale change.
On behalf of the bees, thank you.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: Thank you. Just a quick question. The latest numbers on the die-off of bees, is there any sign of things bottoming out? What's your hope/depression level on this?
Maria Spivak: Yeah. At least in the United States, an average of 30 percent of all bee hives are lost every winter. About 20 years ago, we were at a 15-percent loss. So it's getting precarious.
CA: That's not 30 percent a year, that's -- MS: Yes, thirty percent a year.
CA: Thirty percent a year. MS: But then beekeepers are able to divide their colonies and so they can maintain the same number, they can recuperate some of their loss.
We're kind of at a tipping point. We can't really afford to lose that many more. We need to be really appreciative of all the beekeepers out there. Plant flowers.
CA: Thank you.
(Applause) |
"Pheromone" is a very powerful word. It conjures up sex, abandon, loss of control, and you can see, it's very important as a word. But it's only 50 years old. It was invented in 1959. Now, if you put that word into the web, as you may have done, you'll come up with millions of hits, and almost all of those sites are trying to sell you something to make you irresistible for 10 dollars or more. Now, this is a very attractive idea, and the molecules they mention sound really science-y. They've got lots of syllables. It's things like androstenol, androstenone or androstadienone. It gets better and better, and when you combine that with white lab coats, you must imagine that there is fantastic science behind this. But sadly, these are fraudulent claims supported by dodgy science.
The problem is that, although there are many good scientists working on what they think are human pheromones, and they're publishing in respectable journals, at the basis of this, despite very sophisticated experiments, there really is no good science behind it, because it's based on a problem, which is nobody has systematically gone through all the odors that humans produce -- and there are thousands of molecules that we give off. We're mammals. We produce a lot of smell. Nobody has gone through systematically to work out which molecules really are pheromones. They've just plucked a few, and all these experiments are based on those, but there's no good evidence at all.
Now, that's not to say that smell is not important to people. It is, and some people are real enthusiasts, and one of these was Napoleon. And famously, you may remember that out on the campaign trail for war, he wrote to his lover, Empress Josephine, saying, "Don't wash. I'm coming home." (Laughter) So he didn't want to lose any of her richness in the days before he'd get home, and it is still, you'll find websites that offer this as a major quirk. At the same time, though, we spend about as much money taking the smells off us as putting them back on in perfumes, and perfumes are a multi-billion-dollar business.
So what I want to do in the rest of this talk is tell you about what pheromones really are, tell you why I think we would expect humans to have pheromones, tell you about some of the confusions in pheromones, and then finally, I want to end with a promising avenue which shows us the way we ought to be going.
So the ancient Greeks knew that dogs sent invisible signals between each other. A female dog in heat sent an invisible signal to male dogs for miles around, and it wasn't a sound, it was a smell. You could take the smell from the female dog, and the dogs would chase the cloth. But the problem for everybody who could see this effect was that you couldn't identify the molecules. You couldn't demonstrate it was chemical. The reason for that, of course, is that each of these animals produces tiny quantities, and in the case of the dog, males dogs can smell it, but we can't smell it. And it was only in 1959 that a German team, after spending 20 years in search of these molecules, discovered, identified, the first pheromone, and this was the sex pheromone of a silk moth. Now, this was an inspired choice by Adolf Butenandt and his team, because he needed half a million moths to get enough material to do the chemical analysis. But he created the model for how you should go about pheromone analysis. He basically went through systematically, showing that only the molecule in question was the one that stimulated the males, not all the others. He analyzed it very carefully. He synthesized the molecule, and then tried the synthesized molecule on the males and got them to respond and showed it was, indeed, that molecule. That's closing the circle. That's the thing which has never been done with humans: nothing systematic, no real demonstration.
With that new concept, we needed a new word, and that was the word "pheromone," and it's basically transferred excitement, transferred between individuals, and since 1959, pheromones have been found right the way across the animal kingdom, in male animals, in female animals. It works just as well underwater for goldfish and lobsters. And almost every mammal you can think of has had a pheromone identified, and of course, an enormous number of insects.
So we know that pheromones exist right the way across the animal kingdom. What about humans? Well, the first thing, of course, is that we're mammals, and mammals are smelly. As any dog owner can tell you, we smell, they smell.
But the real reason we might think that humans have pheromones is the change that occurs as we grow up. The smell of a room of teenagers is quite different from the smell of a room of small children. What's changed? And of course, it's puberty. Along with the pubic hair and the hair in the armpits, new glands start to secrete in those places, and that's what's making the change in smell. If we were any other kind of mammal, or any other kind of animal, we would say, "That must be something to do with pheromones," and we'd start looking properly.
But there are some problems, and this is why, I think, people have not looked for pheromones so effectively in humans. There are, indeed, problems. And the first of these is perhaps surprising. It's all about culture. Now moths don't learn a lot about what is good to smell, but humans do, and up to the age of about four, any smell, no matter how rancid, is simply interesting. And I understand that the major role of parents is to stop kids putting their fingers in poo, because it's always something nice to smell. But gradually we learn what's not good, and one of the things we learn at the same time as what is not good is what is good.
Now, the cheese behind me is a British, if not an English, delicacy. It's ripe blue Stilton. Liking it is incomprehensible to people from other countries. Every culture has its own special food and national delicacy. If you were to come from Iceland, your national dish is deep rotted shark. Now, all of these things are acquired tastes, but they form almost a badge of identity. You're part of the in-group.
The second thing is the sense of smell. Each of us has a unique odor world, in the sense that what we smell, we each smell a completely different world. Now, smell was the hardest of the senses to crack, and the Nobel Prize awarded to Richard Axel and Linda Buck was only awarded in 2004 for their discovery of how smell works. It's really hard, but in essence, nerves from the brain go up into the nose and on these nerves exposed in the nose to the outside air are receptors, and odor molecules coming in on a sniff interact with these receptors, and if they bond, they send the nerve a signal which goes back into the brain. We don't just have one kind of receptor. If you're a human, you have about 400 different kinds of receptors, and the brain knows what you're smelling because of the combination of receptors and nerve cells that they trigger, sending messages up to the brain in a combinatorial fashion. But it's a bit more complicated, because each of those 400 comes in various variants, and depending which variant you have, you might smell coriander, or cilantro, that herb, either as something delicious and savory or something like soap. So we each have an individual world of smell, and that complicates anything when we're studying smell.
Well, we really ought to talk about armpits, and I have to say that I do have particularly good ones. Now, I'm not going to share them with you, but this is the place that most people have looked for pheromones. There is one good reason, which is, the great apes have armpits as their unique characteristic. The other primates have scent glands in other parts of the body. The great apes have these armpits full of secretory glands producing smells all the time, enormous numbers of molecules. When they're secreted from the glands, the molecules are odorless. They have no smell at all, and it's only the wonderful bacteria growing on the rainforest of hair that actually produces the smells that we know and love. And so incidentally, if you want to reduce the amount of smell, clear-cutting your armpits is a very effective way of reducing the habitat for bacteria, and you'll find they remain less smelly for much longer. But although we've focused on armpits, I think it's partly because they're the least embarrassing place to go and ask people for samples. There is actually another reason why we might not be looking for a universal sex pheromone there, and that's because 20 percent of the world's population doesn't have smelly armpits like me. And these are people from China, Japan, Korea, and other parts of northeast Asia. They simply don't secrete those odorless precursors that the bacteria love to use to produce the smells that in an ethnocentric way we always thought of as characteristic of armpits. So it doesn't apply to 20 percent of the world.
So what should we be doing in our search for human pheromones? I'm fairly convinced that we do have them. We're mammals, like everybody else who's a mammal, and we probably do have them. But what I think we should do is go right back to the beginning, and basically look all over the body. No matter how embarrassing, we need to search and go for the first time where no one else has dared tread. It's going to be difficult, it's going to be embarrassing, but we need to look. We also need to go back to the ideas that Butenandt used when he was studying the silk moth. We need to go back and look systematically at all the molecules that are being produced, and work out which ones are really involved. It isn't good enough simply to pluck a couple and say, "They'll do." We have to actually demonstrate that they really have the effects we claim.
There is one team that I'm actually very impressed by. They're in France, and their previous success was identifying the rabbit mammary pheromone. They've turned their attention now to human babies and mothers.
So this is a baby having a drink of milk from its mother's breast. Her nipple is completely hidden by the baby's head, but what you'll notice is a white droplet with an arrow pointing to it, and that's the secretion from the areolar glands. Now, we all have them, men and women, and these are the little bumps around the nipple, and if you're a lactating woman, these start to secrete. It's a very interesting secretion. What Benoist Schaal and his team developed was a simple test to investigate what the effect of this secretion might be, in effect, a simple bioassay. So this is a sleeping baby, and under its nose, we've put a clean glass rod. The baby remains sleeping, showing no interest at all. But if we go to any mother who is secreting from the areolar glands, so it's not about recognition, it can be from any mother, if we take the secretion and now put it under the baby's nose, we get a very different reaction. It's a connoisseur's reaction of delight, and it opens its mouth and sticks out its tongue and starts to suck. Now, since this is from any mother, it could really be a pheromone. It's not about individual recognition. Any mother will do.
Now, why is this important, apart from being simply very interesting? It's because women vary in the number of areolar glands that they have, and there is a correlation between the ease with which babies start to suckle and the number of areolar glands she has. It appears that the more secretions she's got, the more likely the baby is to suckle quickly. If you're a mammal, the most dangerous time in life is the first few hours after birth. You have to get that first drink of milk, and if you don't get it, you won't survive. You'll be dead. Since many babies actually find it difficult to take that first meal, because they're not getting the right stimulus, if we could identify what that molecule was, and the French team are being very cautious, but if we could identify the molecule, synthesize it, it would then mean premature babies would be more likely to suckle, and every baby would have a better chance of survival. So what I want to argue is this is one example of where a systematic, really scientific approach can actually bring you a real understanding of pheromones. There could be all sorts of medical interventions. There could be all sorts of things that humans are doing with pheromones that we simply don't know at the moment. What we need to remember is pheromones are not just about sex. They're about all sorts of things to do with a mammal's life. So do go forward and do search for more. There's lots to find.
Thank you very much.
(Applause) |
On March 10, 2011, I was in Cambridge at the MIT Media Lab meeting with faculty, students and staff, and we were trying to figure out whether I should be the next director.
That night, at midnight, a magnitude 9 earthquake hit off of the Pacific coast of Japan. My wife and family were in Japan, and as the news started to come in, I was panicking. I was looking at the news streams and listening to the press conferences of the government officials and the Tokyo Power Company, and hearing about this explosion at the nuclear reactors and this cloud of fallout that was headed towards our house which was only about 200 kilometers away. And the people on TV weren't telling us anything that we wanted to hear. I wanted to know what was going on with the reactor, what was going on with the radiation, whether my family was in danger.
So I did what instinctively felt like the right thing, which was to go onto the Internet and try to figure out if I could take matters into my own hands. On the Net, I found there were a lot of other people like me trying to figure out what was going on, and together we sort of loosely formed a group and we called it Safecast, and we decided we were going to try to measure the radiation and get the data out to everybody else, because it was clear that the government wasn't going to be doing this for us.
Three years later, we have 16 million data points, we have designed our own Geiger counters that you can download the designs and plug it into the network. We have an app that shows you most of the radiation in Japan and other parts of the world. We are arguably one of the most successful citizen science projects in the world, and we have created the largest open dataset of radiation measurements.
And the interesting thing here is how did — (Applause) — Thank you. How did a bunch of amateurs who really didn't know what we were doing somehow come together and do what NGOs and the government were completely incapable of doing? And I would suggest that this has something to do with the Internet. It's not a fluke. It wasn't luck, and it wasn't because it was us. It helped that it was an event that pulled everybody together, but it was a new way of doing things that was enabled by the Internet and a lot of the other things that were going on, and I want to talk a little bit about what those new principles are.
So remember before the Internet? (Laughter) I call this B.I. Okay? So, in B.I., life was simple. Things were Euclidian, Newtonian, somewhat predictable. People actually tried to predict the future, even the economists. And then the Internet happened, and the world became extremely complex, extremely low-cost, extremely fast, and those Newtonian laws that we so dearly cherished turned out to be just local ordinances, and what we found was that in this completely unpredictable world that most of the people who were surviving were working with sort of a different set of principles, and I want to talk a little bit about that.
Before the Internet, if you remember, when we tried to create services, what you would do is you'd create the hardware layer and the network layer and the software and it would cost millions of dollars to do anything that was substantial. So when it costs millions of dollars to do something substantial, what you would do is you'd get an MBA who would write a plan and get the money from V.C.s or big companies, and then you'd hire the designers and the engineers, and they'd build the thing. This is the Before Internet, B.I., innovation model. What happened after the Internet was the cost of innovation went down so much because the cost of collaboration, the cost of distribution, the cost of communication, and Moore's Law made it so that the cost of trying a new thing became nearly zero, and so you would have Google, Facebook, Yahoo, students that didn't have permission — permissionless innovation — didn't have permission, didn't have PowerPoints, they just built the thing, then they raised the money, and then they sort of figured out a business plan and maybe later on they hired some MBAs. So the Internet caused innovation, at least in software and services, to go from an MBA-driven innovation model to a designer-engineer-driven innovation model, and it pushed innovation to the edges, to the dorm rooms, to the startups, away from the large institutions, the stodgy old institutions that had the power and the money and the authority. And we all know this. We all know this happened on the Internet. It turns out it's happening in other things, too. Let me give you some examples.
So at the Media Lab, we don't just do hardware. We do all kinds of things. We do biology, we do hardware, and Nicholas Negroponte famously said, "Demo or die," as opposed to "Publish or perish," which was the traditional academic way of thinking. And he often said, the demo only has to work once, because the primary mode of us impacting the world was through large companies being inspired by us and creating products like the Kindle or Lego Mindstorms. But today, with the ability to deploy things into the real world at such low cost, I'm changing the motto now, and this is the official public statement. I'm officially saying, "Deploy or die." You have to get the stuff into the real world for it to really count, and sometimes it will be large companies, and Nicholas can talk about satellites. (Applause) Thank you. But we should be getting out there ourselves and not depending on large institutions to do it for us.
So last year, we sent a bunch of students to Shenzhen, and they sat on the factory floors with the innovators in Shenzhen, and it was amazing. What was happening there was you would have these manufacturing devices, and they weren't making prototypes or PowerPoints. They were fiddling with the manufacturing equipment and innovating right on the manufacturing equipment. The factory was in the designer, and the designer was literally in the factory. And so what you would do is, you'd go down to the stalls and you would see these cell phones. So instead of starting little websites like the kids in Palo Alto do, the kids in Shenzhen make new cell phones. They make new cell phones like kids in Palo Alto make websites, and so there's a rainforest of innovation going on in the cell phone. What they do is, they make a cell phone, go down to the stall, they sell some, they look at the other kids' stuff, go up, make a couple thousand more, go down. Doesn't this sound like a software thing? It sounds like agile software development, A/B testing and iteration, and what we thought you could only do with software kids in Shenzhen are doing this in hardware. My next fellow, I hope, is going to be one of these innovators from Shenzhen.
And so what you see is that is pushing innovation to the edges. We talk about 3D printers and stuff like that, and that's great, but this is Limor. She is one of our favorite graduates, and she is standing in front of a Samsung Techwin Pick and Place Machine. This thing can put 23,000 components per hour onto an electronics board. This is a factory in a box. So what used to take a factory full of workers working by hand in this little box in New York, she's able to have effectively — She doesn't actually have to go to Shenzhen to do this manufacturing. She can buy this box and she can manufacture it. So manufacturing, the cost of innovation, the cost of prototyping, distribution, manufacturing, hardware, is getting so low that innovation is being pushed to the edges and students and startups are being able to build it. This is a recent thing, but this will happen and this will change just like it did with software.
Sorona is a DuPont process that uses a genetically engineered microbe to turn corn sugar into polyester. It's 30 percent more efficient than the fossil fuel method, and it's much better for the environment. Genetic engineering and bioengineering are creating a whole bunch of great new opportunities for chemistry, for computation, for memory. We will probably be doing a lot, obviously doing health things, but we will probably be growing chairs and buildings soon. The problem is, Sorona costs about 400 million dollars and took seven years to build. It kind of reminds you of the old mainframe days. The thing is, the cost of innovation in bioengineering is also going down. This is desktop gene sequencer. It used to cost millions and millions of dollars to sequence genes. Now you can do it on a desktop like this, and kids can do this in dorm rooms. This is Gen9 gene assembler, and so right now when you try to print a gene, what you do is somebody in a factory with pipettes puts the thing together by hand, you have one error per 100 base pairs, and it takes a long time and costs a lot of money. This new device assembles genes on a chip, and instead of one error per 100 base pairs, it's one error per 10,000 base pairs. In this lab, we will have the world's capacity of gene printing within a year, 200 million base pairs a year. This is kind of like when we went from transistor radios wrapped by hand to the Pentium. This is going to become the Pentium of bioengineering, pushing bioengineering into the hands of dorm rooms and startup companies.
So it's happening in software and in hardware and bioengineering, and so this is a fundamental new way of thinking about innovation. It's a bottom-up innovation, it's democratic, it's chaotic, it's hard to control. It's not bad, but it's very different, and I think that the traditional rules that we have for institutions don't work anymore, and most of us here operate with a different set of principles. One of my favorite principles is the power of pull, which is the idea of pulling resources from the network as you need them rather than stocking them in the center and controlling everything.
So in the case of the Safecast story, I didn't know anything when the earthquake happened, but I was able to find Sean who was the hackerspace community organizer, and Peter, the analog hardware hacker who made our first Geiger counter, and Dan, who built the Three Mile Island monitoring system after the Three Mile Island meltdown. And these people I wouldn't have been able to find beforehand and probably were better that I found them just in time from the network.
I'm a three-time college dropout, so learning over education is very near and dear to my heart, but to me, education is what people do to you and learning is what you do to yourself.
(Applause)
And it feels like, and I'm biased, it feels like they're trying to make you memorize the whole encyclopedia before they let you go out and play, and to me, I've got Wikipedia on my cell phone, and it feels like they assume you're going to be on top of some mountain all by yourself with a number 2 pencil trying to figure out what to do when in fact you're always going to be connected, you're always going to have friends, and you can pull Wikipedia up whenever you need it, and what you need to learn is how to learn. In the case of Safecast, a bunch of amateurs when we started three years ago, I would argue that we probably as a group know more than any other organization about how to collect data and publish data and do citizen science.
Compass over maps. So this one, the idea is that the cost of writing a plan or mapping something is getting so expensive and it's not very accurate or useful. So in the Safecast story, we knew we needed to collect data, we knew we wanted to publish the data, and instead of trying to come up with the exact plan, we first said, oh, let's get Geiger counters. Oh, they've run out. Let's build them. There aren't enough sensors. Okay, then we can make a mobile Geiger counter. We can drive around. We can get volunteers. We don't have enough money. Let's Kickstarter it. We could not have planned this whole thing, but by having a very strong compass, we eventually got to where we were going, and to me it's very similar to agile software development, but this idea of compasses is very important.
So I think the good news is that even though the world is extremely complex, what you need to do is very simple. I think it's about stopping this notion that you need to plan everything, you need to stock everything, and you need to be so prepared, and focus on being connected, always learning, fully aware, and super present.
So I don't like the word "futurist." I think we should be now-ists, like we are right now.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
I have a very difficult task. I'm a spectroscopist. I have to talk about astronomy without showing you any single image of nebulae or galaxies, etc. because my job is spectroscopy. I never deal with images. But I'll try to convince you that spectroscopy is actually something which can change this world. Spectroscopy can probably answer the question, "Is there anybody out there?" Are we alone? SETI. It's not very fun to do spectroscopy.
One of my colleagues in Bulgaria, Nevena Markova, spent about 20 years studying these profiles. And she published 42 articles just dedicated to the subject. Can you imagine? Day and night, thinking, observing, the same star for 20 years is incredible. But we are crazy. We do these things. (Laughter)
And I'm not that far. I spent about eight months working on these profiles. Because I've noticed a very small symmetry in the profile of one of the planet host stars. And I thought, well maybe there is Lithium-6 in this star, which is an indication that this star has swallowed a planet. Because apparently you can't have this fragile isotope of Lithium-6 in the atmospheres of sun-like stars. But you have it in planets and asteroids. So if you engulf planet or large number of asteroids, you will have this Lithium-6 isotope in the spectrum of the star. So I invested more than eight months just studying the profile of this star.
And actually it's amazing, because I got phone calls from many reporters asking, "Have you actually seen the planet going into a star?" Because they thought that if you are having a telescope, you are an astronomer so what you are doing is actually looking in a telescope. And you might have seen the planet going into a star. And I was saying, "No, excuse me. What I see is this one." (Laughter) It's just incredible. Because nobody understood really. I bet that there were very few people who really understood what I'm talking about. Because this is the indication that the planet went into the star. It's amazing.
The power of spectroscopy was actually realized by Pink Floyd already in 1973. (Laughter) Because they actually said that you can get any color you like in a spectrum. And all you need is time and money to make your spectrograph. This is the number one high resolution, most precise spectrograph on this planet, called HARPS, which is actually used to detect extrasolar planets and sound waves in the atmospheres of stars.
How we get spectra? I'm sure most of you know from school physics that it's basically splitting a white light into colors. And if you have a liquid hot mass, it will produce something which we call a continuous spectrum. A hot gas is producing emission lines only, no continuum. And if you place a cool gas in front of a hot source, you will see certain patterns which we call absorption lines. Which is used actually to identify chemical elements in a cool matter, which is absorbing exactly at those frequencies.
Now, what we can do with the spectra? We can actually study line-of-sight velocities of cosmic objects. And we can also study chemical composition and physical parameters of stars, galaxies, nebulae. A star is the most simple object. In the core, we have thermonuclear reactions going on, creating chemical elements. And we have a cool atmosphere. It's cool for me. Cool in my terms is three or four or five thousand degrees. My colleagues in infra-red astronomy call minus 200 Kelvin is cool for them. But you know, everything is relative. So for me 5,000 degrees is pretty cool. (Laughter)
This is the spectrum of the Sun -- 24,000 spectral lines, and about 15 percent of these lines is not yet identified. It is amazing. So we are in the 21st century, and we still cannot properly understand the spectrum of the sun. Sometimes we have to deal with just one tiny, weak spectral line to measure the composition of that chemical element in the atmosphere. For instance, you see the spectral line of the gold is the only spectral line in the spectrum of the Sun. And we use this weak feature to measure the composition of gold in the atmosphere of the Sun.
And now this is a work in progress. We have been dealing with a similarly very weak feature, which belongs to osmium. It's a heavy element produced in thermonuclear explosions of supernovae. It's the only place where you can produce, actually, osmium. Just comparing the composition of osmium in one of the planet host stars, we want to understand why there is so much of this element. Perhaps we even think that maybe supernova explosions trigger formations of planets and stars. It can be an indication.
The other day, my colleague from Berkeley, Gibor Basri, emailed me a very interesting spectrum, asking me, "Can you have a look at this?" And I couldn't sleep, next two weeks, when I saw the huge amount of oxygen and other elements in the spectrum of the stars. I knew that there is nothing like that observed in the galaxy. It was incredible. The only conclusion we could make from this is clear evidence that there was a supernova explosion in this system, which polluted the atmosphere of this star. And later a black hole was formed in a binary system, which is still there with a mass of about five solar masses. This was considered as first evidence that actually black holes come from supernovae explosions.
My colleagues, comparing composition of chemical elements in different galactic stars, actually discovered alien stars in our galaxy. It's amazing that you can go so far simply studying the chemical composition of stars. They actually said that one of the stars you see in the spectra is an alien. It comes from a different galaxy. There is interaction of galaxies. We know this. And sometimes they just capture stars.
You've heard about solar flares. We were very surprised to discover a super flare, a flare which is thousands of millions of times more powerful than those we see in the Sun. In one of the binary stars in our galaxy called FH Leo, we discovered the super flare. And later we went to study the spectral stars to see is there anything strange with these objects. And we found that everything is normal. These stars are normal like the Sun. Age, everything was normal. So this is a mystery. It's one of the mysteries we still have, super flares. And there are six or seven similar cases reported in the literature.
Now to go ahead with this, we really need to understand chemical evolution of the universe. It's very complicated. I don't really want you to try to understand what is here. (Laughter) But it's to show you how complicated is the whole story of the production of chemical elements. You have two channels -- the massive stars and low-mass stars -- producing and recycling matter and chemical elements in the universe. And doing this for 14 billion years, we end up with this picture, which is a very important graph, showing relative abundances of chemical elements in sun-like stars and in the interstellar medium.
So which means that it's really impossible to find an object where you find about 10 times more sulfur than silicon, five times more calcium than oxygen. It's just impossible. And if you find one, I will say that this is something related to SETI, because naturally you can't do it. Doppler Effect is something very important from fundamental physics. And this is related to the change of the frequency of a moving source. The Doppler Effect is used to discover extrasolar planets.
The precision which we need to discover a Jupiter-like planet around a sun-like star is something like 28.4 meters per second. And we need nine centimeters per second to detect an Earth-like planet. This can be done with the future spectrographs. I, myself, I'm actually involved in the team which is developing a CODEX, high resolution, future generation spectrograph for the 42 meter E-ELT telescope. And this is going to be an instrument to detect Earth-like planets around sun-like stars. It is an amazing tool called astroseismology where we can detect sound waves in the atmospheres of stars.
This is the sound of an Alpha Cen. We can detect sound waves in the atmospheres of sun-like stars. Those waves have frequencies in infrasound domain, the sound actually nobody knows, domain. Coming back to the most important question, "Is there anybody out there?" This is closely related to tectonic and volcanic activity of planets. Connection between life and radioactive nuclei is straightforward. No life without tectonic activity, without volcanic activity. And we know very well that geothermal energy is mostly produced by decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium.
How to measure, if we have planets where the amount of those elements is small, so those planets are tectonically dead, there cannot be life. If there is too much uranium or potassium or thorium, probably, again, there would be no life. Because can you imagine everything boiling? It's too much energy on a planet. Now, we have been measuring abundance of thorium in one of the stars with extrasolar planets. It's exactly the same game. A very tiny feature.
We are actually trying to measure this profile and to detect thorium. It's very tough. It's very tough. And you have to, first you have to convince yourself. Then you have to convince your colleagues. And then you have to convince the whole world that you have actually detected something like this in the atmosphere of an extrasolar planet host star somewhere in 100 parsec away from here. It's really difficult. But if you want to know about a life on extrasolar planets, you have to do this job. Because you have to know how much of radioactive element you have in those systems.
The one way to discover about aliens is to tune your radio telescope and listen to the signals. If you receive something interesting, well that's what SETI does actually, what SETI has been doing for many years. I think the most promising way is to go for biomarkers. You can see the spectrum of the Earth, this Earthshine spectrum, and that is a very clear signal. The slope which is coming, which we call a Red Edge, is a detection of vegetated area. It's amazing that we can detect vegetation from a spectrum. Now imagine doing this test for other planets.
Now very recently, very recently, I'm talking about last six, seven, eight months, water, methane, carbon dioxide have been detected in the spectrum of a planet outside the solar system. It's amazing. So this is the power of spectroscopy. You can actually go and detect and study a chemical composition of planets far, far, far from solar system. We have to detect oxygen or ozone to make sure that we have all necessary conditions to have life.
Cosmic miracles are something which can be related to SETI. Now imagine an object, amazing object, or something which we cannot explain when we just stand up and say, "Look, we give up. Physics doesn't work." So it's something which you can always refer to SETI and say, "Well, somebody must be doing this, somehow."
And with the known physics etc, it's something actually which has been pointed out by Frank Drake, many years ago, and Shklovsky. If you see, in the spectrum of a planet host star, if you see strange chemical elements, it can be a signal from a civilization which is there and they want to signal about it. They want to actually signal their presence through these spectral lines, in the spectrum of a star, in different ways.
There can be different ways doing this. One is, for instance, technetium is a radioactive element with a decay time of 4.2 million years. If you suddenly observe technetium in a sun-like star, you can be sure that somebody has put this element in the atmosphere, because in a natural way it is impossible to do this. Now we are reviewing the spectra of about 300 stars with extrasolar planets. And we are doing this job since 2000 and it's a very heavy project. We have been working very hard. And we have some interesting cases, candidates, so on, things which we can't really explain. And I hope in the near future we can confirm this.
So the main question: "Are we alone?" I think it will not come from UFOs. It will not come from radio signals. I think it will come from a spectrum like this. It is the spectrum of a planet like Earth, showing a presence of nitrogen dioxide, as a clear signal of life, and oxygen and ozone. If, one day, and I think it will be within 15 years from now, or 20 years. If we discover a spectrum like this we can be sure that there is life on that planet. In about five years we will discover planets like Earth, around sun-like stars, the same distance as the Earth from the Sun. It will take about five years. And then we will need another 10, 15 years with space projects to get the spectra of Earth-like planets like the one I showed you. And if we see the nitrogen dioxide and oxygen, I think we have the perfect E.T. Thank you very much. (Applause) |
My name is Ursus Wehrli, and I would like to talk to you this morning about my project, Tidying Up Art. First of all -- any questions so far? First of all, I have to say I'm not from around here. I'm from a completely different cultural area, maybe you noticed? I mean, I'm wearing a tie, first. And then secondly, I'm a little bit nervous because I'm speaking in a foreign language, and I want to apologize in advance, for any mistakes I might make. Because I'm from Switzerland, and I just don't hope you think this is Swiss German I'm speaking now here. This is just what it sounds like if we Swiss try to speak American. But don't worry -- I don't have trouble with English, as such. I mean, it's not my problem, it's your language after all. (Laughter) I am fine. After this presentation here at TED, I can simply go back to Switzerland, and you have to go on talking like this all the time. (Laughter)
So I've been asked by the organizers to read from my book. It's called "Tidying Up Art" and it's, as you can see, it's more or less a picture book. So the reading would be over very quickly. But since I'm here at TED, I decided to hold my talk here in a more modern way, in the spirit of TED here, and I managed to do some slides here for you. I'd like to show them around so we can just, you know -- (Laughter) Actually, I managed to prepare for you some enlarged pictures -- even better.
So Tidying Up Art, I mean, I have to say, that's a relatively new term. You won't be familiar with it. I mean, it's a hobby of mine that I've been indulging in for the last few years, and it all started out with this picture of the American artist, Donald Baechler I had hanging at home. I had to look at it every day and after a while I just couldn't stand the mess anymore this guy was looking at all day long. Yeah, I kind of felt sorry for him. And it seemed to me even he felt really bad facing these unorganized red squares day after day. So I decided to give him a little support, and brought some order into neatly stacking the blocks on top of each other. (Laughter) Yeah. And I think he looks now less miserable. And it was great. With this experience, I started to look more closely at modern art. Then I realized how, you know, the world of modern art is particularly topsy-turvy.
And I can show here a very good example. It's actually a simple one, but it's a good one to start with. It's a picture by Paul Klee. And we can see here very clearly, it's a confusion of color. (Laughter) Yeah. The artist doesn't really seem to know where to put the different colors. The various pictures here of the various elements of the picture -- the whole thing is unstructured. We don't know, maybe Mr. Klee was probably in a hurry, I mean -- (Laughter) -- maybe he had to catch a plane, or something. We can see here he started out with orange, and then he already ran out of orange, and here we can see he decided to take a break for a square. And I would like to show you here my tidied up version of this picture. (Laughter) We can see now what was barely recognizable in the original: 17 red and orange squares are juxtaposed with just two green squares. Yeah, that's great. So I mean, that's just tidying up for beginners. I would like to show you here a picture which is a bit more advanced. (Laughter)
What can you say? What a mess. I mean, you see, everything seems to have been scattered aimlessly around the space. If my room back home had looked like this, my mother would have grounded me for three days. So I'd like to -- I wanted to reintroduce some structure into that picture. And that's really advanced tidying up. (Applause) Yeah, you're right. Sometimes people clap at this point, but that's actually more in Switzerland. (Laughter) We Swiss are famous for chocolate and cheese. Our trains run on time. We are only happy when things are in order.
But to go on, here is a very good example to see. This is a picture by Joan Miro. And yeah, we can see the artist has drawn a few lines and shapes and dropped them any old way onto a yellow background. And yeah, it's the sort of thing you produce when you're doodling on the phone. (Laughter) And this is my -- (Laughter) -- you can see now the whole thing takes up far less space. It's more economical and also more efficient. With this method Mr. Miro could have saved canvas for another picture.
But I can see in your faces that you're still a little bit skeptical. So that you can just appreciate how serious I am about all this, I brought along the patents, the specifications for some of these works, because I've had my working methods patented at the Eidgenössische Amt für Geistiges Eigentum in Bern, Switzerland. (Laughter) I'll just quote from the specification. "Laut den Kunstprüfer Dr. Albrecht --" It's not finished yet. "Laut den Kunstprüfer Dr. Albrecht Götz von Ohlenhusen wird die Verfahrensweise rechtlich geschützt welche die Kunst durch spezifisch aufgeräumte Regelmässigkeiten des allgemeinen Formenschatzes neue Wirkungen zu erzielen möglich wird."
Ja, well I could have translated that, but you would have been none the wiser. I'm not sure myself what it means but it sounds good anyway. I just realized it's important how one introduces new ideas to people, that's why these patents are sometimes necessary. I would like to do a short test with you. Everyone is sitting in quite an orderly fashion here this morning. So I would like to ask you all to raise your right hand. Yeah. The right hand is the one we write with, apart from the left-handers. And now, I'll count to three. I mean, it still looks very orderly to me. Now, I'll count to three, and on the count of three I'd like you all to shake hands with the person behind you. OK? One, two, three. (Laughter)
You can see now, that's a good example: even behaving in an orderly, systematic way can sometimes lead to complete chaos. So we can also see that very clearly in this next painting. This is a painting by the artist, Niki de Saint Phalle. And I mean, in the original it's completely unclear to see what this tangle of colors and shapes is supposed to depict. But in the tidied up version, it's plain to see that it's a sunburnt woman playing volleyball. (Laughter) Yeah, it's a -- this one here, that's much better. That's a picture by Keith Haring. (Laughter) I think it doesn't matter. So, I mean, this picture has not even got a proper title. It's called "Untitled" and I think that's appropriate.
So, in the tidied-up version we have a sort of Keith Haring spare parts shop. (Laughter) This is Keith Haring looked at statistically. One can see here quite clearly, you can see we have 25 pale green elements, of which one is in the form of a circle. Or here, for example, we have 27 pink squares with only one pink curve. I mean, that's interesting. One could extend this sort of statistical analysis to cover all Mr. Haring's various works, in order to establish in which period the artist favored pale green circles or pink squares. And the artist himself could also benefit from this sort of listing procedure by using it to estimate how many pots of paint he's likely to need in the future. (Laughter)
One can obviously also make combinations. For example, with the Keith Haring circles and Kandinsky's dots. You can add them to all the squares of Paul Klee. In the end, one has a list with which one then can arrange. Then you categorize it, then you file it, put that file in a filing cabinet, put it in your office and you can make a living doing it. (Laughter) Yeah, from my own experience. So I'm -- (Laughter) Actually, I mean, here we have some artists that are a bit more structured. It's not too bad. This is Jasper Johns. We can see here he was practicing with his ruler. (Laughter)
But I think it could still benefit from more discipline. And I think the whole thing adds up much better if you do it like this. (Laughter) And here, that's one of my favorites. Tidying up Rene Magritte -- this is really fun. You know, there is a -- (Laughter) I'm always being asked what inspired me to embark on all this. It goes back to a time when I was very often staying in hotels. So once I had the opportunity to stay in a ritzy, five-star hotel. And you know, there you had this little sign -- I put this little sign outside the door every morning that read, "Please tidy room." I don't know if you have them over here. So actually, my room there hasn't been tidied once daily, but three times a day. So after a while I decided to have a little fun, and before leaving the room each day I'd scatter a few things around the space. Like books, clothes, toothbrush, etc. And it was great. By the time I returned everything had always been neatly returned to its place. But then one morning, I hang the same little sign onto that picture by Vincent van Gogh. (Laughter) And you have to say this room hadn't been tidied up since 1888. And when I returned it looked like this. (Laughter) Yeah, at least it is now possible to do some vacuuming. (Laughter)
OK, I mean, I can see there are always people that like reacting that one or another picture hasn't been properly tidied up. So we can make a short test with you. This is a picture by Rene Magritte, and I'd like you all to inwardly -- like in your head, that is -- to tidy that up. So it's possible that some of you would make it like this. (Laughter) Yeah? I would actually prefer to do it more this way. Some people would make apple pie out of it. But it's a very good example to see that the whole work was more of a handicraft endeavor that involved the very time-consuming job of cutting out the various elements and sticking them back in new arrangements. And it's not done, as many people imagine, with the computer, otherwise it would look like this. (Laughter)
So now I've been able to tidy up pictures that I've wanted to tidy up for a long time. Here is a very good example. Take Jackson Pollock, for example. It's -- oh, no, it's -- that's a really hard one. But after a while, I just decided here to go all the way and put the paint back into the cans. (Applause) Or you could go into three-dimensional art. Here we have the fur cup by Meret Oppenheim. Here I just brought it back to its original state. (Laughter) But yeah, and it's great, you can even go, you know -- Or we have this pointillist movement for those of you who are into art. The pointillist movement is that kind of paintings where everything is broken down into dots and pixels. And then I -- this sort of thing is ideal for tidying up. (Laughter)
So I once applied myself to the work of the inventor of that method, Georges Seurat, and I collected together all his dots. And now they're all in here. (Laughter) You can count them afterwards, if you like. You see, that's the wonderful thing about the tidy up art idea: it's new. So there is no existing tradition in it. There is no textbooks, I mean, not yet, anyway. I mean, it's "the future we will create." (Laughter) But to round things up I would like to show you just one more. This is the village square by Pieter Bruegel. That's how it looks like when you send everyone home. (Laughter) Yeah, maybe you're asking yourselves where old Bruegel's people went? Of course, they're not gone. They're all here. (Laughter) I just piled them up. (Laughter)
So I'm -- yeah, actually I'm kind of finished at that moment. And for those who want to see more, I've got my book downstairs in the bookshop. And I'm happy to sign it for you with any name of any artist. (Laughter) But before leaving I would like to show you, I'm working right now on another -- in a related field with my tidying up art method. I'm working in a related field. And I started to bring some order into some flags. Here -- that's just my new proposal here for the Union Jack. (Laughter) And then maybe before I leave you ... yeah, I think, after you have seen that I have to leave anyway. (Laughter) Yeah, that was a hard one. I couldn't find a way to tidy that up properly, so I just decided to make it a little bit more simpler. (Laughter) Thank you very much. (Applause) |
I am going to speak about corruption, but I would like to juxtapose two different things. One is the large global economy, the large globalized economy, and the other one is the small, and very limited, capacity of our traditional governments and their international institutions to govern, to shape, this economy. Because there is this asymmetry, which creates, basically, failing governance. Failing governance in many areas: in the area of corruption and the area of destruction of the environment, in the area of exploitation of women and children, in the area of climate change, in all the areas in which we really need a capacity to reintroduce the primacy of politics into the economy, which is operating in a worldwide arena. And I think corruption, and the fight against corruption, and the impact of corruption, is probably one of the most interesting ways to illustrate what I mean with this failure of governance.
Let me talk about my own experience. I used to work as the director of the World Bank office in Nairobi for East Africa. At that time, I noticed that corruption, that grand corruption, that systematic corruption, was undermining everything we were trying to do. And therefore, I began to not only try to protect the work of the World Bank, our own projects, our own programs against corruption, but in general, I thought, "We need a system to protect the people in this part of the world from the ravages of corruption." And as soon as I started this work, I received a memorandum from the World Bank, from the legal department first, in which they said, "You are not allowed to do this. You are meddling in the internal affairs of our partner countries. This is forbidden by the charter of the World Bank, so I want you to stop your doings."
In the meantime, I was chairing donor meetings, for instance, in which the various donors, and many of them like to be in Nairobi -- it is true, it is one of the unsafest cities of the world, but they like to be there because the other cities are even less comfortable. And in these donor meetings, I noticed that many of the worst projects -- which were put forward by our clients, by the governments, by promoters, many of them representing suppliers from the North -- that the worst projects were realized first. Let me give you an example: a huge power project, 300 million dollars, to be built smack into one of the most vulnerable, and one of the most beautiful, areas of western Kenya. And we all noticed immediately that this project had no economic benefits: It had no clients, nobody would buy the electricity there, nobody was interested in irrigation projects. To the contrary, we knew that this project would destroy the environment: It would destroy riparian forests, which were the basis for the survival of nomadic groups, the Samburu and the Turkana in this area. So everybody knew this is a, not a useless project, this is an absolute damaging, a terrible project -- not to speak about the future indebtedness of the country for these hundreds of millions of dollars, and the siphoning off of the scarce resources of the economy from much more important activities like schools, like hospitals and so on. And yet, we all rejected this project, none of the donors was willing to have their name connected with it, and it was the first project to be implemented.
The good projects, which we as a donor community would take under our wings, they took years, you know, you had too many studies, and very often they didn't succeed. But these bad projects, which were absolutely damaging -- for the economy for many generations, for the environment, for thousands of families who had to be resettled -- they were suddenly put together by consortia of banks, of supplier agencies, of insurance agencies -- like in Germany, Hermes, and so on -- and they came back very, very quickly, driven by an unholy alliance between the powerful elites in the countries there and the suppliers from the North. Now, these suppliers were our big companies. They were the actors of this global market, which I mentioned in the beginning. They were the Siemenses of this world, coming from France, from the UK, from Japan, from Canada, from Germany, and they were systematically driven by systematic, large-scale corruption. We are not talking about 50,000 dollars here, or 100,000 dollars there, or one million dollars there. No, we are talking about 10 million, 20 million dollars on the Swiss bank accounts, on the bank accounts of Liechtenstein, of the president's ministers, the high officials in the para-statal sectors.
This was the reality which I saw, and not only one project like that: I saw, I would say, over the years I worked in Africa, I saw hundreds of projects like this. And so, I became convinced that it is this systematic corruption which is perverting economic policy-making in these countries, which is the main reason for the misery, for the poverty, for the conflicts, for the violence, for the desperation in many of these countries. That we have today more than a billion people below the absolute poverty line, that we have more than a billion people without proper drinking water in the world, twice that number, more than two billion people without sanitation and so on, and the consequent illnesses of mothers and children, still, child mortality of more than 10 million people every year, children dying before they are five years old: The cause of this is, to a large extent, grand corruption.
Now, why did the World Bank not let me do this work? I found out afterwards, after I left, under a big fight, the World Bank. The reason was that the members of the World Bank thought that foreign bribery was okay, including Germany. In Germany, foreign bribery was allowed. It was even tax-deductible. No wonder that most of the most important international operators in Germany, but also in France and the UK and Scandinavia, everywhere, systematically bribed. Not all of them, but most of them. And this is the phenomenon which I call failing governance, because when I then came to Germany and started this little NGO here in Berlin, at the Villa Borsig, we were told, "You cannot stop our German exporters from bribing, because we will lose our contracts. We will lose to the French, we will lose to the Swedes, we'll lose to the Japanese." And therefore, there was a indeed a prisoner's dilemma, which made it very difficult for an individual company, an individual exporting country to say, "We are not going to continue this deadly, disastrous habit of large companies to bribe."
So this is what I mean with a failing governance structure, because even the powerful government, which we have in Germany, comparatively, was not able to say, "We will not allow our companies to bribe abroad." They needed help, and the large companies themselves have this dilemma. Many of them didn't want to bribe. Many of the German companies, for instance, believe that they are really producing a high-quality product at a good price, so they are very competitive. They are not as good at bribing as many of their international competitors are, but they were not allowed to show their strengths, because the world was eaten up by grand corruption.
And this is why I'm telling you this: Civil society rose to the occasion. We had this small NGO, Transparency International. They began to think of an escape route from this prisoner's dilemma, and we developed concepts of collective action, basically trying to bring various competitors together around the table, explaining to all of them how much it would be in their interests if they simultaneously would stop bribing, and to make a long story short, we managed to eventually get Germany to sign together with the other OECD countries and a few other exporters.
In 1997, a convention, under the auspices of the OECD, which obliged everybody to change their laws and criminalize foreign bribery. (Applause) Well, thank you. I mean, it's interesting, in doing this, we had to sit together with the companies. We had here in Berlin, at the Aspen Institute on the Wannsee, we had sessions with about 20 captains of industry, and we discussed with them what to do about international bribery. In the first session -- we had three sessions over the course of two years. And President von Weizsäcker, by the way, chaired one of the sessions, the first one, to take the fear away from the entrepreneurs, who were not used to deal with non-governmental organizations. And in the first session, they all said, "This is not bribery, what we are doing." This is customary there. This is what these other cultures demand. They even applaud it. In fact, [unclear] still says this today. And so there are still a lot of people who are not convinced that you have to stop bribing. But in the second session, they admitted already that they would never do this, what they are doing in these other countries, here in Germany, or in the U.K., and so on. Cabinet ministers would admit this. And in the final session, at the Aspen Institute, we had them all sign an open letter to the Kohl government, at the time, requesting that they participate in the OECD convention.
And this is, in my opinion, an example of soft power, because we were able to convince them that they had to go with us. We had a longer-term time perspective. We had a broader, geographically much wider, constituency we were trying to defend. And that's why the law has changed. That's why Siemens is now in the trouble they are in and that's why MIN is in the trouble they are in. In some other countries, the OECD convention is not yet properly enforced. And, again, civil societies breathing down the neck of the establishment.
In London, for instance, where the BAE got away with a huge corruption case, which the Serious Fraud Office tried to prosecute, 100 million British pounds, every year for ten years, to one particular official of one particular friendly country, who then bought for 44 billion pounds of military equipment. This case, they are not prosecuting in the UK. Why? Because they consider this as contrary to the security interest of the people of Great Britain. Civil society is pushing, civil society is trying to get a solution to this problem, also in the U.K., and also in Japan, which is not properly enforcing, and so on.
In Germany, we are pushing the ratification of the UN convention, which is a subsequent convention. We are, Germany, is not ratifying. Why? Because it would make it necessary to criminalize the corruption of deputies. In Germany, we have a system where you are not allowed to bribe a civil servant, but you are allowed to bribe a deputy. This is, under German law, allowed, and the members of our parliament don't want to change this, and this is why they can't sign the U.N. convention against foreign bribery -- one of they very, very few countries which is preaching honesty and good governance everywhere in the world, but not able to ratify the convention, which we managed to get on the books with about 160 countries all over the world.
I see my time is ticking. Let me just try to draw some conclusions from what has happened. I believe that what we managed to achieve in fighting corruption, one can also achieve in other areas of failing governance. By now, the United Nations is totally on our side. The World Bank has turned from Saulus to Paulus; under Wolfensohn, they became, I would say, the strongest anti-corruption agency in the world. Most of the large companies are now totally convinced that they have to put in place very strong policies against bribery and so on. And this is possible because civil society joined the companies and joined the government in the analysis of the problem, in the development of remedies, in the implementation of reforms, and then later, in the monitoring of reforms.
Of course, if civil society organizations want to play that role, they have to grow into this responsibility. Not all civil society organizations are good. The Ku Klux Klan is an NGO. So, we must be aware that civil society has to shape up itself. They have to have a much more transparent financial governance. They have to have a much more participatory governance in many civil society organizations. We also need much more competence of civil society leaders. This is why we have set up the governance school and the Center for Civil Society here in Berlin, because we believe most of our educational and research institutions in Germany and continental Europe in general, do not focus enough, yet, on empowering civil society and training the leadership of civil society.
But what I'm saying from my very practical experience: If civil society does it right and joins the other actors -- in particular, governments, governments and their international institutions, but also large international actors, in particular those which have committed themselves to corporate social responsibility -- then in this magical triangle between civil society, government and private sector, there is a tremendous chance for all of us to create a better world.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
[SHIT] This is arguably the back end of the design of animals. (Laughter) But the reason I put this up here is because when I was in Africa last year, my wife and I were driving around, we had this wonderful guide, who showed us something that surprised both of us, and it was very revealing in terms of the fascination that comes with the design of animals. It turns out that in about the 1880s, the missionaries came to Africa to spread the word of Christianity, to teach English to the natives. And they brought blackboards and chalk. And I'd like you to imagine that that's a blackboard, and I just used some chalk on there. And they brought quite a bit of this stuff. But over the years, the blackboards were fine, but they ran out of chalk. And this is a real crisis for them.
And that's where the hyena comes in. The hyena is probably the most perfectly designed scavenging animal in the world. It strip-mines carcasses, and it has amazing teeth, because it enables the hyena to essentially eat bones. Now, the end product of that action is up on the board here. And what the missionaries would do is, they'd walk around and they'd pick up hyena shit. And the incredible thing about hyena shit is, it makes great chalk. (Laughter)
Now, that's not what I'm here to talk about, but it is a fascinating aspect of animal design. What I'm here to talk about is the camel. When I started talking to Richard about what I was going to speak about, I had recently come back from Jordan, where I had an amazing experience with a camel. (Laughter) And we were in the desert --
Richard Wurman: That's the end of this talk!
Keith Bellows: Yeah, yeah. We were in the desert, in Wadi Rum, in a small Jeep. There were four of us -- two Bedouin drivers -- and you can just imagine, this expanse is an ocean of sand, 105 degrees, one water bottle. And we were driving in what they told us was their very, very best Jeep. Didn't look like it to me. And as we started to go through the desert, the Jeep broke down. The guys got out, they put the hood up, they started working under the hood, got it going again. About a hundred yards, it broke down. This went on about six or seven times, and we were getting more and more alarmed, and we were also getting deeper and deeper into the desert.
And eventually, our worst nightmare happened: they flooded the engine. And they said, "Ah, no problem! We just get out and walk." And we said, "We get out and walk?" One water bottle -- remember, guys -- four people. And they said, "Yeah, yeah, we'll walk. We'll find some camels." So we got out and walked, and sure enough, about half a mile, we came over the crest of this hill, and there was a huge gathering of Bedouin with their camels. The guy went up and started dickering, and 10 dollars later, we had four camels. They went down like elevators; we got on them. They went back up, and the Bedouin -- each Bedouin, four of them -- got behind each of the camels with a little whip. And they started slashing away at the back of the camels, and they started galloping. And if you've ever been on a camel, it is a very, very uncomfortable ride. There's also one other aspect about these camels. About every 10 steps, they lean back and try to take a chunk out of your leg. (Laughter)
So we kept on going, and this camel kept on trying to take a chunk out of my leg. And eventually, three miles later, we arrived at our destination, where a Jeep was supposed to meet us. And the camels come down again like elevators, we sort of clumsily get off, and they -- obviously -- try to take another chunk out of my leg. And I've developed a very wonderful relationship with this creature by this point, and I've realized that this is a mean son of a bitch. And much meaner, by the way, than the Bedouin who greeted me and tried to sell me one of his 26 daughters to take back to the States.
So as we talked, Richard and I, I said, "You know, maybe I should bring a camel. I think the camel is the best designed animal in the world." And he kind of went, "Nah. I don't think we want to be bringing a camel." And you should be really glad we decided not to bring the camel. So I did the next best thing. I went to the Washington Zoo. Richard said, "I want you to get up close and personal with this camel. I want you to inspect its mouth, look at its teeth. Go underneath it. Go above it. Go around it. Pull its tail up; take a look in there. I want you to get as close to that camel as you possibly can."
So, I got a National Geographic film crew. We went down there, and I took one look at this camel. It is a 2,000 pound creature who is in rut. (Laughter) Now, if you've ever seen a 2,000 pound camel in a rut, it is a scary, scary thing to behold. And if Richard thought I was getting in the ring with that camel, someone was smoking Bedouin high grade. (Laughter) So we got as close to it as possible, and I'm going to share this -- Chris, if you want to roll this film -- and then I'm going to show you a little bit more about the design of camels. Do you want to roll the film?
(Video) Hello. This is Keith Bellows with the National Geographic Camel Investigation Unit. I'm here to look at the ultimate desert machine. And you'll note I started chewing gum because I was around this camel all day. Senior Keeper: That's it, that's it, OK. No! See, now he's getting a little overexcited. So we'll need to be very careful around him. Don't let him get you. Now, you can see copious amounts of saliva in there. [Unclear] I call myself the unstable stable boy. Their nose -- you can see his nose is flared right now. When they're in rut -- they're similar to seals in the way, like, a seal has to open its nose to breathe. And they're similar. They have to kind of consciously open their nose. Ears? They are small. But they have excellent hearing. But not a big -- for instance, in zebras, they have a huge ear that's very mobile, so they can actually turn them both around. And they use them in the same way we use our binocular vision. They use them to pinpoint sound. The desert's extremely windy as well as being very cold. So not only do they have the very long eyelashes, but there's the secondary -- I guess you'd call it the [unclear] or whatever. It's this hair that's above the eyes, and below it it's longer.
Most people think that the humps store water. They don't. They store fat. But -- now, I'm not a chemist, but basically what happens is the fat is oxidized by their breathing. And that will turn it into actually usable water. Like a lot of predators, they walk on their toes. But there's a big, fat pad in there that squishes out. They're like sun shoes, but, you know, with sand. Hooves? They don't have traditional hooves, but they do have one, like, big nail. You can't really see too clear. The fur's kind of grown over. But they use their tails a lot, especially in rut. He will urinate and spin his tail to spread the urine around and make him more attractive. I don't know why that would be, but it works for them. (Laughter) So, what the hell.
Now, they will also defecate in certain areas. Generally, they poop wherever they want to, but during their rut, they will defecate in perimeter areas. I don't know if you've read or heard about the sub-sonic sounds from elephants -- you know what I mean, like, "Br-r-r!" These big, big rumbling sounds. He will do the same thing. You can actually see, right here, it will vibrate. We weigh our animals. Unfortunately, he's a very aggressive animal, so he's actually destroyed some of the scales. We had these big things that I weigh the bison on, for instance. I'm guessing that he -- well, he's at least 1,600 pounds. But I would put him closer to 2,000. He's basically a walking mulch pile. We're kind of like buds, but I'm also a male as well and he's -- KB: He sees you as competition? Senior Keeper: Yeah, exactly. And it makes him very dangerous at this time of year. Don't even think about it. Don't think about it!
But now, we're going to meet -- out! Out! Out! No. Out! (Applause) KB: What I didn't show you was -- you got that swinging thing going? Well -- and you're glad I didn't show you this. One of the other things about the camel's beautiful design is that its penis points backwards. That way the camel can dip its tail in the stream, and just whacker the entire area around him. And that's how he really marks his territory. Now, what you also didn't see was that -- and you may have noticed in the pen beside him and, by the way, the camel's name is Suki. In the pen beside him is Jasmine. Jasmine has been his mate for some time. But on this particular occasion, it was very, very clear that as horny as Suki was, Jasmine was having none of it. And so we started thinking. Well, if poor old Suki is in search of a mate, what would Suki do to find the perfect mate?
So I'm going to show you another film. But before I do, I just want to mention that this animal truly is a sort of the SUV of the sand, the ship of the desert. It's so vital to the inhabitants of the areas in which the camel is found -- largely Mongolia and Sahara -- that there are 160 words in Arabic to describe the camel. And if this is a creature that was designed by committee, it's certainly been like no committee I've ever been on. So here's what Suki would do in search of a mate. Can you roll it, please?
(Video) Camel seeking camel. Lusty beast desires attractive & sincere mate. I'm seven ft., 2,000 lbs., with brown hair/eyes, long legs ... and I'm very well ... hung. I'm TED Camel. The perfect desert machine. I'm smartly designed. Eyelashes that keep out sand and a third eyelash that works like a windshield wiper. A distinguished nose, with nostrils lined to filter out sand and dust, and a groove that catches moisture. Amazingly full lips that allow me to eat practically anything that grows. Callouses on my knees that let me kneel comfortably. Leathery chest pads that beat the heat. Short fur that keeps my skin cool. Long legs that allow heat to escape. And my hump? Ogden Nash once wrote: "the camel has a single hump; the dromedary two, or else the other way around. I'm never sure. Are you?" Here's a hint: Bactarian, Dromedary. My hump contains up to 80 lbs. of fat -- but doesn't store H2O. I'm built to last. I'm the go-to animal when the oasis is dry. I usually won't sweat until my body reaches 105 degrees F -- enough to fry an egg. I'm able to lose 40 percent of my weight without dying. (Most animals would if they lost half that much.) I'll drink five to seven gallons of water a day. But go without for more than a month. I'm powerful. Able to pack up to 400 lbs. of cargo, outrun a horse and cover 26 miles on a good day. Camelot. Jackie O. once said that traveling by camel made riding an elephant seem like taking a jet plane. Yet my large, soft feet allow me to navigate sand. (Is that why the Bedouin claim I can dance?) I'm a good provider, too. Bedouins call the camel the Gift of God. No surprise. Tents and rugs are made of my hair. My dried bones are prized as a sort of ivory. My dung is burned as fuel. My milk is used for cheese. "Camels are like angels," a Bedouin once said.
(Applause)
Thank you. I just want to leave you with one last thought, which is probably the most important thing to take away. Humans -- the animal -- are pretty lucky creatures because, by and large, we really don't have to adapt to our environment; we adapt our environment to us. And we've seen that repeatedly through this conference -- not just this year, but in past years. But this creature that you've just seen ultimately adapts, and keeps adapting and adapting. And I think when you look at the animal kingdom, that is one of the most remarkable things. It doesn't have an environment that adapts to it; it has to adapt to the environment. Ricky, thank you very much for having me. RW: That's terrific. Thank you. |
This man is wearing what we call a bee beard. (Laughter) A beard full of bees.
Now, this is what many of you might picture when you think about honeybees, maybe insects, or maybe anything that has more legs than two. And let me start by telling you, I gotcha. I understand that. But, there are many things to know, and I want you to open your minds here, keep them open, and change your perspective about honeybees.
Notice that this man is not getting stung. He probably has a queen bee tied to his chin, and the other bees are attracted to it. So this really demonstrates our relationship with honeybees, and that goes deep back for thousands of years. We're very co-evolved, because we depend on bees for pollination and, even more recently, as an economic commodity.
Many of you may have heard that honeybees are disappearing, not just dying, but they're gone. We don't even find dead bodies. This is called colony collapse disorder, and it's bizarre. Researchers around the globe still do not know what's causing it, but what we do know is that, with the declining numbers of bees, the costs of over 130 fruit and vegetable crops that we rely on for food is going up in price.
So honeybees are important for their role in the economy as well as in agriculture. Here you can see some pictures of what are called green roofs, or urban agriculture. We're familiar with the image on the left that shows a local neighborhood garden in the South End. That's where I call home. I have a beehive in the backyard. And perhaps a green roof in the future, when we're further utilizing urban areas, where there are stacks of garden spaces.
Check out this image above the orange line in Boston. Try to spot the beehive. It's there. It's on the rooftop, right on the corner there, and it's been there for a couple of years now. The way that urban beekeeping currently operates is that the beehives are quite hidden, and it's not because they need to be. It's just because people are uncomfortable with the idea, and that's why I want you today to try to think about this, think about the benefits of bees in cities and why they really are a terrific thing.
Let me give you a brief rundown on how pollination works. So we know flowers, we know fruits and vegetables, even some alfalfa in hay that the livestock for the meats that we eat, rely on pollinators, but you've got male and female parts to a plant here, and basically pollinators are attracted to plants for their nectar, and in the process, a bee will visit some flowers and pick up some pollen, or that male kind of sperm counterpart, along the way, and then travel to different flowers, and eventually an apple, in this case, will be produced. You can see the orientation. The stem is down. The blossom end has fallen off by the time we eat it, but that's a basic overview of how pollination works.
And let's think about urban living, not today, and not in the past, but what about in a hundred years? What's it gonna look like? We have huge grand challenges these days of habitat loss. We have more and more people, billions of people, in 100 years, God knows how many people, and how little space there will be to fit all of them, so we need to change the way that we see cities, and looking at this picture on the left of New York City today, you can see how gray and brown it is. We have tar paper on the rooftops that bounces heat back into the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change, no doubt. What about in 100 years, if we have green rooftops everywhere, and gardening, and we create our own crops right in the cities? We save on the costs of transportation, we save on a healthier diet, and we also educate and create new jobs locally. We need bees for the future of our cities and urban living.
Here's some data that we collected through our company with Best Bees, where we deliver, install and manage honeybee hives for anybody who wants them, in the city, in the countryside, and we introduce honeybees, and the idea of beekeeping in your own backyard or rooftop or fire escape, for even that matter, and seeing how simple it is and how possible it is.
There's a counterintuitive trend that we noticed in these numbers. So let's look at the first metric here, overwintering survival. Now this has been a huge problem for many years, basically since the late 1980s, when the varroa mite came and brought many different viruses, bacteria and fungal diseases with it. Overwintering success is hard, and that's when most of the colonies are lost, and we found that in the cities, bees are surviving better than they are in the country. A bit counterintuitive, right? We think, oh, bees, countryside, agriculture, but that's not what the bees are showing. The bees like it in the city. (Laughter)
Furthermore, they also produce more honey. The urban honey is delicious. The bees in Boston on the rooftop of the Seaport Hotel, where we have hundreds of thousands of bees flying overheard right now that I'm sure none of you noticed when we walked by, are going to all of the local community gardens and making delicious, healthy honey that just tastes like the flowers in our city. So the yield for urban hives, in terms of honey production, is higher as well as the overwintering survival, compared to rural areas. Again, a bit counterintuitive.
And looking back historically at the timeline of honeybee health, we can go back to the year 950 and see that there was also a great mortality of bees in Ireland. So the problems of bees today isn't necessarily something new. It has been happening since over a thousand years ago, but what we don't really notice are these problems in cities.
So one thing I want to encourage you to think about is the idea of what an urban island is. You think in the city maybe the temperature's warmer. Why are bees doing better in the city? This is a big question now to help us understand why they should be in the city. Perhaps there's more pollen in the city. With the trains coming in to urban hubs, they can carry pollen with them, very light pollen, and it's just a big supermarket in the city. A lot of linden trees live along the railroad tracks. Perhaps there are fewer pesticides in the cities than there are in [rural] areas. Perhaps there are other things that we're just not thinking about yet, but that's one idea to think about, urban islands.
And colony collapse disorder is not the only thing affecting honeybees. Honeybees are dying, and it's a huge, huge grand challenge of our time. What you can see up here is a map of the world, and we're tracking the spread of this varroa mite.
Now, the varroa mite is what changed the game in beekeeping, and you can see, at the top right, the years are changing, we're coming up to modern times, and you can see the spread of the varroa mite from the early 1900s through now. It's 1968, and we're pretty much covering Asia. 1971, we saw it spread to Europe and South America, and then, when we get to the 1980s, and specifically to 1987, the varroa mite finally came to North America and to the United States, and that is when the game changed for honeybees in the United States.
Many of us will remember our childhood growing up, maybe you got stung by a bee, you saw bees on flowers. Think of the kids today. Their childhood's a bit different. They don't experience this. The bees just aren't around anymore. So we need bees and they're disappearing and it's a big problem.
What can we do here? So, what I do is honeybee research. I got my Ph.D. studying honeybee health. I started in 2005 studying honeybees. In 2006, honeybees started disappearing, so suddenly, like, this little nerd kid going to school working with bugs — (Laughter) — became very relevant in the world. And it worked out that way.
So my research focuses on ways to make bees healthier. I don't research what's killing the bees, per se. I'm not one of the many researchers around the world who's looking at the effects of pesticides or diseases or habitat loss and poor nutrition on bees. We're looking at ways to make bees healthier through vaccines, through yogurt, like probiotics, and other types of therapies in ways that can be fed orally to bees, and this process is so easy, even a 7-year-old can do it. You just mix up some pollen, sugar and water, and whatever active ingredient you want to put in, and you just give it right to the bees. No chemicals involved, just immune boosters.
Humans think about our own health in a prospective way. We exercise, we eat healthy, we take vitamins. Why don't we think about honeybees in that same type of way? Bring them to areas where they're thriving and try to make them healthier before they get sick.
I spent many years in grad school trying to poke bees and do vaccines with needles. (Laughter) Like, years, years at the bench, "Oh my gosh, it's 3 a.m. and I'm still pricking bees." (Laughter) And then one day I said, "Why don't we just do an oral vaccine?" It's like, "Ugh," so that's what we do. (Laughter)
I'd love to share with you some images of urban beehives, because they can be anything. I mean, really open your mind with this. You can paint a hive to match your home. You can hide a hive inside your home. These are three hives on the rooftop of the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel, and they're beautiful here. I mean, we matched the new color of the inside of their rooms to do some type of a stained wood with blue for their sheets, and these bees are terrific, and they also will use herbs that are growing in the garden. That's what the chefs go to to use for their cooking, and the honey -- they do live events -- they'll use that honey at their bars. Honey is a great nutritional substitute for regular sugar because there are different types of sugars in there.
We also have a classroom hives project, where -- this is a nonprofit venture -- we're spreading the word around the world for how honeybee hives can be taken into the classroom or into the museum setting, behind glass, and used as an educational tool.
This hive that you see here has been in Fenway High School for many years now. The bees fly right into the outfield of Fenway Park. Nobody notices it. If you're not a flower, these bees do not care about you. (Laughter) They don't. They don't. They'll say, "S'cuse me, flying around." (Laughter) Some other images here in telling a part of the story that really made urban beekeeping terrific is in New York City, beekeeping was illegal until 2010. That's a big problem, because what's going to pollinate all of the gardens and the produce locally? Hands? I mean, locally in Boston, there is a terrific company called Green City Growers, and they are going and pollinating their squash crops by hand with Q-Tips, and if they miss that three day window, there's no fruit. Their clients aren't happy, and people go hungry. So this is important.
We have also some images of honey from Brooklyn. Now, this was a mystery in the New York Times where the honey was very red, and the New York State forensics department came in and they actually did some science to match the red dye with that found in a maraschino cherry factory down the street. (Laughter) So you can tailor your honey to taste however you want by planting bee-friendly flowers.
Paris has been a terrific model for urban beekeeping. They've had hives on the rooftop of their opera house for many years now, and that's what really got people started, thinking, "Wow, we can do this, and we should do this." Also in London, and in Europe across the board, they're very advanced in their use of green rooftops and integrating beehives, and I'll show you an ending note here.
I would like to encourage you to open your mind. What can you do to save the bees or to help them or to think of sustainable cities in the future? Well, really, just change your perspective. Try to understand that bees are very important. A bee isn't going to sting you if you see it. The bee dies. Honeybees die when they sting, so they don't want to do it either. (Laughter) It's nothing to panic about. They're all over the city. You could even get your own hive if you want. There are great resources available, and there are even companies that will help get you set up and mentor you and it's important for our educational system in the world for students to learn about agriculture worldwide such as this little girl, who, again, is not even getting stung. Thank you. (Applause) |
Last year, I went on my first book tour. In 13 months, I flew to 14 countries and gave some hundred talks. Every talk in every country began with an introduction, and every introduction began, alas, with a lie: "Taiye Selasi comes from Ghana and Nigeria," or "Taiye Selasi comes from England and the States." Whenever I heard this opening sentence, no matter the country that concluded it -- England, America, Ghana, Nigeria -- I thought, "But that's not true." Yes, I was born in England and grew up in the United States. My mum, born in England, and raised in Nigeria, currently lives in Ghana. My father was born in Gold Coast, a British colony, raised in Ghana, and has lived for over 30 years in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For this reason, my introducers also called me "multinational." "But Nike is multinational," I thought, "I'm a human being."
Then, one fine day, mid-tour, I went to Louisiana, a museum in Denmark where I shared the stage with the writer Colum McCann. We were discussing the role of locality in writing, when suddenly it hit me. I'm not multinational. I'm not a national at all. How could I come from a nation? How can a human being come from a concept? It's a question that had been bothering me for going on two decades. From newspapers, textbooks, conversations, I had learned to speak of countries as if they were eternal, singular, naturally occurring things, but I wondered: to say that I came from a country suggested that the country was an absolute, some fixed point in place in time, a constant thing, but was it? In my lifetime, countries had disappeared -- Czechoslovakia; appeared -- Timor-Leste; failed -- Somalia. My parents came from countries that didn't exist when they were born. To me, a country -- this thing that could be born, die, expand, contract -- hardly seemed the basis for understanding a human being.
And so it came as a huge relief to discover the sovereign state. What we call countries are actually various expressions of sovereign statehood, an idea that came into fashion only 400 years ago. When I learned this, beginning my masters degree in international relations, I felt a sort of surge of relief. It was as I had suspected. History was real, cultures were real, but countries were invented. For the next 10 years, I sought to re- or un-define myself, my world, my work, my experience, beyond the logic of the state.
In 2005, I wrote an essay, "What is an Afropolitan," sketching out an identity that privileged culture over country. It was thrilling how many people could relate to my experience, and instructional how many others didn't buy my sense of self. "How can Selasi claim to come from Ghana," one such critic asked, "when she's never known the indignities of traveling abroad on a Ghanian passport?"
Now, if I'm honest, I knew just what she meant. I've got a friend named Layla who was born and raised in Ghana. Her parents are third-generation Ghanians of Lebanese descent. Layla, who speaks fluent Twi, knows Accra like the back of her hand, but when we first met years ago, I thought, "She's not from Ghana." In my mind, she came from Lebanon, despite the patent fact that all her formative experience took place in suburban Accra. I, like my critics, was imagining some Ghana where all Ghanaians had brown skin or none held U.K. passports. I'd fallen into the limiting trap that the language of coming from countries sets -- the privileging of a fiction, the singular country, over reality: human experience. Speaking with Colum McCann that day, the penny finally dropped. "All experience is local," he said. "All identity is experience," I thought. "I'm not a national," I proclaimed onstage. "I'm a local. I'm multi-local."
See, "Taiye Selasi comes from the United States," isn't the truth. I have no relationship with the United States, all 50 of them, not really. My relationship is with Brookline, the town where I grew up; with New York City, where I started work; with Lawrenceville, where I spend Thanksgiving. What makes America home for me is not my passport or accent, but these very particular experiences and the places they occur. Despite my pride in Ewe culture, the Black Stars, and my love of Ghanaian food, I've never had a relationship with the Republic of Ghana, writ large. My relationship is with Accra, where my mother lives, where I go each year, with the little garden in Dzorwulu where my father and I talk for hours. These are the places that shape my experience. My experience is where I'm from.
What if we asked, instead of "Where are you from?" -- "Where are you a local?" This would tell us so much more about who and how similar we are. Tell me you're from France, and I see what, a set of clichés? Adichie's dangerous single story, the myth of the nation of France? Tell me you're a local of Fez and Paris, better yet, Goutte d'Or, and I see a set of experiences. Our experience is where we're from.
So, where are you a local? I propose a three-step test. I call these the three "R’s": rituals, relationships, restrictions.
First, think of your daily rituals, whatever they may be: making your coffee, driving to work, harvesting your crops, saying your prayers. What kind of rituals are these? Where do they occur? In what city or cities in the world do shopkeepers know your face? As a child, I carried out fairly standard suburban rituals in Boston, with adjustments made for the rituals my mother brought from London and Lagos. We took off our shoes in the house, we were unfailingly polite with our elders, we ate slow-cooked, spicy food. In snowy North America, ours were rituals of the global South. The first time I went to Delhi or to southern parts of Italy, I was shocked by how at home I felt. The rituals were familiar. "R" number one, rituals.
Now, think of your relationships, of the people who shape your days. To whom do you speak at least once a week, be it face to face or on FaceTime? Be reasonable in your assessment; I'm not talking about your Facebook friends. I'm speaking of the people who shape your weekly emotional experience. My mother in Accra, my twin sister in Boston, my best friends in New York: these relationships are home for me. "R" number two, relationships.
We're local where we carry out our rituals and relationships, but how we experience our locality depends in part on our restrictions. By restrictions, I mean, where are you able to live? What passport do you hold? Are you restricted by, say, racism, from feeling fully at home where you live? By civil war, dysfunctional governance, economic inflation, from living in the locality where you had your rituals as a child? This is the least sexy of the R’s, less lyric than rituals and relationships, but the question takes us past "Where are you now?" to "Why aren't you there, and why?" Rituals, relationships, restrictions.
Take a piece of paper and put those three words on top of three columns, then try to fill those columns as honestly as you can. A very different picture of your life in local context, of your identity as a set of experiences, may emerge.
So let's try it. I have a friend named Olu. He's 35 years old. His parents, born in Nigeria, came to Germany on scholarships. Olu was born in Nuremberg and lived there until age 10. When his family moved to Lagos, he studied in London, then came to Berlin. He loves going to Nigeria -- the weather, the food, the friends -- but hates the political corruption there. Where is Olu from?
I have another friend named Udo. He's also 35 years old. Udo was born in Córdoba, in northwest Argentina, where his grandparents migrated from Germany, what is now Poland, after the war. Udo studied in Buenos Aires, and nine years ago came to Berlin. He loves going to Argentina -- the weather, the food, the friends -- but hates the economic corruption there. Where is Udo from? With his blonde hair and blue eyes, Udo could pass for German, but holds an Argentinian passport, so needs a visa to live in Berlin. That Udo is from Argentina has largely to do with history. That he's a local of Buenos Aires and Berlin, that has to do with life.
Olu, who looks Nigerian, needs a visa to visit Nigeria. He speaks Yoruba with an English accent, and English with a German one. To claim that he's "not really Nigerian," though, denies his experience in Lagos, the rituals he practiced growing up, his relationship with family and friends.
Meanwhile, though Lagos is undoubtedly one of his homes, Olu always feels restricted there, not least by the fact that he's gay.
Both he and Udo are restricted by the political conditions of their parents' countries, from living where some of their most meaningful rituals and relationships occur. To say Olu is from Nigeria and Udo is from Argentina distracts from their common experience. Their rituals, their relationships, and their restrictions are the same.
Of course, when we ask, "Where are you from?" we're using a kind of shorthand. It's quicker to say "Nigeria" than "Lagos and Berlin," and as with Google Maps, we can always zoom in closer, from country to city to neighborhood. But that's not quite the point. The difference between "Where are you from?" and "Where are you a local?" isn't the specificity of the answer; it's the intention of the question. Replacing the language of nationality with the language of locality asks us to shift our focus to where real life occurs. Even that most glorious expression of countryhood, the World Cup, gives us national teams comprised mostly of multilocal players. As a unit of measurement for human experience, the country doesn't quite work. That's why Olu says, "I'm German, but my parents come from Nigeria." The "but" in that sentence belies the inflexibility of the units, one fixed and fictional entity bumping up against another. "I'm a local of Lagos and Berlin," suggests overlapping experiences, layers that merge together, that can't be denied or removed. You can take away my passport, but you can't take away my experience. That I carry within me. Where I'm from comes wherever I go.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we do away with countries. There's much to be said for national history, more for the sovereign state. Culture exists in community, and community exists in context. Geography, tradition, collective memory: these things are important. What I'm questioning is primacy. All of those introductions on tour began with reference to nation, as if knowing what country I came from would tell my audience who I was. What are we really seeking, though, when we ask where someone comes from? And what are we really seeing when we hear an answer?
Here's one possibility: basically, countries represent power. "Where are you from?" Mexico. Poland. Bangladesh. Less power. America. Germany. Japan. More power. China. Russia. Ambiguous.
(Laughter)
It's possible that without realizing it, we're playing a power game, especially in the context of multi-ethnic countries. As any recent immigrant knows, the question "Where are you from?" or "Where are you really from?" is often code for "Why are you here?"
Then we have the scholar William Deresiewicz's writing of elite American colleges. "Students think that their environment is diverse if one comes from Missouri and another from Pakistan -- never mind that all of their parents are doctors or bankers."
I'm with him. To call one student American, another Pakistani, then triumphantly claim student body diversity ignores the fact that these students are locals of the same milieu. The same holds true on the other end of the economic spectrum. A Mexican gardener in Los Angeles and a Nepali housekeeper in Delhi have more in common in terms of rituals and restrictions than nationality implies.
Perhaps my biggest problem with coming from countries is the myth of going back to them. I'm often asked if I plan to "go back" to Ghana. I go to Accra every year, but I can't "go back" to Ghana. It's not because I wasn't born there. My father can't go back, either. The country in which he was born, that country no longer exists. We can never go back to a place and find it exactly where we left it. Something, somewhere will always have changed, most of all, ourselves. People.
Finally, what we're talking about is human experience, this notoriously and gloriously disorderly affair. In creative writing, locality bespeaks humanity. The more we know about where a story is set, the more local color and texture, the more human the characters start to feel, the more relatable, not less. The myth of national identity and the vocabulary of coming from confuses us into placing ourselves into mutually exclusive categories. In fact, all of us are multi -- multi-local, multi-layered. To begin our conversations with an acknowledgement of this complexity brings us closer together, I think, not further apart. So the next time that I'm introduced, I'd love to hear the truth: "Taiye Selasi is a human being, like everybody here. She isn't a citizen of the world, but a citizen of worlds. She is a local of New York, Rome and Accra."
Thank you.
(Applause) |
It was April 8, 2003. I was in Baghdad, covering the war in Iraq. That day, Americans tanks started arriving in Baghdad. We were just a few journalists in the Palestine Hotel, and, as happens in war, the fighting began to approach outside our windows. Baghdad was covered in black smoke and oil. It smelled awful. We couldn't see a thing, but we knew what was happening.
Of course, I was supposed to be writing an article, but that's how it always goes -- you're supposed to be writing and something big happens. So I was in my room on the 16th floor, writing and looking out the window every now and then to see what was happening. Suddenly, there was a huge explosion. During the previous three weeks, there had been shelling with half-ton missiles, but this time, the shock -- I felt it inside of me, and I thought, "It's very close. It's very, very close."
So I went down to see what was happening. I went down to the 15th floor to take a look. And I saw people, journalists, screaming in the hallways. I walked into a room and realized that it had been hit by a missile. Someone had been wounded. There was a man near the window, a cameraman named Taras Protsyuk, lying face-down. Having worked in a hospital before, I wanted to help out. So I turned him over. And when I turned him over, I noticed that he was open from sternum to pubis, but I couldn't see anything, nothing at all. All I saw was a white, pearly, shiny spot that blinded me, and I didn't understand what was going on.
Once the spot disappeared and I could see his wound, which was very serious, my buddies and I put a sheet underneath him, and we carried him onto an elevator that stopped at each of the 15 floors. We put him in a car that took him to the hospital. He died on the way to the hospital. The Spanish cameraman José Couso, who was on the 14th floor and also hit -- because the shell had exploded between the two floors -- died on the operating table. As soon as the car left, I went back. There was that article I was supposed to write -- which I had to write.
And so -- I returned to the hotel lobby with my arms covered in blood, when one of the hotel gofers stopped me and asked me to pay the tax I hadn't paid for 10 days. I told him to get lost. And I said to myself: "Clear your head, put it all aside. If you want to write, you need to put it all aside." And that's what I did. I went upstairs, wrote my article and sent it off.
Later, aside from the feeling of having lost my colleagues, something else was bothering me. I kept seeing that shiny, pearly spot, and I couldn't understand what it meant. And then, the war was over.
Later, I thought: "That's not possible. I can't just not know what happened." Because it wasn't the first time, and it didn't only happen to me. I have seen things like that happen to others in my 20 to 35 years of reporting. I have seen things that had an effect on me too. For example, there was this man I knew in Lebanon, a 25-year-old veteran who had been fighting for five years -- a real veteran -- who we would follow everywhere. He would crawl in the dark with confidence -- he was a great soldier, a true soldier -- so we would follow him, knowing that we would be safe with him. And one day, as I was told -- and I've seen him again since -- he was back in the camp, playing cards, when someone came in next door, and discharged their weapon. As the gun went off, that blast, that one shot, made him duck quickly under the table, like a child. He was shaking, panicking. And since then, he has never been able to get up and fight. He ended up working as a croupier in a Beirut casino where I later found him, because he couldn't sleep, so it was quite a suitable job.
So I thought to myself, "What is this thing that can kill you without leaving any visible scars? How does that happen? What is this unknown thing?" It was too common to be coincidental.
So I started to investigate -- that's all I know how to do. I started to investigate by looking through books, reaching out to psychiatrists, going to museums, libraries, etc. Finally, I discovered that some people knew about this -- often military psychiatrists -- and that what we were dealing with was called trauma. Americans call it PTSD or traumatic neurosis. It was something that existed, but that we never spoke about.
So, this trauma -- what is it? Well, it's an encounter with death. I don't know if you've ever had an experience with death -- I'm not talking about dead bodies, or someone's grandfather lying in a hospital bed, or someone who got hit by a car. I'm talking about facing the void of death. And that is something no one is supposed to see. People used to say, "Neither the sun, nor death can be looked at with a steady eye." A human being should not have to face the void of death.
But when that happens, it can remain invisible for a while -- days, weeks, months, sometimes years. And then, at some point, it explodes, because it's something that has entered your brain -- a sort of window between an image and your mind -- that has penetrated your brain, staying there and taking up all the space inside. And there are people -- men, women, who suddenly no longer sleep. And they experience horrible anxiety attacks -- panic attacks, not just minor fears. They suddenly don't want to sleep, because when they do, they have the same nightmare every night. They see the same image every night. What type of image? For example, a soldier who enters a building and comes face to face with another soldier aiming at him. He looks at the gun, straight down the barrel. And this barrel suddenly becomes enormous, deformed. It becomes fluffy, swallowing everything. And he says -- later he will say, "I saw death. I saw myself dead, therefore I'm dead." And from then on, he knows he is dead. It is not a perception -- he is convinced that he is dead. In reality, someone came in, the guy left or didn't shoot, whatever, and he didn't actually get shot -- but to him, he died in that moment. Or it can be the smell of a mass grave -- I saw a lot of that in Rwanda. It can be the voice of a friend calling, and they're being slaughtered and there's nothing you can do. You hear that voice, and you wake up every night -- for weeks, months -- in a trance-like state, anxious and terrified, like a child. I have seen men cry -- just like children -- from seeing the same image.
So having that image of horror in your brain, seeing the void of death -- that analogue of horror which is hiding something -- will completely take over. You cannot do anything, anything at all. You cannot work anymore, you cannot love anymore. You go home and don't recognize anyone. You don't even recognize yourself. You hide and don't leave the house, you lock yourself in, you become ill. I know people who placed small cans outside their house with coins inside, in case someone tried to get in. All of a sudden, you feel like you want to die or kill or hide or run away. You want to be loved, but you hate everyone. It's a feeling that seizes you entirely day in and day out, and you suffer tremendously. And no one understands. They say, "There's nothing wrong with you. You seem fine, you have no injuries. You went to war, came back; you're fine." These people suffer tremendously. Some commit suicide. After all, suicide is like updating your daily planner -- I'm already dead, I might as well commit suicide. Plus, there is no more pain. Some commit suicide, others end up under the bridge, drinking. Everyone remembers that grandfather or uncle or neighbor who used to drink, never said a word, always in a bad mood, beat his wife and who would end up either sinking into alcoholism or dying.
And why do we not talk about this? We don't talk about it because it's taboo. It's not like we don't have the words to express the void of death. But others don't want hear it. The first time I returned from an assignment, They said, "Oh! He's back." There was a fancy dinner -- white tablecloth, candles, guests. "Tell us everything!" Which I did. After 20 minutes, people were giving me dirty looks, the hostess had her nose in the ashtray. It was horrible and I realized I ruined the whole evening. So I don't talk about it anymore. We're just not ready to listen. People say outright: "Please, stop."
Is that a rare occurrence? No, it's extremely common. One third of the soldiers who died in Iraq -- well, not "died," let me re-phrase that -- one third of the US soldiers who went to Iraq suffer from PTSD. In 1939, there were still 200,000 soldiers from the First World War that were being treated in British psychiatric hospitals. In Vietnam, 54,000 people died -- Americans. In 1987, the US government identified 102,000 -- twice as many -- 102,000 veterans who died from committing suicide. Twice as many deaths by suicide than by combat in Vietnam. So you see, this relates to everything, not just modern warfare, but also ancient wars -- you can read about it, the evidence is there. So why do we not talk about it? Why have we not talked about it? The problem is that if you don't talk about it, you're heading for disaster.
The only way to heal -- and the good news here is that this is treatable -- think Munch's The Scream, Goya, etc. -- it's indeed treatable. The only way to heal from this trauma, from this encounter with death that overwhelms, petrifies and kills you is to find a way to express it.
People used to say, "Language is the only thing that holds all of us together." Without language, we're nothing. It's the thing that makes us human. In the face of such a horrible image -- a wordless image of oblivion that obsesses us -- the only way to cope with it is to put human words to it. Because these people feel excluded from humanity. No one wants to see them anymore and they don't want to see anyone. They feel dirty, defiled, ashamed. Someone said, "Doctor, I don't use the subway anymore because I'm afraid people will see the horror in my eyes." Another guy thought he had a terrible skin disease and spent six months with dermatologists, going from doctor to doctor. And then one day, they sent him to a psychiatrist. During his second session, he told the psychiatrist he had a terrible skin disease from head to toe. The psychiatrist asked, "Why are you in this state?" And the man said, "Well, because I'm dead, so I must be rotting away."
So you see this is something that has a profound effect on people. In order to heal, we need to talk about it. The horror needs to be put into words -- human words, so we can organize it and talk about it again. We have to look death in the face. And if we can do that, if we can talk about these things, then step by step, by working it out verbally, we can reclaim our place in humanity. And it is important. Silence kills us.
So what does this mean? It means that after a trauma, without question, we lose our "unbearable lightness of being," that sense of immortality that keeps us here -- meaning, if we're here, we almost feel like we're immortal, which we're not, but if we didn't believe that, we'd say, "What's the point of it all?" But trauma survivors have lost that feeling of immortality. They've lost their lightness. But they have found something else. So this means that if we manage to look death in the face, and actually confront it, rather than keep quiet and hide, like some of the men or women I know did, such as Michael from Rwanda, Carole from Iraq, Philippe from the Congo and other people I know, like Sorj Chalandon, now a great writer, who gave up field assignments after a trauma. Five friends of mine committed suicide, they're the ones who did not survive the trauma.
So if we can look death in the face, if we, mortal humans, human mortals, understand that we are human and mortal, mortal and human, if we can confront death and identify it once again as the most mysterious place of all mysterious places, since no one has ever seen it -- if we can give it back this meaning, yes, we may die, survive and come back to life, but we'll come back stronger than before. Much stronger.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
So I'd like to start by focusing on the world's most dangerous animal.
Now, when you talk about dangerous animals, most people might think of lions or tigers or sharks. But of course the most dangerous animal is the mosquito. The mosquito has killed more humans than any other creature in human history. In fact, probably adding them all together, the mosquito has killed more humans. And the mosquito has killed more humans than wars and plague.
And you would think, would you not, that with all our science, with all our advances in society, with better towns, better civilizations, better sanitation, wealth, that we would get better at controlling mosquitos, and hence reduce this disease. And that's not really the case. If it was the case, we wouldn't have between 200 and 300 million cases of malaria every year, and we wouldn't have a million and a half deaths from malaria, and we wouldn't have a disease that was relatively unknown 50 years ago now suddenly turned into the largest mosquito-borne virus threat that we have, and that's called dengue fever.
So 50 years ago, pretty much no one had heard of it, no one certainly in the European environment. But dengue fever now, according to the World Health Organization, infects between 50 and 100 million people every year, so that's equivalent to the whole of the population of the U.K. being infected every year. Other estimates put that number at roughly double that number of infections. And dengue fever has grown in speed quite phenomenally. In the last 50 years, the incidence of dengue has grown thirtyfold.
Now let me tell you a little bit about what dengue fever is, for those who don't know. Now let's assume you go on holiday. Let's assume you go to the Caribbean, or you might go to Mexico. You might go to Latin America, Asia, Africa, anywhere in Saudi Arabia. You might go to India, the Far East. It doesn't really matter. It's the same mosquito, and it's the same disease. You're at risk. And let's assume you're bitten by a mosquito that's carrying that virus. Well, you could develop flu-like symptoms. They could be quite mild. You could develop nausea, headache, your muscles could feel like they're contracting, and you could actually feel like your bones are breaking. And that's the nickname given to this disease. It's called breakbone fever, because that's how you can feel.
Now the odd thing is, is that once you've been bitten by this mosquito, and you've had this disease, your body develops antibodies, so if you're bitten again with that strain, it doesn't affect you. But it's not one virus, it's four, and the same protection that gives you the antibodies and protects you from the same virus that you had before actually makes you much more susceptible to the other three. So the next time you get dengue fever, if it's a different strain, you're more susceptible, you're likely to get worse symptoms, and you're more likely to get the more severe forms, hemorrhagic fever or shock syndrome. So you don't want dengue once, and you certainly don't want it again.
So why is it spreading so fast? And the answer is this thing. This is Aedes aegypti. Now this is a mosquito that came, like its name suggests, out of North Africa, and it's spread round the world. Now, in fact, a single mosquito will only travel about 200 yards in its entire life. They don't travel very far. What they're very good at doing is hitchhiking, particularly the eggs. They will lay their eggs in clear water, any pool, any puddle, any birdbath, any flower pot, anywhere there's clear water, they'll lay their eggs, and if that clear water is near freight, it's near a port, if it's anywhere near transport, those eggs will then get transported around the world. And that's what's happened. Mankind has transported these eggs all the way around the world, and these insects have infested over 100 countries, and there's now 2.5 billion people living in countries where this mosquito resides.
To give you just a couple of examples how fast this has happened, in the mid-'70s, Brazil declared, "We have no Aedes aegypti," and currently they spend about a billion dollars now a year trying to get rid of it, trying to control it, just one species of mosquito. Two days ago, or yesterday, I can't remember which, I saw a Reuters report that said Madeira had had their first cases of dengue, about 52 cases, with about 400 probable cases. That's two days ago. Interestingly, Madeira first got the insect in 2005, and here we are, a few years later, first cases of dengue. So the one thing you'll find is that where the mosquito goes, dengue will follow. Once you've got the mosquito in your area, anyone coming into that area with dengue, mosquito will bite them, mosquito will bite somewhere else, somewhere else, somewhere else, and you'll get an epidemic.
So we must be good at killing mosquitos. I mean, that can't be very difficult. Well, there's two principle ways. The first way is that you use larvicides. You use chemicals. You put them into water where they breed. Now in an urban environment, that's extraordinarily difficult. You've got to get your chemical into every puddle, every birdbath, every tree trunk. It's just not practical. The second way you can do it is actually trying to kill the insects as they fly around. This is a picture of fogging. Here what someone is doing is mixing up chemical in a smoke and basically spreading that through the environment. You could do the same with a space spray. This is really unpleasant stuff, and if it was any good, we wouldn't have this massive increase in mosquitos and we wouldn't have this massive increase in dengue fever. So it's not very effective, but it's probably the best thing we've got at the moment. Having said that, actually, your best form of protection and my best form of protection is a long-sleeve shirt and a little bit of DEET to go with it.
So let's start again. Let's design a product, right from the word go, and decide what we want. Well we clearly need something that is effective at reducing the mosquito population. There's no point in just killing the odd mosquito here and there. We want something that gets that population right the way down so it can't get the disease transmission. Clearly the product you've got has got to be safe to humans. We are going to use it in and around humans. It has to be safe. We don't want to have a lasting impact on the environment. We don't want to do anything that you can't undo. Maybe a better product comes along in 20, 30 years. Fine. We don't want a lasting environmental impact. We want something that's relatively cheap, or cost-effective, because there's an awful lot of countries involved, and some of them are emerging markets, some of them emerging countries, low-income. And finally, you want something that's species-specific. You want to get rid of this mosquito that spreads dengue, but you don't really want to get all the other insects. Some are quite beneficial. Some are important to your ecosystem. This one's not. It's invaded you. But you don't want to get all of the insects. You just want to get this one. And most of the time, you'll find this insect lives in and around your home, so this -- whatever we do has got to get to that insect. It's got to get into people's houses, into the bedrooms, into the kitchens.
Now there are two features of mosquito biology that really help us in this project, and that is, firstly, males don't bite. It's only the female mosquito that will actually bite you. The male can't bite you, won't bite you, doesn't have the mouth parts to bite you. It's just the female. And the second is a phenomenon that males are very, very good at finding females. If there's a male mosquito that you release, and if there's a female around, that male will find the female.
So basically, we've used those two factors. So here's a typical situation, male meets female, lots of offspring. A single female will lay about up to 100 eggs at a time, up to about 500 in her lifetime. Now if that male is carrying a gene which causes the death of the offspring, then the offspring don't survive, and instead of having 500 mosquitos running around, you have none. And if you can put more, I'll call them sterile, that the offspring will actually die at different stages, but I'll call them sterile for now. If you put more sterile males out into the environment, then the females are more likely to find a sterile male than a fertile one, and you will bring that population down. So the males will go out, they'll look for females, they'll mate. If they mate successfully, then no offspring. If they don't find a female, then they'll die anyway. They only live a few days.
And that's exactly where we are. So this is technology that was developed in Oxford University a few years ago. The company itself, Oxitec, we've been working for the last 10 years, very much on a sort of similar development pathway that you'd get with a pharmaceutical company. So about 10 years of internal evaluation, testing, to get this to a state where we think it's actually ready. And then we've gone out into the big outdoors, always with local community consent, always with the necessary permits. So we've done field trials now in the Cayman Islands, a small one in Malaysia, and two more now in Brazil.
And what's the result? Well, the result has been very good. In about four months of release, we've brought that population of mosquitos — in most cases we're dealing with villages here of about 2,000, 3,000 people, that sort of size, starting small — we've taken that mosquito population down by about 85 percent in about four months. And in fact, the numbers after that get, those get very difficult to count, because there just aren't any left. So that's been what we've seen in Cayman, it's been what we've seen in Brazil in those trials.
And now what we're doing is we're going through a process to scale up to a town of about 50,000, so we can see this work at big scale. And we've got a production unit in Oxford, or just south of Oxford, where we actually produce these mosquitos. We can produce them, in a space a bit more than this red carpet, I can produce about 20 million a week. We can transport them around the world. It's not very expensive, because it's a coffee cup -- something the size of a coffee cup will hold about three million eggs. So freight costs aren't our biggest problem. (Laughter) So we've got that. You could call it a mosquito factory. And for Brazil, where we've been doing some trials, the Brazilian government themselves have now built their own mosquito factory, far bigger than ours, and we'll use that for scaling up in Brazil.
There you are. We've sent mosquito eggs. We've separated the males from the females. The males have been put in little pots and the truck is going down the road and they are releasing males as they go. It's actually a little bit more precise than that. You want to release them so that you get good coverage of your area. So you take a Google Map, you divide it up, work out how far they can fly, and make sure you're releasing such that you get coverage of the area, and then you go back, and within a very short space of time, you're bringing that population right the way down.
We've also done this in agriculture. We've got several different species of agriculture coming along, and I'm hoping that soon we'll be able to get some funding together so we can get back and start looking at malaria.
So that's where we stand at the moment, and I've just got a few final thoughts, which is that this is another way in which biology is now coming in to supplement chemistry in some of our societal advances in this area, and these biological approaches are coming in in very different forms, and when you think about genetic engineering, we've now got enzymes for industrial processing, enzymes, genetically engineered enzymes in food. We have G.M. crops, we have pharmaceuticals, we have new vaccines, all using roughly the same technology, but with very different outcomes. And I'm in favor, actually. Of course I am. I'm in favor of particularly where the older technologies don't work well or have become unacceptable. And although the techniques are similar, the outcomes are very, very different, and if you take our approach, for example, and you compare it to, say, G.M. crops, both techniques are trying to produce a massive benefit. Both have a side benefit, which is that we reduce pesticide use tremendously. But whereas a G.M. crop is trying to protect the plant, for example, and give it an advantage, what we're actually doing is taking the mosquito and giving it the biggest disadvantage it can possibly have, rendering it unable to reproduce effectively. So for the mosquito, it's a dead end.
Thank you very much. (Applause) |
I'm going to talk about the power of a word: jihad.
To the vast majority of practicing Muslims, jihad is an internal struggle for the faith. It is a struggle within, a struggle against vice, sin, temptation, lust, greed. It is a struggle to try and live a life that is set by the moral codes written in the Koran. In that original idea, the concept of jihad is as important to Muslims as the idea of grace is to Christians. It's a very powerful word, jihad, if you look at it in that respect, and there's a certain almost mystical resonance to it. And that's the reason why, for hundreds of years, Muslims everywhere have named their children Jihad, their daughters as much as their sons, in the same way that, say, Christians name their daughters Grace, and Hindus, my people, name our daughters Bhakti, which means, in Sanskrit, spiritual worship.
But there have always been, in Islam, a small group, a minority, who believe that jihad is not only an internal struggle but also an external struggle against forces that would threaten the faith, or the faithul. And some of these people believe that in that struggle, it is sometimes okay to take up arms. And so the thousands of young Muslim men who flocked to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight against the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country, in their minds they were fighting a jihad, they were doing jihad, and they named themselves the Mujahideen, which is a word that comes from the same root as jihad. And we forget this now, but back then the Mujahideen were celebrated in this country, in America. We thought of them as holy warriors who were taking the good fight to the ungodly communists. America gave them weapons, gave them money, gave them support, encouragement.
But within that group, a tiny, smaller group, a minority within a minority within a minority, were coming up with a new and dangerous conception of jihad, and in time this group would come to be led by Osama bin Laden, and he refined the idea. His idea of jihad was a global war of terror, primarily targeted at the far enemy, at the crusaders from the West, against America. And the things he did in the pursuit of this jihad were so horrendous, so monstrous, and had such great impact, that his definition was the one that stuck, not just here in the West. We didn't know any better. We didn't pause to ask. We just assumed that if this insane man and his psychopathic followers were calling what they did jihad, then that's what jihad must mean. But it wasn't just us. Even in the Muslim world, his definition of jihad began to gain acceptance.
A year ago I was in Tunis, and I met the imam of a very small mosque, an old man. Fifteen years ago, he named his granddaughter Jihad, after the old meaning. He hoped that a name like that would inspire her to live a spiritual life. But he told me that after 9/11, he began to have second thoughts. He worried that if he called her by that name, especially outdoors, outside in public, he might be seen as endorsing bin Laden's idea of jihad. On Fridays in his mosque, he gave sermons trying to reclaim the meaning of the word, but his congregants, the people who came to his mosque, they had seen the videos. They had seen pictures of the planes going into the towers, the towers coming down. They had heard bin Laden say that that was jihad, and claimed victory for it. And so the old imam worried that his words were falling on deaf ears. No one was paying attention.
He was wrong. Some people were paying attention, but for the wrong reasons. The United States, at this point, was putting pressure on all its Arab allies, including Tunisia, to stamp out extremism in their societies, and this imam found himself suddenly in the crosshairs of the Tunisian intelligence service. They had never paid him any attention before -- old man, small mosque -- but now they began to pay visits, and sometimes they would drag him in for questions, and always the same question: "Why did you name your granddaughter Jihad? Why do you keep using the word jihad in your Friday sermons? Do you hate Americans? What is your connection to Osama bin Laden?"
So to the Tunisian intelligence agency, and organizations like it all over the Arab world, jihad equaled extremism, Bin Laden's definition had become institutionalized. That was the power of that word that he was able to do. And it filled this old imam, it filled him with great sadness. He told me that, of bin Laden's many crimes, this was, in his mind, one that didn't get enough attention, that he took this word, this beautiful idea. He didn't so much appropriate it as kidnapped it and debased it and corrupted it and turned it into something it was never meant to be, and then persuaded all of us that it always was a global jihad.
But the good news is that the global jihad is almost over, as bin Laden defined it. It was dying well before he did, and now it's on its last legs. Opinion polls from all over the Muslim world show that there is very little interest among Muslims in a global holy war against the West, against the far enemy. The supply of young men willing to fight and die for this cause is dwindling. The supply of money — just as important, more important perhaps — the supply of money to this activity is also dwindling. The wealthy fanatics who were previously sponsoring this kind of activity are now less generous.
What does that mean for us in the West? Does it mean we can break out the champagne, wash our hands of it, disengage, sleep easy at night? No. Disengagement is not an option, because if you let local jihad survive, it becomes international jihad. And so there's now a lot of different violent jihads all over the world. In Somalia, in Mali, in Nigeria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, there are groups that claim to be the inheritors of the legacy of Osama bin Laden. They use his rhetoric. They even use the brand name he created for his jihad. So there is now an al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, there's an al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, there is an al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. There are other groups -- in Nigeria, Boko Haram, in Somalia, al Shabaab -- and they all pay homage to Osama bin Laden. But if you look closely, they're not fighting a global jihad. They're fighting battles over much narrower issues. Usually it has to do with ethnicity or race or sectarianism, or it's a power struggle. More often than not, it's a power struggle in one country, or even a small region within one country. Occasionally they will go across a border, from Iraq to Syria, from Mali to Algeria, from Somalia to Kenya, but they're not fighting a global jihad against some far enemy.
But that doesn't mean that we can relax. I was in Yemen recently, where -- it's the home of the last al Qaeda franchise that still aspires to attack America, attack the West. It's old school al Qaeda. You may remember these guys. They are the ones who tried to send the underwear bomber here, and they were using the Internet to try and instigate violence among American Muslims. But they have been distracted recently. Last year, they took control over a portion of southern Yemen, and ran it, Taliban-style. And then the Yemeni military got its act together, and ordinary people rose up against these guys and drove them out, and since then, most of their activities, most of their attacks have been directed at Yemenis.
So I think we've come to a point now where we can say that, just like all politics, all jihad is local. But that's still not reason for us to disengage, because we've seen that movie before, in Afghanistan. When those Mujahideen defeated the Soviet Union, we disengaged. And even before the fizz had gone out of our celebratory champagne, the Taliban had taken over in Kabul, and we said, "Local jihad, not our problem." And then the Taliban gave the keys of Kandahar to Osama bin Laden. He made it our problem. Local jihad, if you ignore it, becomes global jihad again.
The good news is that it doesn't have to be. We know how to fight it now. We have the tools. We have the knowhow, and we can take the lessons we've learned from the fight against global jihad, the victory against global jihad, and apply those to local jihad.
What are those lessons? We know who killed bin Laden: SEAL Team Six. Do we know, do we understand, who killed bin Ladenism? Who ended the global jihad? There lie the answers to the solution to local jihad.
Who killed bin Ladenism? Let's start with bin Laden himself. He probably thought 9/11 was his greatest achievement. In reality, it was the beginning of the end for him. He killed 3,000 innocent people, and that filled the Muslim world with horror and revulsion, and what that meant was that his idea of jihad could never become mainstream. He condemned himself to operating on the lunatic fringes of his own community. 9/11 didn't empower him; it doomed him.
Who killed bin Ladenism? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed it. He was the especially sadistic head of al Qaeda in Iraq who sent hundreds of suicide bombers to attack not Americans but Iraqis. Muslims. Sunni as well as Shiites. Any claim that al Qaeda had to being protectors of Islam against the Western crusaders was drowned in the blood of Iraqi Muslims.
Who killed Osama bin Laden? The SEAL Team Six. Who killed bin Ladenism? Al Jazeera did, Al Jazeera and half a dozen other satellite news stations in Arabic, because they circumvented the old, state-owned television stations in a lot of these countries which were designed to keep information from people. Al Jazeera brought information to them, showed them what was being said and done in the name of their religion, exposed the hypocrisy of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and allowed them, gave them the information that allowed them to come to their own conclusions.
Who killed bin Ladenism? The Arab Spring did, because it showed a way for young Muslims to bring about change in a manner that Osama bin Laden, with his limited imagination, could never have conceived.
Who defeated the global jihad? The American military did, the American soldiers did, with their allies, fighting in faraway battlefields. And perhaps, a time will come when they get the rightful credit for it.
So all these factors, and many more besides, we don't even fully understand some of them yet, these came together to defeat a monstrosity as big as bin Ladenism, the global jihad, you needed this group effort.
Now, not all of these things will work in local jihad. The American military is not going to march into Nigeria to take on Boko Haram, and it's unlikely that SEAL Team Six will rappel into the homes of al Shabaab's leaders and take them out.
But many of these other factors that were in play are now even stronger than before. Half the work is already done. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. The notion of violent jihad in which more Muslims are killed than any other kind of people is already thoroughly discredited. We don't have to go back to that. Satellite television and the Internet are informing and empowering young Muslims in exciting new ways. And the Arab Spring has produced governments, many of them Islamist governments, who know that, for their own self-preservation, they need to take on the extremists in their midsts. We don't need to persuade them, but we do need to help them, because they haven't really come to this place before.
The good news, again, is that a lot of the things they need we already have, and we are very good at giving: economic assistance, not just money, but expertise, technology, knowhow, private investment, fair terms of trade, medicine, education, technical support for training for their police forces to become more effective, for their anti-terror forces to become more efficient. We've got plenty of these things.
Some of the other things that they need we're not very good at giving. Maybe nobody is. Time, patience, subtlety, understanding -- these are harder to give. I live in New York now. Just this week, posters have gone up in subway stations in New York that describe jihad as savage.
But in all the many years that I have covered the Middle East, I have never been as optimistic as I am today that the gap between the Muslim world and the West is narrowing fast, and one of the many reasons for my optimism is that, because I know there are millions, hundreds of millions of people, Muslims like that old imam in Tunis, who are reclaiming this word and restoring to its original, beautiful purpose. Bin Laden is dead. Bin Ladenism has been defeated. His definition of jihad can now be expunged. To that jihad we can say, "Goodbye. Good riddance." To the real jihad we can say, "Welcome back. Good luck." Thank you. (Applause) |
Hey, I am Michael Shermer, the director of the Skeptics Society, the publisher of "Skeptic" magazine. We investigate claims of the paranormal, pseudo-science, and fringe groups and cults and claims of all kinds between -- science and pseudo-science and non-science and junk science, voodoo science, pathological science, bad science, non-science and plain old nonsense. And unless you've been on Mars recently, you know there's a lot of that out there.
Some people call us debunkers, which is kind of a negative term. But let's face it -- there's a lot of bunk, and we are like the bunko squads of the police departments out there, flushing out. Well, we're sort of like the Ralph Naders of bad ideas (Laughter) -- trying to replace bad ideas with good ideas.
I'll show you an example of a bad idea. I brought this with me. This was given to us by NBC Dateline to test. It's the -- it's produced by the Quadro Corporation of West Virginia. It's called the Quadro 2000 Dowser Rod. (Laughter) This was being sold to high school administrators for 900 dollars a piece. It's a piece of plastic with a Radio Shack antenna attached to it. You could dowse for all sorts of things, but this particular one was built to dowse for marijuana in students' lockers. (Laughter)
So the way it works is, you go down the hallway and you see if it tilts toward a particular locker, and then you open the locker. So it looks something like this. I'll show you. (Laughter) No, it -- well, it has kind of a right-leaning bias. So, I'll show -- well, this is science, so we'll do a controlled experiment. It'll go this way for sure. (Laughter)
Sir, you want to empty your pockets. Please, sir? (Laughter)
So the question was, can it actually find marijuana in students' lockers? And the answer is, if you open enough of them, yes. (Laughter) (Applause)
But in science, we have to keep track of the misses, not just the hits. And that's probably the key lesson to my short talk here, is that this is how psychics work, astrologers, and tarot card readers and so on. People remember the hits; they forget the misses. In science we have to keep the whole database, and look to see if the number of hits somehow stands out from the total number that you would expect by chance.
In this case, we tested it. We had two opaque boxes: one with government-approved THC marijuana, and one with nothing. And it got it 50 percent of the time -- which is exactly what you'd expect with a coin flip model. So that's just a fun little example here of the sorts of things we do.
"Skeptic" is the quarterly publication. Each one has a particular theme, like this one is on the future of intelligence. Are people getting smarter or dumber? I have an opinion of this myself because of the business I'm in, but, in fact, people, it turns out, are getting smarter. Three IQ points per 10 years, going up. Sort of an interesting thing.
With science, don't think of skepticism as a thing or even science as a thing. Are science and religion compatible? It's like, are science and plumbing compatible? These -- they're just two different things. Science is not a thing. It's a verb. It's a way of thinking about things. It's a way of looking for natural explanations for all phenomena.
I mean, what's more likely: that extraterrestrial intelligences or multi-dimensional beings travel across the vast distances of interstellar space to leave a crop circle in Farmer Bob's field in Puckerbrush, Kansas to promote skeptic.com, our webpage? Or is it more likely that a reader of "Skeptic" did this with Photoshop? And in all cases we have to ask (Laughter) -- what's the more likely explanation? And before we say something is out of this world, we should first make sure that it's not in this world. What's more likely -- that Arnold had a little extraterrestrial help in his run for the governorship? Or that the "World Weekly News" makes stuff up? (Laughter)
And part of that -- the same theme is expressed nicely here in this Sidney Harris cartoon. For those of you in the back, it says here: "Then a miracle occurs. I think you need to be more explicit here in step two." This single slide completely dismantles the intelligent design arguments. There's nothing more to it than that. (Applause) You can say a miracle occurs. It's just that it doesn't explain anything. It doesn't offer anything. There's nothing to test. It's the end of the conversation for intelligent design creationists.
Whereas -- and it's true, scientists sometimes throw terms out as linguistic place fillers -- dark energy or dark matter or something like that -- until we figure out what it is, we'll just call it this -- it's the beginning of the causal chain for science. For intelligent design creationists, it's the end of the chain. So again, we can ask this: what's more likely? Are UFOs alien spaceships or perceptual cognitive mistakes -- or even fakes?
This is a UFO shot from my house in Altadena, California, looking down over Pasadena. And if it looks a lot like a Buick hubcap, it's because it is. You don't even need Photoshop; you don't need high-tech equipment; you don't need computers. This was shot with a throwaway Kodak Instamatic camera. You just have somebody off on the side with a hubcap ready to go. Camera's ready -- that's it. (Laughter)
So, although it's possible that most of these things are fake or illusions or so on and that some of them are real, it's more likely that all of them are fake, like the crop circles.
On a more serious note, in all of science we're looking for a balance between data and theory. In the case of Galileo, he had two problems when he turned his telescope to Saturn. First of all, there was no theory of planetary rings. And second of all, his data was grainy and fuzzy, and he couldn't quite make out what it was he was looking at. So he wrote that he had seen -- "I have observed that the furthest planet has three bodies." And this is what he ended up concluding that he saw. So without a theory of planetary rings and with only grainy data, you can't have a good theory. And it wasn't solved until 1655.
This is Christiaan Huygens's book in which he cataloged all the mistakes that people made in trying to figure out what was going on with Saturn. It wasn't till -- Huygens had two things. He had a good theory of planetary rings and how the solar system operated. And then, he had better telescopic, more fine-grain data in which he could figure out that as the Earth is going around faster -- according to Kepler's Laws -- than Saturn, then we catch up with it. And we see the angles of the rings at different angles, there. And that, in fact, turns out to be true.
The problems with having a theory is that your theory may be loaded with cognitive biases. So one of the problems of explaining why people believe weird things is that we have things on a simple level. And then I'll go to more serious ones. Like, we have a tendency to see faces.
This is the face on Mars, which was -- in 1976, where there was a whole movement to get NASA to photograph that area because people thought this was monumental architecture made by Martians. Well, it turns out -- here's the close-up of it from 2001. If you squint, you can still see the face. And when you're squinting, what you're doing is you're turning that from fine-grain to coarse-grain. And so, you're reducing the quality of your data. And if I didn't tell you what to look for, you'd still see the face, because we're programmed by evolution to see faces.
Faces are important for us socially. And, of course, happy faces. Faces of all kinds are easy to see. (Laughter) You can see the happy face on Mars, there. If astronomers were frogs perhaps they'd see Kermit the Frog. Do you see him there? Little froggy legs. Or if geologists were elephants?
Religious iconography. (Laughter) Discovered by a Tennessee baker in 1996. He charged five bucks a head to come see the nun bun till he got a cease-and-desist from Mother Teresa's lawyer. Here's Our Lady of Guadalupe and Our Lady of Watsonville, just down the street, or is it up the street from here? Tree bark is particularly good because it's nice and grainy, branchy, black-and-white splotchy and you can get the pattern-seeking -- humans are pattern-seeking animals.
Here's the Virgin Mary on the side of a glass window in Sao Paulo. Now, here's the Virgin Mary made her appearance on a cheese sandwich -- which I got to actually hold in a Las Vegas casino, of course, this being America. (Laughter) This casino paid 28,500 dollars on eBay for the cheese sandwich. (Laughter) But who does it really look like, the Virgin Mary? (Laughter) It has that sort of puckered lips, 1940s-era look.
Virgin Mary in Clearwater, Florida. I actually went to see this one. There was a lot of people there -- the faithful come to be in their -- wheelchairs and crutches, and so on. And we went down, investigated. Just to give you a size -- that's Dawkins, me and The Amazing Randi, next to this two, two and a half story size image. All these candles, so many thousands of candles people had lit in tribute to this. So we walked around the backside, just to see what was going on here, where -- it turns out wherever there's a sprinkler head and a palm tree, you get the effect. Here's the Virgin Mary on the backside, which they started to wipe off. I guess you can only have one miracle per building. (Laughter) So is it really a miracle of Mary, or is it a miracle of Marge? (Laughter)
And then I'm going to finish up with another example of this with audio -- auditory illusions. There is this film, "White Noise," with Michael Keaton about the dead talking back to us. By the way, this whole business of talking to the dead, it's not that big a deal. Anybody can do it, turns out. It's getting the dead to talk back that's the really hard part. (Laughter)
In this case, supposedly, these messages are hidden in electronic phenomena. There's a ReverseSpeech.com web page from which I downloaded this stuff. Here is the forward -- this is the most famous one of all of these. Here's the forward version of the very famous song. (Music) Boy, couldn't you just listen to that all day? (Laughter)
All right, here it is backwards, and see if you can hear the hidden messages that are supposedly in there. (Music) What did you get?
Audience: "Satan."
Michael Shermer: "Satan?" OK, well, at least we got "Satan." Now, I'll prime your auditory part of your brain to tell you what you're supposed to hear, and then hear it again. (Music) (Laughter) (Applause)
You can't miss it when I tell you what's there. (Laughter)
All right, I'm going to just end with a positive, nice, little story about -- the Skeptics is a nonprofit educational organization. We're always looking for little, good things that people do.
And in England, there's a pop singer. Very -- one of the top popular singers in England today, Katie Melua. And she wrote a beautiful song. It was in the top five in 2005, called, "Nine Million Bicycles in Beijing." It's a love story -- she's sort of the Norah Jones of the U.K. -- about how she much loves her guy, and compared to nine million bicycles, and so forth. And she has this one passage here.
♫ We are 12 billion light-years from the edge ♫
♫ That's a guess ♫
♫ No one can ever say it's true ♫
♫ But I know that I will always be with you ♫
Well, that's nice. At least she got it close. In America it would be, "We're 6,000 light years from the edge."
(Laughter)
But my friend, Simon Singh, the particle physicist now turned science educator, and he wrote the book "The Big Bang," and so on. He uses every chance he gets to promote good science. And so, he wrote an op-ed piece in "The Guardian" about Katie's song, in which he said, well, we know exactly how old, how far from the edge. You know, it's 12 -- it's 13.7 billion light years, and it's not a guess. We know within precise error bars there how close it is. And so, we can say, although not absolutely true, that it's pretty close to being true.
And, to his credit, Katie called him up after this op-ed piece came out. And said, "I'm so embarrassed. I was a member of the astronomy club, and I should have known better." And she re-cut the song. So I'll end with the new version. ♫ We are 13.7 billion light years ♫ ♫ from the edge of the observable universe ♫ ♫ That's a good estimate with well-defined error bars ♫ ♫ And with the available information ♫ ♫ I predict that I will always be with you ♫ (Applause)
How cool is that? (Applause) |
So, before I became a dermatologist, I started in general medicine, as most dermatologists do in Britain. At the end of that time, I went off to Australia, about 20 years ago. What you learn when you go to Australia is the Australians are very competitive. And they are not magnanimous in victory. And that happened a lot: "You pommies, you can't play cricket, rugby." I could accept that.
But moving into work -- and we have each week what's called a journal club, when you'd sit down with the other doctors and you'd study a scientific paper in relation to medicine. And after week one, it was about cardiovascular mortality, a dry subject -- how many people die of heart disease, what the rates are. And they were competitive about this: "You pommies, your rates of heart disease are shocking."
And of course, they were right. Australians have about a third less heart disease than we do -- less deaths from heart attacks, heart failure, less strokes -- they're generally a healthier bunch. And of course they said this was because of their fine moral standing, their exercise, because they're Australians and we're weedy pommies, and so on.
But it's not just Australia that has better health than Britain. Within Britain, there is a gradient of health -- and this is what's called standardized mortality, basically your chances of dying. This is looking at data from the paper about 20 years ago, but it's true today. Comparing your rates of dying 50 degrees north -- that's the South, that's London and places -- by latitude, and 55 degrees -- the bad news is that's here, Glasgow. I'm from Edinburgh. Worse news, that's even Edinburgh.
(Laughter)
So what accounts for this horrible space here between us up here in southern Scotland and the South? Now, we know about smoking, deep-fried Mars bars, chips -- the Glasgow diet. All of these things. But this graph is after taking into account all of these known risk factors. This is after accounting for smoking, social class, diet, all those other known risk factors. We are left with this missing space of increased deaths the further north you go.
Now, sunlight, of course, comes into this. And vitamin D has had a great deal of press, and a lot of people get concerned about it. And we need vitamin D. It's now a requirement that children have a certain amount. My grandmother grew up in Glasgow, back in the 1920s and '30s when rickets was a real problem and cod liver oil was brought in. And that really prevented the rickets that used to be common in this city. And I as a child was fed cod liver oil by my grandmother. I distinctly -- nobody forgets cod liver oil.
But an association: The higher people's blood levels of vitamin D are, the less heart disease they have, the less cancer. There seems to be a lot of data suggesting that vitamin D is very good for you. And it is, to prevent rickets and so on. But if you give people vitamin D supplements, you don't change that high rate of heart disease. And the evidence for it preventing cancers is not yet great. So what I'm going to suggest is that vitamin D is not the only story in town. It's not the only reason preventing heart disease. High vitamin D levels, I think, are a marker for sunlight exposure, and sunlight exposure, in methods I'm going to show, is good for heart disease.
Anyway, I came back from Australia, and despite the obvious risks to my health, I moved to Aberdeen. (Laughter) Now, in Aberdeen, I started my dermatology training. But I also became interested in research, and in particular I became interested in this substance, nitric oxide. Now these three guys up here, Furchgott, Ignarro and Murad, won the Nobel Prize for medicine back in 1998. And they were the first people to describe this new chemical transmitter, nitric oxide. What nitric oxide does is it dilates blood vessels, so it lowers your blood pressure. It also dilates the coronary arteries, so it stops angina.
And what was remarkable about it was in the past when we think of chemical messengers within the body, we thought of complicated things like estrogen and insulin, or nerve transmission. Very complex processes with very complex chemicals that fit into very complex receptors. And here's this incredibly simple molecule, a nitrogen and an oxygen that are stuck together, and yet these are hugely important for [unclear] our low blood pressure, for neurotransmission, for many, many things, but particularly cardiovascular health.
And I started doing research, and we found, very excitingly, that the skin produces nitric oxide. So it's not just in the cardiovascular system it arises. It arises in the skin. Well, having found that and published that, I thought, well, what's it doing? How do you have low blood pressure in your skin? It's not the heart. What do you do?
So I went off to the States, as many people do if they're going to do research, and I spent a few years in Pittsburgh. This is Pittsburgh. And I was interested in these really complex systems. We thought that maybe nitric oxide affected cell death, and how cells survive, and their resistance to other things. And I first off started work in cell culture, growing cells, and then I was using knockout mouse models -- mice that couldn't make the gene. We worked out a mechanism, which -- NO was helping cells survive.
And I then moved back to Edinburgh. And in Edinburgh, the experimental animal we use is the medical student. It's a species close to human, with several advantages over mice: They're free, you don't shave them, they feed themselves, and nobody pickets your office saying, "Save the lab medical student." So they're really an ideal model.
But what we found was that we couldn't reproduce in man the data we had shown in mice. It seemed we couldn't turn off the production of nitric oxide in the skin of humans. We put on creams that blocked the enzyme that made it, we injected things. We couldn't turn off the nitric oxide.
And the reason for this, it turned out, after two or three years' work, was that in the skin we have huge stores not of nitric oxide, because nitric oxide is a gas, and it's released -- (Poof!) -- and in a few seconds it's away, but it can be turned into these forms of nitric oxide -- nitrate, NO3; nitrite, NO2; nitrosothiols. And these are more stable, and your skin has got really large stores of NO. And we then thought to ourselves, with those big stores, I wonder if sunlight might activate those stores and release them from the skin, where the stores are about 10 times as big as what's in the circulation. Could the sun activate those stores into the circulation, and there in the circulation do its good things for your cardiovascular system?
Well, I'm an experimental dermatologist, so what we did was we thought we'd have to expose our experimental animals to sunlight. And so what we did was we took a bunch of volunteers and we exposed them to ultraviolet light. So these are kind of sunlamps. Now, what we were careful to do was, vitamin D is made by ultraviolet B rays and we wanted to separate our story from the vitamin D story. So we used ultraviolet A, which doesn't make vitamin D.
When we put people under a lamp for the equivalent of about 30 minutes of sunshine in summer in Edinburgh, what we produced was, we produced a rise in circulating nitric oxide. So we put patients with these subjects under the UV, and their NO levels do go up, and their blood pressure goes down. Not by much, as an individual level, but enough at a population level to shift the rates of heart disease in a whole population. And when we shone UV at them, or when we warmed them up to the same level as the lamps, but didn't actually let the rays hit the skin, this didn't happen. So this seems to be a feature of ultraviolet rays hitting the skin.
Now, we're still collecting data. A few good things here: This appeared to be more marked in older people. I'm not sure exactly how much. One of the subjects here was my mother-in-law, and clearly I do not know her age. But certainly in people older than my wife, this appears to be a more marked effect. And the other thing I should mention was there was no change in vitamin D. This is separate from vitamin D. So vitamin D is good for you -- it stops rickets, it prevents calcium metabolism, important stuff. But this is a separate mechanism from vitamin D.
Now, one of the problems with looking at blood pressure is your body does everything it can to keep your blood pressure at the same place. If your leg is chopped off and you lose blood, your body will clamp down, increase the heart rate, do everything it can to keep your blood pressure up. That is an absolutely fundamental physiological principle.
So what we've next done is we've moved on to looking at blood vessel dilatation. So we've measured -- this is again, notice no tail and hairless, this is a medical student. In the arm, you can measure blood flow in the arm by how much it swells up as some blood flows into it. And what we've shown is that doing a sham irradiation -- this is the thick line here -- this is shining UV on the arm so it warms up but keeping it covered so the rays don't hit the skin. There is no change in blood flow, in dilatation of the blood vessels. But the active irradiation, during the UV and for an hour after it, there is dilation of the blood vessels. This is the mechanism by which you lower blood pressure, by which you dilate the coronary arteries also, to let the blood be supplied with the heart. So here, further data that ultraviolet -- that's sunlight -- has benefits on the blood flow and the cardiovascular system.
So we thought we'd just kind of model -- Different amounts of UV hit different parts of the Earth at different times of year, so you can actually work out those stores of nitric oxide -- the nitrates, nitrites, nitrosothiols in the skin -- cleave to release NO. Different wavelengths of light have different activities of doing that. So you can look at the wavelengths of light that do that. And you can look -- So, if you live on the equator, the sun comes straight overhead, it comes through a very thin bit of atmosphere. In winter or summer, it's the same amount of light. If you live up here, in summer the sun is coming fairly directly down, but in winter it's coming through a huge amount of atmosphere, and much of the ultraviolet is weeded out, and the range of wavelengths that hit the Earth are different from summer to winter. So what you can do is you can multiply those data by the NO that's released and you can calculate how much nitric oxide would be released from the skin into the circulation.
Now, if you're on the equator here -- that's these two lines here, the red line and the purple line -- the amount of nitric oxide that's released is the area under the curve, it's the area in this space here. So if you're on the equator, December or June, you've got masses of NO being released from the skin. So Ventura is in southern California. In summer, you might as well be at the equator. It's great. Lots of NO is released. Ventura mid-winter, well, there's still a decent amount. Edinburgh in summer, the area beneath the curve is pretty good, but Edinburgh in winter, the amount of NO that can be released is next to nothing, tiny amounts.
So what do we think? We're still working at this story, we're still developing it, we're still expanding it. We think it's very important. We think it probably accounts for a lot of the north-south health divide within Britain, It's of relevance to us. We think that the skin -- well, we know that the skin has got very large stores of nitric oxide as these various other forms. We suspect a lot of these come from diet, green leafy vegetables, beetroot, lettuce has a lot of these nitric oxides that we think go to the skin. We think they're then stored in the skin, and we think the sunlight releases this where it has generally beneficial effects.
And this is ongoing work, but dermatologists -- I mean, I'm a dermatologist. My day job is saying to people, "You've got skin cancer, it's caused by sunlight, don't go in the sun." I actually think a far more important message is that there are benefits as well as risks to sunlight. Yes, sunlight is the major alterable risk factor for skin cancer, but deaths from heart disease are a hundred times higher than deaths from skin cancer. And I think that we need to be more aware of, and we need to find the risk-benefit ratio. How much sunlight is safe, and how can we finesse this best for our general health?
So, thank you very much indeed. (Applause) |
Let me show you some images of what I consider to be the cities of tomorrow. So, that's Kibera, the largest squatter community in Nairobi. This is the squatter community in Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Bombay, India, what's called Mumbai these days. This is Hosinia, the largest and most urbanized favela in Rio de Janeiro. And this is Sultanbelyi, which is one of the largest squatter communities in Istanbul. They are what I consider to be the cities of tomorrow, the new urban world.
Now, why do I say that? To tell you about that I have to talk about this fellow here, his name is Julius. And I met Julius the last week that I was living in Kibera. So, I had been there almost three months, and I was touring around the city going to different squatter areas and Julius was tagging along, and he was bug eyed and at certain points we were walking around, he grabbed my hand for support, which is something most Kenyans would never consider doing. They're very polite and they don't get so forward so quickly. And I found out later that it was Julius' first day in Nairobi, and he's one of many.
So, close to 200,000 people a day migrate from the rural to the urban areas. That's, and I'm going to be fair to the statisticians who talked this morning, not almost 1.5 million people a week, but almost 1.4 million people a week but I'm a journalist, and we exaggerate, so almost 1.5 million people a week, close to 70 million people a year. And if you do the math, that's 130 people every minute. So, that'll be -- in the 18 minutes that I'm given to talk here, between two and three thousand people will have journeyed to the cities. And here are the statistics. Today -- a billion squatters, one in six people on the planet. 2030 -- two billion squatters, one in four people on the planet. And the estimate is that in 2050, there'll be three billion squatters, better than one in three people on earth. So, these are the cities of the future, and we have to engage them.
And I was thinking this morning of the good life, and before I show you the rest of my presentation, I'm going to violate TED rules here, and I'm going to read you something from my book as quickly as I can. Because I think it says something about reversing our perception of what we think the good life is.
So -- "The hut was made of corrugated metal, set on a concrete pad. It was a 10 by 10 cell. Armstrong O'Brian, Jr. shared it with three other men. Armstrong and his friends had no water -- they bought it from a nearby tap owner -- no toilet -- the families in this compound shared a single pit-latrine -- and no sewers or sanitation. They did have electricity, but it was illegal service tapped from someone else's wires, and could only power one feeble bulb. This was Southland, a small shanty community on the western side of Nairobi, Kenya. But it could've been anywhere in the city, because more than half the city of Nairobi lives like this. 1.5 million people stuffed into mud or metal huts with no services, no toilets, no rights.
"Armstrong explained the brutal reality of their situation: they paid 1,500 shillings in rent, about 20 bucks a month, a relatively high price for a Kenyan shantytown, and they could not afford to be late with the money. 'In case you owe one month, the landlord will come with his henchmen and bundle you out. He will confiscate your things,' Armstrong said. 'Not one month, one day,' his roommate Hilary Kibagendi Onsomu, who was cooking ugali, the spongy white cornmeal concoction that is the staple food in the country, cut into the conversation. They called their landlord a Wabenzi, meaning that he is a person who has enough money to drive a Mercedes-Benz. Hilary served the ugali with a fry of meat and tomatoes; the sun slammed down on the thin steel roof; and we perspired as we ate.
"After we finished, Armstrong straightened his tie, put on a wool sports jacket, and we headed out into the glare. Outside a mound of garbage formed the border between Southland and the adjacent legal neighborhood of Langata. It was perhaps eight feet tall, 40 feet long, and 10 feet wide. And it was set in a wider watery ooze. As we passed, two boys were climbing the mount Kenya of trash. They couldn't have been more than five or six years old. They were barefoot, and with each step their toes sank into the muck sending hundreds of flies scattering from the rancid pile. I thought they might be playing King of the Hill, but I was wrong. Once atop the pile, one of the boys lowered his shorts, squatted, and defecated. The flies buzzed hungrily around his legs. When 20 families -- 100 people or so -- share a single latrine, a boy pooping on a garbage pile is perhaps no big thing. But it stood in jarring contrast to something Armstrong had said as we were eating -- that he treasured the quality of life in his neighborhood.
"For Armstrong, Southland wasn't constrained by its material conditions. Instead, the human spirit radiated out from the metal walls and garbage heaps to offer something no legal neighborhood could: freedom. 'This place is very addictive,' he had said. 'It's a simple life, but nobody is restricting you. Nobody is controlling what you do. Once you have stayed here, you cannot go back.' He meant back beyond that mountain of trash, back in the legal city, of legal buildings, with legal leases and legal rights. 'Once you have stayed here,' he said, 'you can stay for the rest of your life.'"
So, he has hope, and this is where these communities start.
This is perhaps the most primitive shanty that you can find in Kibera, little more than a stick-and-mud hut next to a garbage heap. This is getting ready for the monsoon in Bombay, India. This is home improvement: putting plastic tarps on your roof.
This is in Rio de Janeiro, and it's getting a bit better, right? We're seeing scavenged terra cotta tile and little pieces of signs, and plaster over the brick, some color, and this is Sulay Montakaya's house in Sultanbelyi, and it's getting even better. He's got a fence; he scavenged a door; he's got new tile on the roof.
And then you get Rocinha and you can see that it's getting even better. The buildings here are multi-story. They develop -- you can see on the far right one where it seems to just stack on top of each other, room, after room, after room. And what people do is they develop their home on one or two stories, and they sell their loggia or roof rights, and someone else builds on top of their building, and then that person sells the roof rights, and someone else builds on top of their building. All of these buildings are made out of reinforced concrete and brick.
And then you get Sultanbelyi, in Turkey, where it's even built to a higher level of design. The crud in the front is mattress stuffing, and you see that all over Turkey. People dry out or air out their mattress stuffing on their roofs. But the green building, on behind, you can see that the top floor is not occupied, so people are building with the possibility of expansion. And it's built to a pretty high standard of design.
And then you finally get squatter homes like this, which is built on the suburban model. Hey, that's a single family home in the squatter community. That's also in Istanbul, Turkey. They're quite vital places, these communities.
This is the main drag of Rocinha, the Estrada da Gavea, and there's a bus route that runs through it, lots of people out on the street. These communities in these cities are actually more vital than the illegal communities. They have more things going on in them.
This is a typical pathway in Rocinha called a "beco" -- these are how you get around the community. It's on very steep ground. They're built on the hills, inland from the beaches in Rio, and you can see that the houses are just cantilevered over the natural obstructions. So, that's just a rock in the hillside. And these becos are normally very crowded, and people hump furniture up them, or refrigerators up them, all sorts of things. Beer is all carried in on your shoulders. Beer is a very important thing in Brazil.
This is commerce in Kenya, right along the train tracks, so close to the train tracks that the merchants sometimes have to pull the merchandise out of the way. This is a marketplace, also in Kenya, Toi Market, lots of dealers, in almost everything you want to buy. Those green things in the foreground are mangoes.
This is a shopping street in Kibera, and you can see that there's a soda dealer, a health clinic, two beauty salons, a bar, two grocery stores, and a church, and more. It's a typical downtown street; it just happens to be self-built. This here, on the right-hand side, is what's called a -- if you look at the fine print under the awning -- it's a hotel. And what hotel means, in Kenya and India, is an eating-place. So, that's a restaurant.
People steal electrical power -- this is Rio. People tap in and they have thieves who are called "grillos" or "crickets," and they steal the electrical power and wire the neighborhood. People burn trash to get rid of the garbage, and they dig their own sewer channels. Talk about more plastic bags than plankton. And sometimes they have natural trash-disposal. And when they have more money they cement their streets, and they put in sewers and good water pipes, and stuff like that. This is water going to Rio. People run their water pipes all over the place, and that little hut right there has a pump in it, and that's what people do: they steal electricity; they install a pump and they tap into the water main, and pump water up to their houses.
So, the question is how do you go from the mud-hut village, to the more developed city, to the even highly developed Sultanbelyi? I say there are two things. One is people need a guarantee they won't be evicted. That does not necessarily mean property rights, and I would disagree with Hernando de Soto on that question, because property rights create a lot of complications. They're most often sold to people, and people then wind up in debt and have to pay back the debt, and sometimes have to sell their property in order to pay back the debt. There's a whole variety of other reasons why property rights sometimes don't work in these cases, but they do need security of tenure. And they need access to politics, and that can mean two things. That can mean community organizing from below, but it can also mean possibilities from above. And I say that because the system in Turkey is notable.
Turkey has two great laws that protect squatters. One is that -- it's called "gecekondu" in Turkish, which means "built overnight," and if you build your house overnight in Turkey, you can't be evicted without due process of law, if they don't catch you during the night. And the second aspect is that once you have 2,000 people in the community, you can petition the government to be recognized as a legal sub-municipality. And when you're a legal sub-municipality, you suddenly have politics. You're allowed to have an elected government, collect taxes, provide municipal services, and that's exactly what they do.
So, these are the civic leaders of the future. The woman in the center is Geeta Jiwa. She lives in one of those tents on the highway median in Mumbai. That's Sureka Gundi; she also lives with her family on the tent along the same highway median. They're very outspoken. They're very active. They can be community leaders. This woman is Nine, which means "grandma" in Turkish. And there were three old ladies who lived in -- that's her self-built house behind her -- and they've lived there for 30 or 40 years, and they are the backbone of the community there.
This is Richard Muthama Peter, and he is an itinerant street photographer in Kibera. He makes money taking pictures of the neighborhood, and the people in the neighborhood, and is a great resource in the community.
And finally my choice to run for mayor of Rio is Cezinio, the fruit merchant with his two kids here, and a more honest and giving and caring man I don't know.
The future of these communities is in the people and in our ability to work with those people. So, I think the message I take, from what I read from the book, from what Armstrong said, and from all these people, is that these are neighborhoods. The issue is not urban poverty. The issue is not the larger, over-arching thing. The issue is for us to recognize that these are neighborhoods -- this is a legitimate form of urban development -- and that cities have to engage these residents, because they are building the cities of the future.
Thank you very much. |
I would like to tell you a story connecting the notorious privacy incident involving Adam and Eve, and the remarkable shift in the boundaries between public and private which has occurred in the past 10 years.
You know the incident. Adam and Eve one day in the Garden of Eden realize they are naked. They freak out. And the rest is history.
Nowadays, Adam and Eve would probably act differently.
[@Adam Last nite was a blast! loved dat apple LOL]
[@Eve yep.. babe, know what happened to my pants tho?]
We do reveal so much more information about ourselves online than ever before, and so much information about us is being collected by organizations. Now there is much to gain and benefit from this massive analysis of personal information, or big data, but there are also complex tradeoffs that come from giving away our privacy. And my story is about these tradeoffs.
We start with an observation which, in my mind, has become clearer and clearer in the past few years, that any personal information can become sensitive information. Back in the year 2000, about 100 billion photos were shot worldwide, but only a minuscule proportion of them were actually uploaded online. In 2010, only on Facebook, in a single month, 2.5 billion photos were uploaded, most of them identified. In the same span of time, computers' ability to recognize people in photos improved by three orders of magnitude. What happens when you combine these technologies together: increasing availability of facial data; improving facial recognizing ability by computers; but also cloud computing, which gives anyone in this theater the kind of computational power which a few years ago was only the domain of three-letter agencies; and ubiquitous computing, which allows my phone, which is not a supercomputer, to connect to the Internet and do there hundreds of thousands of face metrics in a few seconds? Well, we conjecture that the result of this combination of technologies will be a radical change in our very notions of privacy and anonymity.
To test that, we did an experiment on Carnegie Mellon University campus. We asked students who were walking by to participate in a study, and we took a shot with a webcam, and we asked them to fill out a survey on a laptop. While they were filling out the survey, we uploaded their shot to a cloud-computing cluster, and we started using a facial recognizer to match that shot to a database of some hundreds of thousands of images which we had downloaded from Facebook profiles. By the time the subject reached the last page on the survey, the page had been dynamically updated with the 10 best matching photos which the recognizer had found, and we asked the subjects to indicate whether he or she found themselves in the photo.
Do you see the subject? Well, the computer did, and in fact did so for one out of three subjects.
So essentially, we can start from an anonymous face, offline or online, and we can use facial recognition to give a name to that anonymous face thanks to social media data. But a few years back, we did something else. We started from social media data, we combined it statistically with data from U.S. government social security, and we ended up predicting social security numbers, which in the United States are extremely sensitive information.
Do you see where I'm going with this? So if you combine the two studies together, then the question becomes, can you start from a face and, using facial recognition, find a name and publicly available information about that name and that person, and from that publicly available information infer non-publicly available information, much more sensitive ones which you link back to the face? And the answer is, yes, we can, and we did. Of course, the accuracy keeps getting worse. [27% of subjects' first 5 SSN digits identified (with 4 attempts)] But in fact, we even decided to develop an iPhone app which uses the phone's internal camera to take a shot of a subject and then upload it to a cloud and then do what I just described to you in real time: looking for a match, finding public information, trying to infer sensitive information, and then sending back to the phone so that it is overlaid on the face of the subject, an example of augmented reality, probably a creepy example of augmented reality. In fact, we didn't develop the app to make it available, just as a proof of concept.
In fact, take these technologies and push them to their logical extreme. Imagine a future in which strangers around you will look at you through their Google Glasses or, one day, their contact lenses, and use seven or eight data points about you to infer anything else which may be known about you. What will this future without secrets look like? And should we care?
We may like to believe that the future with so much wealth of data would be a future with no more biases, but in fact, having so much information doesn't mean that we will make decisions which are more objective. In another experiment, we presented to our subjects information about a potential job candidate. We included in this information some references to some funny, absolutely legal, but perhaps slightly embarrassing information that the subject had posted online. Now interestingly, among our subjects, some had posted comparable information, and some had not. Which group do you think was more likely to judge harshly our subject? Paradoxically, it was the group who had posted similar information, an example of moral dissonance.
Now you may be thinking, this does not apply to me, because I have nothing to hide. But in fact, privacy is not about having something negative to hide. Imagine that you are the H.R. director of a certain organization, and you receive résumés, and you decide to find more information about the candidates. Therefore, you Google their names and in a certain universe, you find this information. Or in a parallel universe, you find this information. Do you think that you would be equally likely to call either candidate for an interview? If you think so, then you are not like the U.S. employers who are, in fact, part of our experiment, meaning we did exactly that. We created Facebook profiles, manipulating traits, then we started sending out résumés to companies in the U.S., and we detected, we monitored, whether they were searching for our candidates, and whether they were acting on the information they found on social media. And they were. Discrimination was happening through social media for equally skilled candidates.
Now marketers like us to believe that all information about us will always be used in a manner which is in our favor. But think again. Why should that be always the case? In a movie which came out a few years ago, "Minority Report," a famous scene had Tom Cruise walk in a mall and holographic personalized advertising would appear around him. Now, that movie is set in 2054, about 40 years from now, and as exciting as that technology looks, it already vastly underestimates the amount of information that organizations can gather about you, and how they can use it to influence you in a way that you will not even detect.
So as an example, this is another experiment actually we are running, not yet completed. Imagine that an organization has access to your list of Facebook friends, and through some kind of algorithm they can detect the two friends that you like the most. And then they create, in real time, a facial composite of these two friends. Now studies prior to ours have shown that people don't recognize any longer even themselves in facial composites, but they react to those composites in a positive manner. So next time you are looking for a certain product, and there is an ad suggesting you to buy it, it will not be just a standard spokesperson. It will be one of your friends, and you will not even know that this is happening.
Now the problem is that the current policy mechanisms we have to protect ourselves from the abuses of personal information are like bringing a knife to a gunfight. One of these mechanisms is transparency, telling people what you are going to do with their data. And in principle, that's a very good thing. It's necessary, but it is not sufficient. Transparency can be misdirected. You can tell people what you are going to do, and then you still nudge them to disclose arbitrary amounts of personal information.
So in yet another experiment, this one with students, we asked them to provide information about their campus behavior, including pretty sensitive questions, such as this one. [Have you ever cheated in an exam?] Now to one group of subjects, we told them, "Only other students will see your answers." To another group of subjects, we told them, "Students and faculty will see your answers." Transparency. Notification. And sure enough, this worked, in the sense that the first group of subjects were much more likely to disclose than the second. It makes sense, right? But then we added the misdirection. We repeated the experiment with the same two groups, this time adding a delay between the time we told subjects how we would use their data and the time we actually started answering the questions.
How long a delay do you think we had to add in order to nullify the inhibitory effect of knowing that faculty would see your answers? Ten minutes? Five minutes? One minute? How about 15 seconds? Fifteen seconds were sufficient to have the two groups disclose the same amount of information, as if the second group now no longer cares for faculty reading their answers.
Now I have to admit that this talk so far may sound exceedingly gloomy, but that is not my point. In fact, I want to share with you the fact that there are alternatives. The way we are doing things now is not the only way they can done, and certainly not the best way they can be done. When someone tells you, "People don't care about privacy," consider whether the game has been designed and rigged so that they cannot care about privacy, and coming to the realization that these manipulations occur is already halfway through the process of being able to protect yourself. When someone tells you that privacy is incompatible with the benefits of big data, consider that in the last 20 years, researchers have created technologies to allow virtually any electronic transactions to take place in a more privacy-preserving manner. We can browse the Internet anonymously. We can send emails that can only be read by the intended recipient, not even the NSA. We can have even privacy-preserving data mining. In other words, we can have the benefits of big data while protecting privacy. Of course, these technologies imply a shifting of cost and revenues between data holders and data subjects, which is why, perhaps, you don't hear more about them.
Which brings me back to the Garden of Eden. There is a second privacy interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden which doesn't have to do with the issue of Adam and Eve feeling naked and feeling ashamed. You can find echoes of this interpretation in John Milton's "Paradise Lost." In the garden, Adam and Eve are materially content. They're happy. They are satisfied. However, they also lack knowledge and self-awareness. The moment they eat the aptly named fruit of knowledge, that's when they discover themselves. They become aware. They achieve autonomy. The price to pay, however, is leaving the garden. So privacy, in a way, is both the means and the price to pay for freedom.
Again, marketers tell us that big data and social media are not just a paradise of profit for them, but a Garden of Eden for the rest of us. We get free content. We get to play Angry Birds. We get targeted apps. But in fact, in a few years, organizations will know so much about us, they will be able to infer our desires before we even form them, and perhaps buy products on our behalf before we even know we need them.
Now there was one English author who anticipated this kind of future where we would trade away our autonomy and freedom for comfort. Even more so than George Orwell, the author is, of course, Aldous Huxley. In "Brave New World," he imagines a society where technologies that we created originally for freedom end up coercing us. However, in the book, he also offers us a way out of that society, similar to the path that Adam and Eve had to follow to leave the garden. In the words of the Savage, regaining autonomy and freedom is possible, although the price to pay is steep. So I do believe that one of the defining fights of our times will be the fight for the control over personal information, the fight over whether big data will become a force for freedom, rather than a force which will hiddenly manipulate us.
Right now, many of us do not even know that the fight is going on, but it is, whether you like it or not. And at the risk of playing the serpent, I will tell you that the tools for the fight are here, the awareness of what is going on, and in your hands, just a few clicks away.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
So in college, I was a government major, which means I had to write a lot of papers. Now, when a normal student writes a paper, they might spread the work out a little like this. So, you know --
(Laughter)
you get started maybe a little slowly, but you get enough done in the first week that, with some heavier days later on, everything gets done, things stay civil.
(Laughter)
And I would want to do that like that. That would be the plan. I would have it all ready to go, but then, actually, the paper would come along, and then I would kind of do this.
(Laughter)
And that would happen every single paper.
But then came my 90-page senior thesis, a paper you're supposed to spend a year on. And I knew for a paper like that, my normal work flow was not an option. It was way too big a project. So I planned things out, and I decided I kind of had to go something like this. This is how the year would go. So I'd start off light, and I'd bump it up in the middle months, and then at the end, I would kick it up into high gear just like a little staircase. How hard could it be to walk up the stairs? No big deal, right?
But then, the funniest thing happened. Those first few months? They came and went, and I couldn't quite do stuff. So we had an awesome new revised plan.
(Laughter)
And then --
(Laughter)
But then those middle months actually went by, and I didn't really write words, and so we were here. And then two months turned into one month, which turned into two weeks. And one day I woke up with three days until the deadline, still not having written a word, and so I did the only thing I could: I wrote 90 pages over 72 hours, pulling not one but two all-nighters -- humans are not supposed to pull two all-nighters -- sprinted across campus, dove in slow motion, and got it in just at the deadline.
I thought that was the end of everything. But a week later I get a call, and it's the school. And they say, "Is this Tim Urban?" And I say, "Yeah." And they say, "We need to talk about your thesis." And I say, "OK." And they say, "It's the best one we've ever seen."
(Laughter)
(Applause)
That did not happen.
(Laughter)
It was a very, very bad thesis.
(Laughter)
I just wanted to enjoy that one moment when all of you thought, "This guy is amazing!"
(Laughter)
No, no, it was very, very bad. Anyway, today I'm a writer-blogger guy. I write the blog Wait But Why. And a couple of years ago, I decided to write about procrastination. My behavior has always perplexed the non-procrastinators around me, and I wanted to explain to the non-procrastinators of the world what goes on in the heads of procrastinators, and why we are the way we are. Now, I had a hypothesis that the brains of procrastinators were actually different than the brains of other people. And to test this, I found an MRI lab that actually let me scan both my brain and the brain of a proven non-procrastinator, so I could compare them. I actually brought them here to show you today. I want you to take a look carefully to see if you can notice a difference. I know that if you're not a trained brain expert, it's not that obvious, but just take a look, OK? So here's the brain of a non-procrastinator.
(Laughter)
Now ... here's my brain.
(Laughter)
There is a difference. Both brains have a Rational Decision-Maker in them, but the procrastinator's brain also has an Instant Gratification Monkey. Now, what does this mean for the procrastinator? Well, it means everything's fine until this happens.
[This is a perfect time to get some work done.] [Nope!]
So the Rational Decision-Maker will make the rational decision to do something productive, but the Monkey doesn't like that plan, so he actually takes the wheel, and he says, "Actually, let's read the entire Wikipedia page of the Nancy Kerrigan/ Tonya Harding scandal, because I just remembered that that happened.
(Laughter)
Then --
(Laughter)
Then we're going to go over to the fridge, to see if there's anything new in there since 10 minutes ago. After that, we're going to go on a YouTube spiral that starts with videos of Richard Feynman talking about magnets and ends much, much later with us watching interviews with Justin Bieber's mom.
(Laughter)
"All of that's going to take a while, so we're not going to really have room on the schedule for any work today. Sorry!"
(Sigh)
Now, what is going on here? The Instant Gratification Monkey does not seem like a guy you want behind the wheel. He lives entirely in the present moment. He has no memory of the past, no knowledge of the future, and he only cares about two things: easy and fun.
Now, in the animal world, that works fine. If you're a dog and you spend your whole life doing nothing other than easy and fun things, you're a huge success!
(Laughter)
And to the Monkey, humans are just another animal species. You have to keep well-slept, well-fed and propagating into the next generation, which in tribal times might have worked OK. But, if you haven't noticed, now we're not in tribal times. We're in an advanced civilization, and the Monkey does not know what that is. Which is why we have another guy in our brain, the Rational Decision-Maker, who gives us the ability to do things no other animal can do. We can visualize the future. We can see the big picture. We can make long-term plans. And he wants to take all of that into account. And he wants to just have us do whatever makes sense to be doing right now. Now, sometimes it makes sense to be doing things that are easy and fun, like when you're having dinner or going to bed or enjoying well-earned leisure time. That's why there's an overlap. Sometimes they agree. But other times, it makes much more sense to be doing things that are harder and less pleasant, for the sake of the big picture. And that's when we have a conflict. And for the procrastinator, that conflict tends to end a certain way every time, leaving him spending a lot of time in this orange zone, an easy and fun place that's entirely out of the Makes Sense circle. I call it the Dark Playground.
(Laughter)
Now, the Dark Playground is a place that all of you procrastinators out there know very well. It's where leisure activities happen at times when leisure activities are not supposed to be happening. The fun you have in the Dark Playground isn't actually fun, because it's completely unearned, and the air is filled with guilt, dread, anxiety, self-hatred -- all of those good procrastinator feelings. And the question is, in this situation, with the Monkey behind the wheel, how does the procrastinator ever get himself over here to this blue zone, a less pleasant place, but where really important things happen?
Well, turns out the procrastinator has a guardian angel, someone who's always looking down on him and watching over him in his darkest moments -- someone called the Panic Monster.
(Laughter)
Now, the Panic Monster is dormant most of the time, but he suddenly wakes up anytime a deadline gets too close or there's danger of public embarrassment, a career disaster or some other scary consequence. And importantly, he's the only thing the Monkey is terrified of. Now, he became very relevant in my life pretty recently, because the people of TED reached out to me about six months ago and invited me to do a TED Talk.
(Laughter)
Now, of course, I said yes. It's always been a dream of mine to have done a TED Talk in the past.
(Laughter)
(Applause) But in the middle of all this excitement, the Rational Decision-Maker seemed to have something else on his mind. He was saying, "Are we clear on what we just accepted? Do we get what's going to be now happening one day in the future? We need to sit down and work on this right now." And the Monkey said, "Totally agree, but let's just open Google Earth and zoom in to the bottom of India, like 200 feet above the ground, and scroll up for two and a half hours til we get to the top of the country, so we can get a better feel for India."
(Laughter)
So that's what we did that day.
(Laughter)
As six months turned into four and then two and then one, the people of TED decided to release the speakers. And I opened up the website, and there was my face staring right back at me. And guess who woke up?
(Laughter)
So the Panic Monster starts losing his mind, and a few seconds later, the whole system's in mayhem.
(Laughter)
And the Monkey -- remember, he's terrified of the Panic Monster -- boom, he's up the tree! And finally, finally, the Rational Decision-Maker can take the wheel and I can start working on the talk.
Now, the Panic Monster explains all kinds of pretty insane procrastinator behavior, like how someone like me could spend two weeks unable to start the opening sentence of a paper, and then miraculously find the unbelievable work ethic to stay up all night and write eight pages. And this entire situation, with the three characters -- this is the procrastinator's system. It's not pretty, but in the end, it works. This is what I decided to write about on the blog a couple of years ago.
When I did, I was amazed by the response. Literally thousands of emails came in, from all different kinds of people from all over the world, doing all different kinds of things. These are people who were nurses, bankers, painters, engineers and lots and lots of PhD students.
(Laughter)
And they were all writing, saying the same thing: "I have this problem too." But what struck me was the contrast between the light tone of the post and the heaviness of these emails. These people were writing with intense frustration about what procrastination had done to their lives, about what this Monkey had done to them. And I thought about this, and I said, well, if the procrastinator's system works, then what's going on? Why are all of these people in such a dark place?
Well, it turns out that there's two kinds of procrastination. Everything I've talked about today, the examples I've given, they all have deadlines. And when there's deadlines, the effects of procrastination are contained to the short term because the Panic Monster gets involved. But there's a second kind of procrastination that happens in situations when there is no deadline. So if you wanted a career where you're a self-starter -- something in the arts, something entrepreneurial -- there's no deadlines on those things at first, because nothing's happening, not until you've gone out and done the hard work to get momentum, get things going. There's also all kinds of important things outside of your career that don't involve any deadlines, like seeing your family or exercising and taking care of your health, working on your relationship or getting out of a relationship that isn't working.
Now if the procrastinator's only mechanism of doing these hard things is the Panic Monster, that's a problem, because in all of these non-deadline situations, the Panic Monster doesn't show up. He has nothing to wake up for, so the effects of procrastination, they're not contained; they just extend outward forever. And it's this long-term kind of procrastination that's much less visible and much less talked about than the funnier, short-term deadline-based kind. It's usually suffered quietly and privately. And it can be the source of a huge amount of long-term unhappiness, and regrets. And I thought, that's why those people are emailing, and that's why they're in such a bad place. It's not that they're cramming for some project. It's that long-term procrastination has made them feel like a spectator, at times, in their own lives. The frustration is not that they couldn't achieve their dreams; it's that they weren't even able to start chasing them.
So I read these emails and I had a little bit of an epiphany -- that I don't think non-procrastinators exist. That's right -- I think all of you are procrastinators. Now, you might not all be a mess, like some of us,
(Laughter)
and some of you may have a healthy relationship with deadlines, but remember: the Monkey's sneakiest trick is when the deadlines aren't there.
Now, I want to show you one last thing. I call this a Life Calendar. That's one box for every week of a 90-year life. That's not that many boxes, especially since we've already used a bunch of those. So I think we need to all take a long, hard look at that calendar. We need to think about what we're really procrastinating on, because everyone is procrastinating on something in life. We need to stay aware of the Instant Gratification Monkey. That's a job for all of us. And because there's not that many boxes on there, it's a job that should probably start today.
Well, maybe not today, but ...
(Laughter)
You know. Sometime soon.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
I'm here to talk to you about how globalized we are, how globalized we aren't, and why it's important to actually be accurate in making those kinds of assessments. And the leading point of view on this, whether measured by number of books sold, mentions in media, or surveys that I've run with groups ranging from my students to delegates to the World Trade Organization, is this view that national borders really don't matter very much anymore, cross-border integration is close to complete, and we live in one world. And what's interesting about this view is, again, it's a view that's held by pro-globalizers like Tom Friedman, from whose book this quote is obviously excerpted, but it's also held by anti-globalizers, who see this giant globalization tsunami that's about to wreck all our lives if it hasn't already done so.
The other thing I would add is that this is not a new view. I'm a little bit of an amateur historian, so I've spent some time going back, trying to see the first mention of this kind of thing. And the best, earliest quote that I could find was one from David Livingstone, writing in the 1850s about how the railroad, the steam ship, and the telegraph were integrating East Africa perfectly with the rest of the world. Now clearly, David Livingstone was a little bit ahead of his time, but it does seem useful to ask ourselves, "Just how global are we?" before we think about where we go from here.
So the best way I've found of trying to get people to take seriously the idea that the world may not be flat, may not even be close to flat, is with some data. So one of the things I've been doing over the last few years is really compiling data on things that could either happen within national borders or across national borders, and I've looked at the cross-border component as a percentage of the total. I'm not going to present all the data that I have here today, but let me just give you a few data points. I'm going to talk a little bit about one kind of information flow, one kind of flow of people, one kind of flow of capital, and, of course, trade in products and services.
So let's start off with plain old telephone service. Of all the voice-calling minutes in the world last year, what percentage do you think were accounted for by cross-border phone calls? Pick a percentage in your own mind. The answer turns out to be two percent. If you include Internet telephony, you might be able to push this number up to six or seven percent, but it's nowhere near what people tend to estimate.
Or let's turn to people moving across borders. One particular thing we might look at, in terms of long-term flows of people, is what percentage of the world's population is accounted for by first-generation immigrants? Again, please pick a percentage. Turns out to be a little bit higher. It's actually about three percent.
Or think of investment. Take all the real investment that went on in the world in 2010. What percentage of that was accounted for by foreign direct investment? Not quite ten percent.
And then finally, the one statistic that I suspect many of the people in this room have seen: the export-to-GDP ratio. If you look at the official statistics, they typically indicate a little bit above 30 percent. However, there's a big problem with the official statistics, in that if, for instance, a Japanese component supplier ships something to China to be put into an iPod, and then the iPod gets shipped to the U.S., that component ends up getting counted multiple times. So nobody knows how bad this bias with the official statistics actually is, so I thought I would ask the person who's spearheading the effort to generate data on this, Pascal Lamy, the Director of the World Trade Organization, what his best guess would be of exports as a percentage of GDP, without the double- and triple-counting, and it's actually probably a bit under 20 percent, rather than the 30 percent-plus numbers that we're talking about.
So it's very clear that if you look at these numbers or all the other numbers that I talk about in my book, "World 3.0," that we're very, very far from the no-border effect benchmark, which would imply internationalization levels of the order of 85, 90, 95 percent. So clearly, apocalyptically-minded authors have overstated the case. But it's not just the apocalyptics, as I think of them, who are prone to this kind of overstatement. I've also spent some time surveying audiences in different parts of the world on what they actually guess these numbers to be. Let me share with you the results of a survey that Harvard Business Review was kind enough to run of its readership as to what people's guesses along these dimensions actually were.
So a couple of observations stand out for me from this slide. First of all, there is a suggestion of some error. Okay. (Laughter) Second, these are pretty large errors. For four quantities whose average value is less than 10 percent, you have people guessing three, four times that level. Even though I'm an economist, I find that a pretty large error. And third, this is not just confined to the readers of the Harvard Business Review. I've run several dozen such surveys in different parts of the world, and in all cases except one, where a group actually underestimated the trade-to-GDP ratio, people have this tendency towards overestimation, and so I thought it important to give a name to this, and that's what I refer to as globaloney, the difference between the dark blue bars and the light gray bars.
Especially because, I suspect, some of you may still be a little bit skeptical of the claims, I think it's important to just spend a little bit of time thinking about why we might be prone to globaloney. A couple of different reasons come to mind. First of all, there's a real dearth of data in the debate. Let me give you an example. When I first published some of these data a few years ago in a magazine called Foreign Policy, one of the people who wrote in, not entirely in agreement, was Tom Friedman. And since my article was titled "Why the World Isn't Flat," that wasn't too surprising. (Laughter) What was very surprising to me was Tom's critique, which was, "Ghemawat's data are narrow." And this caused me to scratch my head, because as I went back through his several-hundred-page book, I couldn't find a single figure, chart, table, reference or footnote. So my point is, I haven't presented a lot of data here to convince you that I'm right, but I would urge you to go away and look for your own data to try and actually assess whether some of these hand-me-down insights that we've been bombarded with actually are correct. So dearth of data in the debate is one reason.
A second reason has to do with peer pressure. I remember, I decided to write my "Why the World Isn't Flat" article, because I was being interviewed on TV in Mumbai, and the interviewer's first question to me was, "Professor Ghemawat, why do you still believe that the world is round?" And I started laughing, because I hadn't come across that formulation before. (Laughter) And as I was laughing, I was thinking, I really need a more coherent response, especially on national TV. I'd better write something about this. (Laughter) But what I can't quite capture for you was the pity and disbelief with which the interviewer asked her question. The perspective was, here is this poor professor. He's clearly been in a cave for the last 20,000 years. He really has no idea as to what's actually going on in the world. So try this out with your friends and acquaintances, if you like. You'll find that it's very cool to talk about the world being one, etc. If you raise questions about that formulation, you really are considered a bit of an antique.
And then the final reason, which I mention, especially to a TED audience, with some trepidation, has to do with what I call "techno-trances." If you listen to techno music for long periods of time, it does things to your brainwave activity. (Laughter) Something similar seems to happen with exaggerated conceptions of how technology is going to overpower in the very immediate run all cultural barriers, all political barriers, all geographic barriers, because at this point I know you aren't allowed to ask me questions, but when I get to this point in my lecture with my students, hands go up, and people ask me, "Yeah, but what about Facebook?" And I got this question often enough that I thought I'd better do some research on Facebook. Because, in some sense, it's the ideal kind of technology to think about. Theoretically, it makes it as easy to form friendships halfway around the world as opposed to right next door. What percentage of people's friends on Facebook are actually located in countries other than where people we're analyzing are based? The answer is probably somewhere between 10 to 15 percent. Non-negligible, so we don't live in an entirely local or national world, but very, very far from the 95 percent level that you would expect, and the reason's very simple. We don't, or I hope we don't, form friendships at random on Facebook. The technology is overlaid on a pre-existing matrix of relationships that we have, and those relationships are what the technology doesn't quite displace. Those relationships are why we get far fewer than 95 percent of our friends being located in countries other than where we are.
So does all this matter? Or is globaloney just a harmless way of getting people to pay more attention to globalization-related issues? I want to suggest that actually, globaloney can be very harmful to your health. First of all, recognizing that the glass is only 10 to 20 percent full is critical to seeing that there might be potential for additional gains from additional integration, whereas if we thought we were already there, there would be no particular point to pushing harder. It's a little bit like, we wouldn't be having a conference on radical openness if we already thought we were totally open to all the kinds of influences that are being talked about at this conference. So being accurate about how limited globalization levels are is critical to even being able to notice that there might be room for something more, something that would contribute further to global welfare.
Which brings me to my second point. Avoiding overstatement is also very helpful because it reduces and in some cases even reverses some of the fears that people have about globalization. So I actually spend most of my "World 3.0" book working through a litany of market failures and fears that people have that they worry globalization is going to exacerbate. I'm obviously not going to be able to do that for you today, so let me just present to you two headlines as an illustration of what I have in mind. Think of France and the current debate about immigration. When you ask people in France what percentage of the French population is immigrants, the answer is about 24 percent. That's their guess. Maybe realizing that the number is just eight percent might help cool some of the superheated rhetoric that we see around the immigration issue. Or to take an even more striking example, when the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations did a survey of Americans, asking them to guess what percentage of the federal budget went to foreign aid, the guess was 30 percent, which is slightly in excess of the actual level — ("actually about ... 1%") (Laughter) — of U.S. governmental commitments to federal aid. The reassuring thing about this particular survey was, when it was pointed out to people how far their estimates were from the actual data, some of them — not all of them — seemed to become more willing to consider increases in foreign aid.
So foreign aid is actually a great way of sort of wrapping up here, because if you think about it, what I've been talking about today is this notion -- very uncontroversial amongst economists -- that most things are very home-biased. "Foreign aid is the most aid to poor people," is about the most home-biased thing you can find. If you look at the OECD countries and how much they spend per domestic poor person, and compare it with how much they spend per poor person in poor countries, the ratio — Branko Milanovic at the World Bank did the calculations — turns out to be about 30,000 to one. Now of course, some of us, if we truly are cosmopolitan, would like to see that ratio being brought down to one-is-to-one. I'd like to make the suggestion that we don't need to aim for that to make substantial progress from where we are. If we simply brought that ratio down to 15,000 to one, we would be meeting those aid targets that were agreed at the Rio Summit 20 years ago that the summit that ended last week made no further progress on.
So in summary, while radical openness is great, given how closed we are, even incremental openness could make things dramatically better. Thank you very much. (Applause) (Applause) |
Let me show you something.
(Video) Girl: Okay, that's a cat sitting in a bed. The boy is petting the elephant. Those are people that are going on an airplane. That's a big airplane.
Fei-Fei Li: This is a three-year-old child describing what she sees in a series of photos. She might still have a lot to learn about this world, but she's already an expert at one very important task: to make sense of what she sees. Our society is more technologically advanced than ever. We send people to the moon, we make phones that talk to us or customize radio stations that can play only music we like. Yet, our most advanced machines and computers still struggle at this task. So I'm here today to give you a progress report on the latest advances in our research in computer vision, one of the most frontier and potentially revolutionary technologies in computer science.
Yes, we have prototyped cars that can drive by themselves, but without smart vision, they cannot really tell the difference between a crumpled paper bag on the road, which can be run over, and a rock that size, which should be avoided. We have made fabulous megapixel cameras, but we have not delivered sight to the blind. Drones can fly over massive land, but don't have enough vision technology to help us to track the changes of the rainforests. Security cameras are everywhere, but they do not alert us when a child is drowning in a swimming pool. Photos and videos are becoming an integral part of global life. They're being generated at a pace that's far beyond what any human, or teams of humans, could hope to view, and you and I are contributing to that at this TED. Yet our most advanced software is still struggling at understanding and managing this enormous content. So in other words, collectively as a society, we're very much blind, because our smartest machines are still blind.
"Why is this so hard?" you may ask. Cameras can take pictures like this one by converting lights into a two-dimensional array of numbers known as pixels, but these are just lifeless numbers. They do not carry meaning in themselves. Just like to hear is not the same as to listen, to take pictures is not the same as to see, and by seeing, we really mean understanding. In fact, it took Mother Nature 540 million years of hard work to do this task, and much of that effort went into developing the visual processing apparatus of our brains, not the eyes themselves. So vision begins with the eyes, but it truly takes place in the brain.
So for 15 years now, starting from my Ph.D. at Caltech and then leading Stanford's Vision Lab, I've been working with my mentors, collaborators and students to teach computers to see. Our research field is called computer vision and machine learning. It's part of the general field of artificial intelligence. So ultimately, we want to teach the machines to see just like we do: naming objects, identifying people, inferring 3D geometry of things, understanding relations, emotions, actions and intentions. You and I weave together entire stories of people, places and things the moment we lay our gaze on them.
The first step towards this goal is to teach a computer to see objects, the building block of the visual world. In its simplest terms, imagine this teaching process as showing the computers some training images of a particular object, let's say cats, and designing a model that learns from these training images. How hard can this be? After all, a cat is just a collection of shapes and colors, and this is what we did in the early days of object modeling. We'd tell the computer algorithm in a mathematical language that a cat has a round face, a chubby body, two pointy ears, and a long tail, and that looked all fine. But what about this cat? (Laughter) It's all curled up. Now you have to add another shape and viewpoint to the object model. But what if cats are hidden? What about these silly cats? Now you get my point. Even something as simple as a household pet can present an infinite number of variations to the object model, and that's just one object.
So about eight years ago, a very simple and profound observation changed my thinking. No one tells a child how to see, especially in the early years. They learn this through real-world experiences and examples. If you consider a child's eyes as a pair of biological cameras, they take one picture about every 200 milliseconds, the average time an eye movement is made. So by age three, a child would have seen hundreds of millions of pictures of the real world. That's a lot of training examples. So instead of focusing solely on better and better algorithms, my insight was to give the algorithms the kind of training data that a child was given through experiences in both quantity and quality.
Once we know this, we knew we needed to collect a data set that has far more images than we have ever had before, perhaps thousands of times more, and together with Professor Kai Li at Princeton University, we launched the ImageNet project in 2007. Luckily, we didn't have to mount a camera on our head and wait for many years. We went to the Internet, the biggest treasure trove of pictures that humans have ever created. We downloaded nearly a billion images and used crowdsourcing technology like the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform to help us to label these images. At its peak, ImageNet was one of the biggest employers of the Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: together, almost 50,000 workers from 167 countries around the world helped us to clean, sort and label nearly a billion candidate images. That was how much effort it took to capture even a fraction of the imagery a child's mind takes in in the early developmental years.
In hindsight, this idea of using big data to train computer algorithms may seem obvious now, but back in 2007, it was not so obvious. We were fairly alone on this journey for quite a while. Some very friendly colleagues advised me to do something more useful for my tenure, and we were constantly struggling for research funding. Once, I even joked to my graduate students that I would just reopen my dry cleaner's shop to fund ImageNet. After all, that's how I funded my college years.
So we carried on. In 2009, the ImageNet project delivered a database of 15 million images across 22,000 classes of objects and things organized by everyday English words. In both quantity and quality, this was an unprecedented scale. As an example, in the case of cats, we have more than 62,000 cats of all kinds of looks and poses and across all species of domestic and wild cats. We were thrilled to have put together ImageNet, and we wanted the whole research world to benefit from it, so in the TED fashion, we opened up the entire data set to the worldwide research community for free. (Applause)
Now that we have the data to nourish our computer brain, we're ready to come back to the algorithms themselves. As it turned out, the wealth of information provided by ImageNet was a perfect match to a particular class of machine learning algorithms called convolutional neural network, pioneered by Kunihiko Fukushima, Geoff Hinton, and Yann LeCun back in the 1970s and '80s. Just like the brain consists of billions of highly connected neurons, a basic operating unit in a neural network is a neuron-like node. It takes input from other nodes and sends output to others. Moreover, these hundreds of thousands or even millions of nodes are organized in hierarchical layers, also similar to the brain. In a typical neural network we use to train our object recognition model, it has 24 million nodes, 140 million parameters, and 15 billion connections. That's an enormous model. Powered by the massive data from ImageNet and the modern CPUs and GPUs to train such a humongous model, the convolutional neural network blossomed in a way that no one expected. It became the winning architecture to generate exciting new results in object recognition. This is a computer telling us this picture contains a cat and where the cat is. Of course there are more things than cats, so here's a computer algorithm telling us the picture contains a boy and a teddy bear; a dog, a person, and a small kite in the background; or a picture of very busy things like a man, a skateboard, railings, a lampost, and so on. Sometimes, when the computer is not so confident about what it sees, we have taught it to be smart enough to give us a safe answer instead of committing too much, just like we would do, but other times our computer algorithm is remarkable at telling us what exactly the objects are, like the make, model, year of the cars.
We applied this algorithm to millions of Google Street View images across hundreds of American cities, and we have learned something really interesting: first, it confirmed our common wisdom that car prices correlate very well with household incomes. But surprisingly, car prices also correlate well with crime rates in cities, or voting patterns by zip codes.
So wait a minute. Is that it? Has the computer already matched or even surpassed human capabilities? Not so fast. So far, we have just taught the computer to see objects. This is like a small child learning to utter a few nouns. It's an incredible accomplishment, but it's only the first step. Soon, another developmental milestone will be hit, and children begin to communicate in sentences. So instead of saying this is a cat in the picture, you already heard the little girl telling us this is a cat lying on a bed.
So to teach a computer to see a picture and generate sentences, the marriage between big data and machine learning algorithm has to take another step. Now, the computer has to learn from both pictures as well as natural language sentences generated by humans. Just like the brain integrates vision and language, we developed a model that connects parts of visual things like visual snippets with words and phrases in sentences.
About four months ago, we finally tied all this together and produced one of the first computer vision models that is capable of generating a human-like sentence when it sees a picture for the first time. Now, I'm ready to show you what the computer says when it sees the picture that the little girl saw at the beginning of this talk.
(Video) Computer: A man is standing next to an elephant. A large airplane sitting on top of an airport runway.
FFL: Of course, we're still working hard to improve our algorithms, and it still has a lot to learn. (Applause)
And the computer still makes mistakes.
(Video) Computer: A cat lying on a bed in a blanket.
FFL: So of course, when it sees too many cats, it thinks everything might look like a cat.
(Video) Computer: A young boy is holding a baseball bat. (Laughter)
FFL: Or, if it hasn't seen a toothbrush, it confuses it with a baseball bat.
(Video) Computer: A man riding a horse down a street next to a building. (Laughter)
FFL: We haven't taught Art 101 to the computers.
(Video) Computer: A zebra standing in a field of grass.
FFL: And it hasn't learned to appreciate the stunning beauty of nature like you and I do.
So it has been a long journey. To get from age zero to three was hard. The real challenge is to go from three to 13 and far beyond. Let me remind you with this picture of the boy and the cake again. So far, we have taught the computer to see objects or even tell us a simple story when seeing a picture.
(Video) Computer: A person sitting at a table with a cake.
FFL: But there's so much more to this picture than just a person and a cake. What the computer doesn't see is that this is a special Italian cake that's only served during Easter time. The boy is wearing his favorite t-shirt given to him as a gift by his father after a trip to Sydney, and you and I can all tell how happy he is and what's exactly on his mind at that moment.
This is my son Leo. On my quest for visual intelligence, I think of Leo constantly and the future world he will live in. When machines can see, doctors and nurses will have extra pairs of tireless eyes to help them to diagnose and take care of patients. Cars will run smarter and safer on the road. Robots, not just humans, will help us to brave the disaster zones to save the trapped and wounded. We will discover new species, better materials, and explore unseen frontiers with the help of the machines.
Little by little, we're giving sight to the machines. First, we teach them to see. Then, they help us to see better. For the first time, human eyes won't be the only ones pondering and exploring our world. We will not only use the machines for their intelligence, we will also collaborate with them in ways that we cannot even imagine.
This is my quest: to give computers visual intelligence and to create a better future for Leo and for the world.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
How many of you have been to Oklahoma City?
Raise your hand. Yeah?
How many of you have not been to Oklahoma City and have no idea who I am? (Laughter)
Most of you. Let me give you a little bit of background.
Oklahoma City started in the most unique way imaginable. Back on a spring day in 1889, the federal government held what they called a land run. They literally lined up the settlers along an imaginary line, and they fired off a gun, and the settlers roared across the countryside and put down a stake, and wherever they put down that stake, that was their new home. And at the end of the very first day, the population of Oklahoma City had gone from zero to 10,000, and our planning department is still paying for that. The citizens got together on that first day and elected a mayor. And then they shot him. (Laughter) That's not really all that funny -- (Laughter) -- but it allows me to see what type of audience I'm dealing with, so I appreciate the feedback.
The 20th century was fairly kind to Oklahoma City. Our economy was based on commodities, so the price of cotton or the price of wheat, and ultimately the price of oil and natural gas. And along the way, we became a city of innovation. The shopping cart was invented in Oklahoma City. (Applause) The parking meter, invented in Oklahoma City. You're welcome.
Having an economy, though, that relates to commodities can give you some ups and some downs, and that was certainly the case in Oklahoma City's history. In the 1970s, when it appeared that the price of energy would never retreat, our economy was soaring, and then in the early 1980s, it cratered quickly. The price of energy dropped. Our banks began to fail. Before the end of the decade, 100 banks had failed in the state of Oklahoma. There was no bailout on the horizon. Our banking industry, our oil and gas industry, our commercial real estate industry, were all at the bottom of the economic scale. Young people were leaving Oklahoma City in droves for Washington and Dallas and Houston and New York and Tokyo, anywhere where they could find a job that measured up to their educational attainment, because in Oklahoma City, the good jobs just weren't there.
But along at the end of the '80s came an enterprising businessman who became mayor named Ron Norick. Ron Norick eventually figured out that the secret to economic development wasn't incentivizing companies up front, it was about creating a place where businesses wanted to locate, and so he pushed an initiative called MAPS that basically was a penny-on-the-dollar sales tax to build a bunch of stuff. It built a new sports arena, a new canal downtown, it fixed up our performing arts center, a new baseball stadium downtown, a lot of things to improve the quality of life. And the economy indeed seemed to start showing some signs of life.
The next mayor came along. He started MAPS for Kids, rebuilt the entire inner city school system, all 75 buildings either built anew or refurbished.
And then, in 2004, in this rare collective lack of judgment bordering on civil disobedience, the citizens elected me mayor.
Now the city I inherited was just on the verge of coming out of its slumbering economy, and for the very first time, we started showing up on the lists. Now you know the lists I'm talking about. The media and the Internet love to rank cities. And in Oklahoma City, we'd never really been on lists before. So I thought it was kind of cool when they came out with these positive lists and we were on there. We weren't anywhere close to the top, but we were on the list, we were somebody. Best city to get a job, best city to start a business, best downtown -- Oklahoma City.
And then came the list of the most obese cities in the country. And there we were.
Now I like to point out that we were on that list with a lot of really cool places. (Laughter) Dallas and Houston and New Orleans and Atlanta and Miami. You know, these are cities that, typically, you're not embarrassed to be associated with. But nonetheless, I didn't like being on the list.
And about that time, I got on the scales. And I weighed 220 pounds. And then I went to this website sponsored by the federal government, and I typed in my height, I typed in my weight, and I pushed Enter, and it came back and said "obese."
I thought, "What a stupid website." (Laughter) "I'm not obese. I would know if I was obese."
And then I started getting honest with myself about what had become my lifelong struggle with obesity, and I noticed this pattern, that I was gaining about two or three pounds a year, and then about every 10 years, I'd drop 20 or 30 pounds. And then I'd do it again. And I had this huge closet full of clothes, and I could only wear a third of it at any one time, and only I knew which part of the closet I could wear. But it all seemed fairly normal, going through it.
Well, I finally decided I needed to lose weight, and I knew I could because I'd done it so many times before, so I simply stopped eating as much. I had always exercised. That really wasn't the part of the equation that I needed to work on. But I had been eating 3,000 calories a day, and I cut it to 2,000 calories a day, and the weight came off. I lost about a pound a week for about 40 weeks.
Along the way, though, I started examining my city, its culture, its infrastructure, trying to figure out why our specific city seemed to have a problem with obesity. And I came to the conclusion that we had built an incredible quality of life if you happen to be a car. (Laughter) But if you happen to be a person, you are combatting the car seemingly at every turn. Our city is very spread out. We have a great intersection of highways, I mean, literally no traffic congestion in Oklahoma City to speak of. And so people live far, far away. Our city limits are enormous, 620 square miles, but 15 miles is less than 15 minutes. You literally can get a speeding ticket during rush hour in Oklahoma City. And as a result, people tend to spread out. Land's cheap. We had also not required developers to build sidewalks on new developments for a long, long time. We had fixed that, but it had been relatively recently, and there were literally 100,000 or more homes into our inventory in neighborhoods that had virtually no level of walkability.
And as I tried to examine how we might deal with obesity, and was taking all of these elements into my mind, I decided that the first thing we need to do was have a conversation. You see, in Oklahoma City, we weren't talking about obesity. And so, on New Year's Eve of 2007, I went to the zoo, and I stood in front of the elephants, and I said, "This city is going on a diet, and we're going to lose a million pounds."
Well, that's when all hell broke loose.
(Laughter)
The national media gravitated toward this story immediately, and they really could have gone with it one of two ways. They could have said, "This city is so fat that the mayor had to put them on a diet." But fortunately, the consensus was, "Look, this is a problem in a lot of places. This is a city that's wanting to do something about it." And so they started helping us drive traffic to the website. Now, the web address was thiscityisgoingonadiet.com. And I appeared on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" one weekday morning to talk about the initiative, and on that day, 150,000 visits were placed to our website. People were signing up, and so the pounds started to add up, and the conversation that I thought was so important to have was starting to take place. It was taking place inside the homes, mothers and fathers talking about it with their kids. It was taking place in churches. Churches were starting their own running groups and their own support groups for people who were dealing with obesity. Suddenly, it was a topic worth discussing at schools and in the workplace. And the large companies, they typically have wonderful wellness programs, but the medium-sized companies that typically fall between the cracks on issues like this, they started to get engaged and used our program as a model for their own employees to try and have contests to see who might be able to deal with their obesity situation in a way that could be proactively beneficial to others.
And then came the next stage of the equation. It was time to push what I called MAPS 3. Now MAPS 3, like the other two programs, had had an economic development motive behind it, but along with the traditional economic development tasks like building a new convention center, we added some health-related infrastructure to the process. We added a new central park, 70 acres in size, to be right downtown in Oklahoma City. We're building a downtown streetcar to try and help the walkability formula for people who choose to live in the inner city and help us create the density there. We're building senior health and wellness centers throughout the community. We put some investments on the river that had originally been invested upon in the original MAPS, and now we are currently in the final stages of developing the finest venue in the world for the sports of canoe, kayak and rowing. We hosted the Olympic trials last spring. We have Olympic-caliber events coming to Oklahoma City, and athletes from all over the world moving in, along with inner city programs to get kids more engaged in these types of recreational activities that are a little bit nontraditional. We also, with another initiative that was passed, are building hundreds of miles of new sidewalks throughout the metro area. We're even going back into some inner city situations where we had built neighborhoods and we had built schools but we had not connected the two. We had built libraries and we had built neighborhoods, but we had never really connected the two with any sort of walkability. Through yet another funding source, we're redesigning all of our inner city streets to be more pedestrian-friendly. Our streets were really wide, and you'd push the button to allow you to walk across, and you had to run in order to get there in time. But now we've narrowed the streets, highly landscaped them, making them more pedestrian-friendly, really a redesign, rethinking the way we build our infrastructure, designing a city around people and not cars. We're completing our bicycle trail master plan. We'll have over 100 miles when we're through building it out.
And so you see this culture starting to shift in Oklahoma City. And lo and behold, the demographic changes that are coming with it are very inspiring. Highly educated twentysomethings are moving to Oklahoma City from all over the region and, indeed, even from further away, in California.
When we reached a million pounds, in January of 2012, I flew to New York with some our participants who had lost over 100 pounds, whose lives had been changed, and we appeared on the Rachael Ray show, and then that afternoon, I did a round of media in New York pushing the same messages that you're accustomed to hearing about obesity and the dangers of it. And I went into the lobby of Men's Fitness magazine, the same magazine that had put us on that list five years before. And as I'm sitting in the lobby waiting to talk to the reporter, I notice there's a magazine copy of the current issue right there on the table, and I pick it up, and I look at the headline across the top, and it says, "America's Fattest Cities: Do You Live in One?" Well, I knew I did, so I picked up the magazine and I began to look, and we weren't on it.
(Applause)
Then I looked on the list of fittest cities, and we were on that list. We were on the list as the 22nd fittest city in the United States. Our state health statistics are doing better. Granted, we have a long way to go. Health is still not something that we should be proud of in Oklahoma City, but we seem to have turned the cultural shift of making health a greater priority. And we love the idea of the demographics of highly educated twentysomethings, people with choices, choosing Oklahoma City in large numbers. We have the lowest unemployment in the United States, probably the strongest economy in the United States. And if you're like me, at some point in your educational career, you were asked to read a book called "The Grapes of Wrath." Oklahomans leaving for California in large numbers for a better future. When we look at the demographic shifts of people coming from the west, it appears that what we're seeing now is the wrath of grapes. (Laughter) (Applause) The grandchildren are coming home.
You've been a great audience and very attentive. Thank you very much for having me here.
(Applause) |
I am a vicar in the Church of England. I've been a priest in the Church for 20 years. For most of that time, I've been struggling and grappling with questions about the nature of God. Who is God? And I'm very aware that when you say the word "God," many people will turn off immediately. And most people, both within and outside the organized church, still have a picture of a celestial controller, a rule maker, a policeman in the sky who orders everything, and causes everything to happen. He will protect his own people, and answer the prayers of the faithful.
And in the worship of my church, the most frequently used adjective about God is "almighty." But I have a problem with that. I have become more and more uncomfortable with this perception of God over the years. Do we really believe that God is the kind of male boss that we've been presenting in our worship and in our liturgies over all these years?
Of course, there have been thinkers who have suggested different ways of looking at God. Exploring the feminine, nurturing side of divinity. Suggesting that God expresses Himself or Herself through powerlessness, rather than power. Acknowledging that God is unknown and unknowable by definition. Finding deep resonances with other religions and philosophies and ways of looking at life as part of what is a universal and global search for meaning. These ideas are well known in liberal academic circles, but clergy like myself have been reluctant to air them, for fear of creating tension and division in our church communities, for fear of upsetting the simple faith of more traditional believers. I have chosen not to rock the boat.
Then, on December 26th last year, just two months ago, that underwater earthquake triggered the tsunami. And two weeks later, Sunday morning, 9th of January, I found myself standing in front of my congregation -- intelligent, well meaning, mostly thoughtful Christian people -- and I needed to express, on their behalf, our feelings and our questions. I had my own personal responses, but I also have a public role, and something needed to be said. And this is what I said.
Shortly after the tsunami I read a newspaper article written by the Archbishop of Canterbury -- fine title -- about the tragedy in Southern Asia. The essence of what he said was this: the people most affected by the devastation and loss of life do not want intellectual theories about how God let this happen. He wrote, "If some religious genius did come up with an explanation of exactly why all these deaths made sense, would we feel happier, or safer, or more confident in God?"
If the man in the photograph that appeared in the newspapers, holding the hand of his dead child was standing in front of us now, there are no words that we could say to him. A verbal response would not be appropriate. The only appropriate response would be a compassionate silence and some kind of practical help. It isn't a time for explanation, or preaching, or theology; it's a time for tears.
This is true. And yet here we are, my church in Oxford, semi-detached from events that happened a long way away, but with our faith bruised. And we want an explanation from God. We demand an explanation from God. Some have concluded that we can only believe in a God who shares our pain. In some way, God must feel the anguish, and grief, and physical pain that we feel. In some way the eternal God must be able to enter into the souls of human beings and experience the torment within. And if this is true, it must also be that God knows the joy and exaltation of the human spirit, as well. We want a God who can weep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who rejoice.
This seems to me both a deeply moving and a convincing re-statement of Christian belief about God. For hundreds of years, the prevailing orthodoxy, the accepted truth, was that God the Father, the Creator, is unchanging and therefore by definition cannot feel pain or sadness. Now the unchanging God feels a bit cold and indifferent to me. And the devastating events of the 20th century have forced people to question the cold, unfeeling God. The slaughter of millions in the trenches and in the death camps have caused people to ask, "Where is God in all this? Who is God in all this?"
And the answer was, "God is in this with us, or God doesn't deserve our allegiance anymore." If God is a bystander, observing but not involved, then God may well exist, but we don't want to know about Him. Many Jews and Christians now feel like this, I know. And I am among them.
So we have a suffering God -- a God who is intimately connected with this world and with every living soul. I very much relate to this idea of God. But it isn't enough. I need to ask some more questions, and I hope they are questions that you will want to ask, as well, some of you.
Over the last few weeks I have been struck by the number of times that words in our worship have felt a bit inappropriate, a bit dodgy. We have a pram service on Tuesday mornings for mums and their pre-school children. And last week we sang with the children one of their favorite songs, "The Wise Man Built His House Upon the Rock." Perhaps some of you know it. Some of the words go like this: "The foolish man built his house upon the sand / And the floods came up / And the house on the sand went crash." Then in the same week, at a funeral, we sang the familiar hymn "We Plow the Fields and Scatter," a very English hymn. In the second verse comes the line, "The wind and waves obey Him." Do they? I don't feel we can sing that song again in church, after what's happened.
So the first big question is about control. Does God have a plan for each of us? Is God in control? Does God order each moment? Does the wind and the waves obey Him? From time to time, one hears Christians telling the story of how God organized things for them, so that everything worked out all right -- some difficulty overcome, some illness cured, some trouble averted, a parking space found at a crucial time. I can remember someone saying this to me, with her eyes shining with enthusiasm at this wonderful confirmation of her faith and the goodness of God.
But if God can or will do these things -- intervene to change the flow of events -- then surely he could have stopped the tsunami. Do we have a local God who can do little things like parking spaces, but not big things like 500 mile-per-hour waves? That's just not acceptable to intelligent Christians, and we must acknowledge it. Either God is responsible for the tsunami, or God is not in control.
After the tragedy, survival stories began to emerge. You probably heard some of them: the man who surfed the wave, the teenage girl who recognized the danger because she had just been learning about tsunamis at school. Then there was the congregation who had left their usual church building on the shore to hold a service in the hills. The preacher delivered an extra long sermon, so that they were still out of harm's way when the wave struck. Afterwards someone said that God must have been looking after them.
So the next question is about partiality. Can we earn God's favor by worshipping Him or believing in Him? Does God demand loyalty, like any medieval tyrant? A God who looks after His own, so that Christians are OK, while everyone else perishes? A cosmic us and them, and a God who is guilty of the worst kind of favoritism? That would be appalling, and that would be the point at which I would hand in my membership. Such a God would be morally inferior to the highest ideals of humanity.
So who is God, if not the great puppet-master or the tribal protector? Perhaps God allows or permits terrible things to happen, so that heroism and compassion can be shown. Perhaps God is testing us: testing our charity, or our faith. Perhaps there is a great, cosmic plan that allows for horrible suffering so that everything will work out OK in the end. Perhaps, but these ideas are all just variations on God controlling everything, the supreme commander toying with expendable units in a great campaign. We are still left with a God who can do the tsunami and allow Auschwitz.
In his great novel, "The Brothers Karamazov," Dostoevsky gives these words to Ivan, addressed to his naive and devout younger brother, Alyosha: "If the sufferings of children go to make up the sum of sufferings which is necessary for the purchase of truth, then I say beforehand that the entire truth is not worth such a price. We cannot afford to pay so much for admission. It is not God that I do not accept. I merely, most respectfully, return Him the ticket."
Or perhaps God set the whole universe going at the beginning and then relinquished control forever, so that natural processes could occur, and evolution run its course. This seems more acceptable, but it still leaves God with the ultimate moral responsibility. Is God a cold, unfeeling spectator? Or a powerless lover, watching with infinite compassion things God is unable to control or change? Is God intimately involved in our suffering, so that He feels it in His own being?
If we believe something like this, we must let go of the puppet-master completely, take our leave of the almighty controller, abandon traditional models. We must think again about God. Maybe God doesn't do things at all. Maybe God isn't an agent like all of us are agents. Early religious thought conceived God as a sort of superhuman person, doing things all over the place. Beating up the Egyptians, drowning them in the Red Sea, wasting cities, getting angry. The people knew their God by His mighty acts.
But what if God doesn't act? What if God doesn't do things at all? What if God is in things? The loving soul of the universe. An in-dwelling compassionate presence, underpinning and sustaining all things. What if God is in things? In the infinitely complex network of relationships and connections that make up life. In the natural cycle of life and death, the creation and destruction that must happen continuously. In the process of evolution. In the incredible intricacy and magnificence of the natural world. In the collective unconscious, the soul of the human race. In you, in me, mind and body and spirit. In the tsunami, in the victims. In the depth of things. In presence and in absence. In simplicity and complexity. In change and development and growth.
How does this in-ness, this innerness, this interiority of God work? It's hard to conceive, and begs more questions. Is God just another name for the universe, with no independent existence at all? I don't know. To what extent can we ascribe personality to God? I don't know. In the end, we have to say, "I don't know." If we knew, God would not be God.
To have faith in this God would be more like trusting an essential benevolence in the universe, and less like believing a system of doctrinal statements. Isn't it ironic that Christians who claim to believe in an infinite, unknowable being then tie God down in closed systems and rigid doctrines?
How could one practice such a faith? By seeking the God within. By cultivating my own inwardness. In silence, in meditation, in my inner space, in the me that remains when I gently put aside my passing emotions and ideas and preoccupations. In awareness of the inner conversation.
And how would we live such a faith? How would I live such a faith? By seeking intimate connection with your inwardness. The kind of relationships when deep speaks to deep. If God is in all people, then there is a meeting place where my relationship with you becomes a three-way encounter. There is an Indian greeting, which I'm sure some of you know: "Namaste," accompanied by a respectful bow, which, roughly translated means, "That which is of God in me greets that which of God is in you." Namaste.
And how would one deepen such a faith? By seeking the inwardness which is in all things. In music and poetry, in the natural world of beauty and in the small ordinary things of life, there is a deep, indwelling presence that makes them extraordinary. It needs a profound attentiveness and a patient waiting, a contemplative attitude and a generosity and openness to those whose experience is different from my own.
When I stood up to speak to my people about God and the tsunami, I had no answers to offer them. No neat packages of faith, with Bible references to prove them. Only doubts and questioning and uncertainty. I had some suggestions to make -- possible new ways of thinking about God. Ways that might allow us to go on, down a new and uncharted road. But in the end, the only thing I could say for sure was, "I don't know," and that just might be the most profoundly religious statement of all.
Thank you. |
I'm going to start with a little story. So, I grew up in this neighborhood. When I was 15 years old, I went from being what I think was a strapping young athlete, over four months, slowly wasting away until I was basically a famine victim with an unquenchable thirst. I had basically digested away my body. And this all came to a head when I was on a backpacking trip, my first one ever actually, on Old Rag Mountain in West Virginia, and was putting my face into puddles of water and drinking like a dog.
That night, I was taken into the emergency room and diagnosed as a type 1 diabetic in full-blown ketoacidosis. And I recovered, thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, insulin and other things, and gained all my weight back and more.
And something festered inside me after this happened. What I thought about was, what caused the diabetes? You see, diabetes is an autoimmune disease where your body fights itself, and at the time people thought that somehow maybe exposure to a pathogen had triggered my immune system to fight the pathogen and then kill the cells that make insulin. And this is what I thought for a long period of time, and that's in fact what medicine and people have focused on quite a bit, the microbes that do bad things. And that's where I need my assistant here now. You may recognize her.
So, I went yesterday, I apologize, I skipped a few of the talks, and I went over to the National Academy of Sciences building, and they sell toys, giant microbes. And here we go! So you have caught flesh-eating disease if you caught that one. I gotta get back out my baseball ability here.
(Laughter)
So, unfortunately or not surprisingly, most of the microbes they sell at the National Academy building are pathogens. Everybody focuses on the things that kill us, and that's what I was focusing on. And it turns out that we are covered in a cloud of microbes, and those microbes actually do us good much of the time, rather than killing us. And so, we've known about this for some period of time. People have used microscopes to look at the microbes that cover us, I know you're not paying attention to me, but ...
(Laughter)
The microbes that cover us. And if you look at them in the microscope, you can see that we actually have 10 times as many cells of microbes on us as we have human cells. There's more mass in the microbes than the mass of our brain.
We are literally a teeming ecosystem of microorganisms. And unfortunately, if you want to learn about the microorganisms, just looking at them in a microscope is not sufficient. And so we just heard about the DNA sequencing. It turns out that one of the best ways to look at microbes and to understand them is to look at their DNA. And that's what I've been doing for 20 years, using DNA sequencing, collecting samples from various places, including the human body, reading the DNA sequence and then using that DNA sequencing to tell us about the microbes that are in a particular place.
And what's amazing, when you use this technology, for example, looking at humans, we're not just covered in a sea of microbes. There are thousands upon thousands of different kinds of microbes on us. We have millions of genes of microbes in our human microbiome covering us. And so this microbial diversity differs between people, and what people have been thinking about in the last 10, maybe 15 years is, maybe these microbes, this microbial cloud in and on us, and the variation between us, may be responsible for some of the health and illness differences between us.
And that comes back to the diabetes story I was telling you. It turns out that people now think that one of the triggers for type 1 diabetes is not fighting a pathogen, but is in fact trying to -- miscommunicating with the microbes that live in and on you. And somehow maybe the microbial community that's in and on me got off, and then this triggered some sort of immune response and led to me killing the cells that make insulin in my body.
And so what I want to tell you about for a few minutes is, what people have learned using DNA sequencing techniques in particular, to study the microbial cloud that lives in and on us. And I want to tell you a story about a personal project. My first personal experience with studying the microbes on the human body actually came from a talk that I gave, right around the corner from here at Georgetown.
I gave a talk, and a family friend who happened to be the Dean of Georgetown Medical School was at the talk, and came up to me afterwards saying, they were doing a study of ileal transplants in people. And they wanted to look at the microbes after the transplants.
And so I started a collaboration with this person, Michael Zasloff and Thomas Fishbein, to look at the microbes that colonized these ilea after they were transplanted into a recipient. And I can tell you all the details about the microbial study that we did there, but the reason I want to tell you this story is something really striking that they did at the beginning of this project. They take the donor ileum, which is filled with microbes from a donor and they have a recipient who might have a problem with their microbial community, say Crohn's disease, and they sterilized the donor ileum. Cleaned out all the microbes, and then put it in the recipient. They did this because this was common practice in medicine, even though it was obvious that this was not a good idea.
And fortunately, in the course of this project, the transplant surgeons and the other people decided, forget common practice. We have to switch. So they actually switched to leaving some of the microbial community in the ileum. They leave the microbes with the donor, and theoretically that might help the people who are receiving this ileal transplant.
And so, people -- this is a study that I did now. In the last few years there's been a great expansion in using DNA technology to study the microbes in and on people. There's something called the Human Microbiome Project that's going on in the United States, and MetaHIT going on in Europe, and a lot of other projects.
And when people have done a variety of studies, they have learned things such as, when a baby is born, during vaginal delivery you get colonized by the microbes from your mother. There are risk factors associated with cesarean sections, some of those risk factors may be due to mis-colonization when you carve a baby out of its mother rather than being delivered through the birth canal. And a variety of other studies have shown that the microbial community that lives in and on us helps in development of the immune system, helps in fighting off pathogens, helps in our metabolism, and determining our metabolic rate, probably determines our odor, and may even shape our behavior in a variety of ways.
And so, these studies have documented or suggested out of a variety of important functions for the microbial community, this cloud, the non-pathogens that live in and on us. And one area that I think is very interesting, which many of you may have now that we've thrown microbes into the crowd, is something that I would call "germophobia." So people are really into cleanliness, right? We have antibiotics in our kitchen counters, people are washing every part of them all of the time, we pump antibiotics into our food, into our communities, we take antibiotics excessively.
And killing pathogens is a good thing if you're sick, but we should understand that when we pump chemicals and antibiotics into our world, that we're also killing the cloud of microbes that live in and on us. And excessive use of antibiotics, in particular in children, has been shown to be associated with, again, risk factors for obesity, for autoimmune diseases, for a variety of problems that are probably due to disruption of the microbial community.
So the microbial community can go wrong whether we want it to or not, or we can kill it with antibiotics, but what can we do to restore it? I'm sure many people here have heard about probiotics. Probiotics are one thing that you can try and do to restore the microbial community that is in and on you. And they definitely have been shown to be effective in some cases. There's a project going on at UC Davis where people are using probiotics to try and treat, prevent, necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants. Premature infants have real problems with their microbial community. And it may be that probiotics can help prevent the development of this horrible necrotizing enterocolitis in these premature infants.
But probiotics are sort of a very, very simple solution. Most of the pills that you can take or the yogurts that you can eat have one or two species in them, maybe five species in them, and the human community is thousands upon thousands of species. So what can we do to restore our microbial community when we have thousands and thousands of species on us?
Well, one thing that animals seem to do is, they eat poo -- coprophagia. And it turns out that many veterinarians, old school veterinarians in particular, have been doing something called "poo tea," not booty, but poo tea, to treat colic and other ailments in horses and cows and things like that, where you make tea from the poo from a healthy individual animal and you feed it to a sick animal. Although, unless you have a fistulated cow with a big hole in its side, and you can put your hand into its rumen, it's hard to imagine that the delivery of microbes directly into the mouth and through the entire top of the digestive tract is the best delivery system, so you may have heard in people they are now doing fecal transplants, where rather than delivering a couple of probiotic microbes through the mouth, they are delivering a community of probiotics, a community of microbes from a healthy donor, through the other end.
And this has turned out to be very effective in fighting certain intransigent infectious diseases like Clostridium difficile infections that can stay with people for years and years and years. Transplants of the feces, of the microbes from the feces, from a healthy donor has actually been shown to cure systemic C. dif infections in some people.
Now what these transplants, these fecal transplants, or the poo tea suggest to me, and many other people have come up with this same idea, is that the microbial community in and on us, it's an organ. We should view it as a functioning organ, part of ourselves. We should treat it carefully and with respect, and we do not want to mess with it, say by C-sections or by antibiotics or excessive cleanliness, without some real good justification.
And what the DNA sequencing technologies are allowing people to do now is do detailed studies of, say, 100 patients who have Crohn's disease and 100 people who don't have Crohn's disease. Or 100 people who took antibiotics when they were little, and 100 people who did not take antibiotics. And we can now start to compare the community of microbes and their genes and see if there are differences. And eventually we may be able to understand if they're not just correlative differences, but causative. Studies in model systems like mouse and other animals are also helping do this, but people are now using these technologies because they've gotten very cheap, to study the microbes in and on a variety of people.
So, in wrapping up, what I want to tell you about is, I didn't tell you a part of the story of coming down with diabetes. It turns out that my father was an M.D., actually studied hormones. I told him many times that I was tired, thirsty, not feeling very good. And he shrugged it off, I think he either thought I was just complaining a lot, or it was the typical M.D. "nothing can be wrong with my children." We even went to the International Society of Endocrinology meeting as family in Quebec. And I was getting up every five minutes to pee, and drinking everybody's water at the table, and I think they all thought I was a druggie.
(Laughter)
But the reason I'm telling you this is that the medical community, my father as an example, sometimes doesn't see what's right in front of their eyes. The microbial cloud, it is right in front of us. We can't see it most of the time. It's invisible. They're microbes. They're tiny. But we can see them through their DNA, we can see them through the effects that they have on people.
And what we need now is to start thinking about this microbial community in the context of everything in human medicine. It doesn't mean that it affects every part of us, but it might. What we need is a full field guide to the microbes that live in and on people, so that we can understand what they're doing to our lives. We are them. They are us.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
I study ants in the desert, in the tropical forest and in my kitchen, and in the hills around Silicon Valley where I live. I've recently realized that ants are using interactions differently in different environments, and that got me thinking that we could learn from this about other systems, like brains and data networks that we engineer, and even cancer.
So what all these systems have in common is that there's no central control. An ant colony consists of sterile female workers -- those are the ants you see walking around — and then one or more reproductive females who just lay the eggs. They don't give any instructions. Even though they're called queens, they don't tell anybody what to do. So in an ant colony, there's no one in charge, and all systems like this without central control are regulated using very simple interactions. Ants interact using smell. They smell with their antennae, and they interact with their antennae, so when one ant touches another with its antennae, it can tell, for example, if the other ant is a nestmate and what task that other ant has been doing. So here you see a lot of ants moving around and interacting in a lab arena that's connected by tubes to two other arenas. So when one ant meets another, it doesn't matter which ant it meets, and they're actually not transmitting any kind of complicated signal or message. All that matters to the ant is the rate at which it meets other ants. And all of these interactions, taken together, produce a network. So this is the network of the ants that you just saw moving around in the arena, and it's this constantly shifting network that produces the behavior of the colony, like whether all the ants are hiding inside the nest, or how many are going out to forage. A brain actually works in the same way, but what's great about ants is that you can see the whole network as it happens.
There are more than 12,000 species of ants, in every conceivable environment, and they're using interactions differently to meet different environmental challenges. So one important environmental challenge that every system has to deal with is operating costs, just what it takes to run the system. And another environmental challenge is resources, finding them and collecting them. In the desert, operating costs are high because water is scarce, and the seed-eating ants that I study in the desert have to spend water to get water. So an ant outside foraging, searching for seeds in the hot sun, just loses water into the air. But the colony gets its water by metabolizing the fats out of the seeds that they eat. So in this environment, interactions are used to activate foraging. An outgoing forager doesn't go out unless it gets enough interactions with returning foragers, and what you see are the returning foragers going into the tunnel, into the nest, and meeting outgoing foragers on their way out. This makes sense for the ant colony, because the more food there is out there, the more quickly the foragers find it, the faster they come back, and the more foragers they send out. The system works to stay stopped, unless something positive happens.
So interactions function to activate foragers. And we've been studying the evolution of this system. First of all, there's variation. It turns out that colonies are different. On dry days, some colonies forage less, so colonies are different in how they manage this trade-off between spending water to search for seeds and getting water back in the form of seeds. And we're trying to understand why some colonies forage less than others by thinking about ants as neurons, using models from neuroscience. So just as a neuron adds up its stimulation from other neurons to decide whether to fire, an ant adds up its stimulation from other ants to decide whether to forage. And what we're looking for is whether there might be small differences among colonies in how many interactions each ant needs before it's willing to go out and forage, because a colony like that would forage less.
And this raises an analogous question about brains. We talk about the brain, but of course every brain is slightly different, and maybe there are some individuals or some conditions in which the electrical properties of neurons are such that they require more stimulus to fire, and that would lead to differences in brain function.
So in order to ask evolutionary questions, we need to know about reproductive success. This is a map of the study site where I have been tracking this population of harvester ant colonies for 28 years, which is about as long as a colony lives. Each symbol is a colony, and the size of the symbol is how many offspring it had, because we were able to use genetic variation to match up parent and offspring colonies, that is, to figure out which colonies were founded by a daughter queen produced by which parent colony. And this was amazing for me, after all these years, to find out, for example, that colony 154, whom I've known well for many years, is a great-grandmother. Here's her daughter colony, here's her granddaughter colony, and these are her great-granddaughter colonies. And by doing this, I was able to learn that offspring colonies resemble parent colonies in their decisions about which days are so hot that they don't forage, and the offspring of parent colonies live so far from each other that the ants never meet, so the ants of the offspring colony can't be learning this from the parent colony. And so our next step is to look for the genetic variation underlying this resemblance.
So then I was able to ask, okay, who's doing better? Over the time of the study, and especially in the past 10 years, there's been a very severe and deepening drought in the Southwestern U.S., and it turns out that the colonies that conserve water, that stay in when it's really hot outside, and thus sacrifice getting as much food as possible, are the ones more likely to have offspring colonies. So all this time, I thought that colony 154 was a loser, because on really dry days, there'd be just this trickle of foraging, while the other colonies were out foraging, getting lots of food, but in fact, colony 154 is a huge success. She's a matriarch. She's one of the rare great-grandmothers on the site. To my knowledge, this is the first time that we've been able to track the ongoing evolution of collective behavior in a natural population of animals and find out what's actually working best.
Now, the Internet uses an algorithm to regulate the flow of data that's very similar to the one that the harvester ants are using to regulate the flow of foragers. And guess what we call this analogy? The anternet is coming. (Applause) So data doesn't leave the source computer unless it gets a signal that there's enough bandwidth for it to travel on. In the early days of the Internet, when operating costs were really high and it was really important not to lose any data, then the system was set up for interactions to activate the flow of data. It's interesting that the ants are using an algorithm that's so similar to the one that we recently invented, but this is only one of a handful of ant algorithms that we know about, and ants have had 130 million years to evolve a lot of good ones, and I think it's very likely that some of the other 12,000 species are going to have interesting algorithms for data networks that we haven't even thought of yet.
So what happens when operating costs are low? Operating costs are low in the tropics, because it's very humid, and it's easy for the ants to be outside walking around. But the ants are so abundant and diverse in the tropics that there's a lot of competition. Whatever resource one species is using, another species is likely to be using that at the same time. So in this environment, interactions are used in the opposite way. The system keeps going unless something negative happens, and one species that I study makes circuits in the trees of foraging ants going from the nest to a food source and back, just round and round, unless something negative happens, like an interaction with ants of another species. So here's an example of ant security. In the middle, there's an ant plugging the nest entrance with its head in response to interactions with another species. Those are the little ones running around with their abdomens up in the air. But as soon as the threat is passed, the entrance is open again, and maybe there are situations in computer security where operating costs are low enough that we could just block access temporarily in response to an immediate threat, and then open it again, instead of trying to build a permanent firewall or fortress.
So another environmental challenge that all systems have to deal with is resources, finding and collecting them. And to do this, ants solve the problem of collective search, and this is a problem that's of great interest right now in robotics, because we've understood that, rather than sending a single, sophisticated, expensive robot out to explore another planet or to search a burning building, that instead, it may be more effective to get a group of cheaper robots exchanging only minimal information, and that's the way that ants do it. So the invasive Argentine ant makes expandable search networks. They're good at dealing with the main problem of collective search, which is the trade-off between searching very thoroughly and covering a lot of ground. And what they do is, when there are many ants in a small space, then each one can search very thoroughly because there will be another ant nearby searching over there, but when there are a few ants in a large space, then they need to stretch out their paths to cover more ground. I think they use interactions to assess density, so when they're really crowded, they meet more often, and they search more thoroughly. Different ant species must use different algorithms, because they've evolved to deal with different resources, and it could be really useful to know about this, and so we recently asked ants to solve the collective search problem in the extreme environment of microgravity in the International Space Station. When I first saw this picture, I thought, Oh no, they've mounted the habitat vertically, but then I realized that, of course, it doesn't matter. So the idea here is that the ants are working so hard to hang on to the wall or the floor or whatever you call it that they're less likely to interact, and so the relationship between how crowded they are and how often they meet would be messed up. We're still analyzing the data. I don't have the results yet. But it would be interesting to know how other species solve this problem in different environments on Earth, and so we're setting up a program to encourage kids around the world to try this experiment with different species. It's very simple. It can be done with cheap materials. And that way, we could make a global map of ant collective search algorithms. And I think it's pretty likely that the invasive species, the ones that come into our buildings, are going to be really good at this, because they're in your kitchen because they're really good at finding food and water.
So the most familiar resource for ants is a picnic, and this is a clustered resource. When there's one piece of fruit, there's likely to be another piece of fruit nearby, and the ants that specialize on clustered resources use interactions for recruitment. So when one ant meets another, or when it meets a chemical deposited on the ground by another, then it changes direction to follow in the direction of the interaction, and that's how you get the trail of ants sharing your picnic.
Now this is a place where I think we might be able to learn something from ants about cancer. I mean, first, it's obvious that we could do a lot to prevent cancer by not allowing people to spread around or sell the toxins that promote the evolution of cancer in our bodies, but I don't think the ants can help us much with this because ants never poison their own colonies. But we might be able to learn something from ants about treating cancer. There are many different kinds of cancer. Each one originates in a particular part of the body, and then some kinds of cancer will spread or metastasize to particular other tissues where they must be getting resources that they need. So if you think from the perspective of early metastatic cancer cells as they're out searching around for the resources that they need, if those resources are clustered, they're likely to use interactions for recruitment, and if we can figure out how cancer cells are recruiting, then maybe we could set traps to catch them before they become established.
So ants are using interactions in different ways in a huge variety of environments, and we could learn from this about other systems that operate without central control. Using only simple interactions, ant colonies have been performing amazing feats for more than 130 million years. We have a lot to learn from them.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
What do I know that would cause me, a reticent, Midwestern scientist, to get myself arrested in front of the White House protesting? And what would you do if you knew what I know? Let's start with how I got to this point. I was lucky to grow up at a time when it was not difficult for the child of a tenant farmer to make his way to the state university.
And I was really lucky to go to the University of Iowa where I could study under Professor James Van Allen who built instruments for the first U.S. satellites. Professor Van Allen told me about observations of Venus, that there was intense microwave radiation. Did it mean that Venus had an ionosphere? Or was Venus extremely hot? The right answer, confirmed by the Soviet Venera spacecraft, was that Venus was very hot -- 900 degrees Fahrenheit. And it was kept hot by a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere.
I was fortunate to join NASA and successfully propose an experiment to fly to Venus. Our instrument took this image of the veil of Venus, which turned out to be a smog of sulfuric acid. But while our instrument was being built, I became involved in calculations of the greenhouse effect here on Earth, because we realized that our atmospheric composition was changing. Eventually, I resigned as principal investigator on our Venus experiment because a planet changing before our eyes is more interesting and important. Its changes will affect all of humanity.
The greenhouse effect had been well understood for more than a century. British physicist John Tyndall, in the 1850's, made laboratory measurements of the infrared radiation, which is heat. And he showed that gasses such as CO2 absorb heat, thus acting like a blanket warming Earth's surface.
I worked with other scientists to analyze Earth climate observations. In 1981, we published an article in Science magazine concluding that observed warming of 0.4 degrees Celsius in the prior century was consistent with the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2. That Earth would likely warm in the 1980's, and warming would exceed the noise level of random weather by the end of the century. We also said that the 21st century would see shifting climate zones, creation of drought-prone regions in North America and Asia, erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage. All of these impacts have since either happened or are now well under way.
That paper was reported on the front page of the New York Times and led to me testifying to Congress in the 1980's, testimony in which I emphasized that global warming increases both extremes of the Earth's water cycle. Heatwaves and droughts on one hand, directly from the warming, but also, because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor with its latent energy, rainfall will become in more extreme events. There will be stronger storms and greater flooding. Global warming hoopla became time-consuming and distracted me from doing science -- partly because I had complained that the White House altered my testimony. So I decided to go back to strictly doing science and leave the communication to others.
By 15 years later, evidence of global warming was much stronger. Most of the things mentioned in our 1981 paper were facts. I had the privilege to speak twice to the president's climate task force. But energy policies continued to focus on finding more fossil fuels. By then we had two grandchildren, Sophie and Connor. I decided that I did not want them in the future to say, "Opa understood what was happening, but he didn't make it clear." So I decided to give a public talk criticizing the lack of an appropriate energy policy.
I gave the talk at the University of Iowa in 2004 and at the 2005 meeting of the American Geophysical Union. This led to calls from the White House to NASA headquarters and I was told that I could not give any talks or speak with the media without prior explicit approval by NASA headquarters. After I informed the New York Times about these restrictions, NASA was forced to end the censorship. But there were consequences. I had been using the first line of the NASA mission statement, "To understand and protect the home planet," to justify my talks. Soon the first line of the mission statement was deleted, never to appear again.
Over the next few years I was drawn more and more into trying to communicate the urgency of a change in energy policies, while still researching the physics of climate change. Let me describe the most important conclusion from the physics -- first, from Earth's energy balance and, second, from Earth's climate history.
Adding CO2 to the air is like throwing another blanket on the bed. It reduces Earth's heat radiation to space, so there's a temporary energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than going out, until Earth warms up enough to again radiate to space as much energy as it absorbs from the Sun. So the key quantity is Earth's energy imbalance. Is there more energy coming in than going out? If so, more warming is in the pipeline. It will occur without adding any more greenhouse gasses.
Now finally, we can measure Earth's energy imbalance precisely by measuring the heat content in Earth's heat reservoirs. The biggest reservoir, the ocean, was the least well measured, until more than 3,000 Argo floats were distributed around the world's ocean. These floats reveal that the upper half of the ocean is gaining heat at a substantial rate. The deep ocean is also gaining heat at a smaller rate, and energy is going into the net melting of ice all around the planet. And the land, to depths of tens of meters, is also warming.
The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391 ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to restore energy balance and prevent further warming.
Climate change deniers argue that the Sun is the main cause of climate change. But the measured energy imbalance occurred during the deepest solar minimum in the record, when the Sun's energy reaching Earth was least. Yet, there was more energy coming in than going out. This shows that the effect of the Sun's variations on climate is overwhelmed by the increasing greenhouse gasses, mainly from burning fossil fuels.
Now consider Earth's climate history. These curves for global temperature, atmospheric CO2 and sea level were derived from ocean cores and Antarctic ice cores, from ocean sediments and snowflakes that piled up year after year over 800,000 years forming a two-mile thick ice sheet. As you see, there's a high correlation between temperature, CO2 and sea level. Careful examination shows that the temperature changes slightly lead the CO2 changes by a few centuries. Climate change deniers like to use this fact to confuse and trick the public by saying, "Look, the temperature causes CO2 to change, not vice versa." But that lag is exactly what is expected.
Small changes in Earth's orbit that occur over tens to hundreds of thousands of years alter the distribution of sunlight on Earth. When there is more sunlight at high latitudes in summer, ice sheets melt. Shrinking ice sheets make the planet darker, so it absorbs more sunlight and becomes warmer. A warmer ocean releases CO2, just as a warm Coca-Cola does. And more CO2 causes more warming. So CO2, methane, and ice sheets were feedbacks that amplified global temperature change causing these ancient climate oscillations to be huge, even though the climate change was initiated by a very weak forcing.
The important point is that these same amplifying feedbacks will occur today. The physics does not change. As Earth warms, now because of extra CO2 we put in the atmosphere, ice will melt, and CO2 and methane will be released by warming ocean and melting permafrost. While we can't say exactly how fast these amplifying feedbacks will occur, it is certain they will occur, unless we stop the warming. There is evidence that feedbacks are already beginning. Precise measurements by GRACE, the gravity satellite, reveal that both Greenland and Antarctica are now losing mass, several hundred cubic kilometers per year. And the rate has accelerated since the measurements began nine years ago. Methane is also beginning to escape from the permafrost.
What sea level rise can we look forward to? The last time CO2 was 390 ppm, today's value, sea level was higher by at least 15 meters, 50 feet. Where you are sitting now would be under water. Most estimates are that, this century, we will get at least one meter. I think it will be more if we keep burning fossil fuels, perhaps even five meters, which is 18 feet, this century or shortly thereafter.
The important point is that we will have started a process that is out of humanity's control. Ice sheets would continue to disintegrate for centuries. There would be no stable shoreline. The economic consequences are almost unthinkable. Hundreds of New Orleans-like devastations around the world. What may be more reprehensible, if climate denial continues, is extermination of species. The monarch butterfly could be one of the 20 to 50 percent of all species that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates will be ticketed for extinction by the end of the century if we stay on business-as-usual fossil fuel use.
Global warming is already affecting people. The Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico heatwave and drought last year, Moscow the year before and Europe in 2003, were all exceptional events, more than three standard deviations outside the norm. Fifty years ago, such anomalies covered only two- to three-tenths of one percent of the land area. In recent years, because of global warming, they now cover about 10 percent -- an increase by a factor of 25 to 50. So we can say with a high degree of confidence that the severe Texas and Moscow heatwaves were not natural; they were caused by global warming. An important impact, if global warming continues, will be on the breadbasket of our nation and the world, the Midwest and Great Plains, which are expected to become prone to extreme droughts, worse than the Dust Bowl, within just a few decades, if we let global warming continue.
How did I get dragged deeper and deeper into an attempt to communicate, giving talks in 10 countries, getting arrested, burning up the vacation time that I had accumulated over 30 years? More grandchildren helped me along. Jake is a super-positive, enthusiastic boy. Here at age two and a half years, he thinks he can protect his two and a half-day-old little sister. It would be immoral to leave these young people with a climate system spiraling out of control.
Now the tragedy about climate change is that we can solve it with a simple, honest approach of a gradually rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies and distributed 100 percent electronically every month to all legal residents on a per capita basis, with the government not keeping one dime. Most people would get more in the monthly dividend than they'd pay in increased prices. This fee and dividend would stimulate the economy and innovations, creating millions of jobs. It is the principal requirement for moving us rapidly to a clean energy future.
Several top economists are coauthors on this proposition. Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection describes it thusly: "Transparent. Market-based. Does not enlarge government. Leaves energy decisions to individual choices. Sounds like a conservative climate plan."
But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true cost to society, our governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels by 400 to 500 billion dollars per year worldwide, thus encouraging extraction of every fossil fuel -- mountaintop removal, longwall mining, fracking, tar sands, tar shale, deep ocean Arctic drilling. This path, if continued, guarantees that we will pass tipping points leading to ice sheet disintegration that will accelerate out of control of future generations. A large fraction of species will be committed to extinction. And increasing intensity of droughts and floods will severely impact breadbaskets of the world, causing massive famines and economic decline. Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth.
That is the equivalent of what we face now. Yet, we dither, taking no action to divert the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. If we had started in 2005, it would have required emission reductions of three percent per year to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate this century. If we start next year, it is six percent per year. If we wait 10 years, it is 15 percent per year -- extremely difficult and expensive, perhaps impossible. But we aren't even starting.
So now you know what I know that is moving me to sound this alarm. Clearly, I haven't gotten this message across. The science is clear. I need your help to communicate the gravity and the urgency of this situation and its solutions more effectively. We owe it to our children and grandchildren.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
This is very strange for me, because I’m not used to doing this: I usually stand on the other side of the light, and now I'm feeling the pressure I put other people into. And it's hard ... The previous speaker has, I think, really painted a very good background as to the impulse behind my work and what drives me, and my sense of loss, and trying to find the answer to the big questions.
But this, for me, I mean, coming here to do this, feels like -- there’s this sculptor that I like very much, Giacometti, who after many years of living in France -- and learning, you know, studying and working -- he returned home and he was asked, what did you produce? What have you done with so many years of being away? And he sort of, he showed a handful of figurines. And obviously they were, "Is this what you spent years doing? And we expected huge masterpieces!" But what struck me is the understanding that in those little pieces was the culmination of a man’s life, search, thought, everything -- just in a reduced, small version. In a way, I feel like that. I feel like I’m coming home to talk about what I’ve been away doing for 20 years. And I will start with a brief taster of what I’ve been about: a handful of films -- nothing much, two feature films and a handful of short films. So, we’ll go with the first piece.
(Video) Woman: "I destroy lives," mum said. I love her, you know. She’s not even my real mum. My real mum and dad dumped me and fucked off back to Nigeria. The devil is in me, Court. Court: Sleep. Woman: Have you ever been? Court: Where? Woman: Nigeria. Court: Never. My mum wanted to, couldn’t afford it. Woman: Wish I could. I have this feeling I’d be happy there. Why does everyone get rid of me? Court: I don't want to get rid of you. Woman: You don't need me. You’re just too blind to see it now.
Boy: What do you do all day? Marcus: Read. Boy: Don't you get bored? And how come you ain't got a job anyway? Marcus: I am retired. Boy: So? Marcus: So I've done my bit for Queen and country, now I work for myself. Boy: No, now you sit around like a bum all day. Marcus: Because I do what I like? Boy: Look man, reading don't feed no one. And it particularly don't feed your spliff habit. Marcus: It feeds my mind and my soul. Boy: Arguing with you is a waste of time, Marcus. Marcus: You’re a rapper, am I right? Boy: Yeah. Marcus: A modern day poet. Boy: Yeah, you could say that. Marcus: So what do you talk about? Boy: What's that supposed to mean? Marcus: Simple. What do you rap about? Boy: Reality, man. Marcus: Whose reality? Boy: My fuckin' reality. Marcus: Tell me about your reality. Boy: Racism, oppression, people like me not getting a break in life. Marcus: So what solutions do you offer? I mean, the job of a poet is not just -- Boy: Man, fight the power! Simple: blow the motherfuckers out of the sky. Marcus: With an AK-47? Boy: Man, if I had one, too fuckin' right. Marcus: And how many soldiers have you recruited to fight this war with you? Boy: Oh, Marcus, you know what I mean. Marcus: When a man resorts to profanities, it’s a sure sign of his inability to express himself. Boy: See man, you’re just taking the piss out of me now. Marcus: The Panthers. Boy: Panthers? Ass kickin' guys who were fed up with all that white supremacist, powers-that-be bullshit, and just went in there and kicked everybody's arse. Fuckin’ wicked, man. I saw the movie. Bad! What?
Director 1: I saw his last film. Épuise, right? Woman 1: Yes. D1: Not to make a bad joke, but it was really épuisé. Epuisé -- tired, exhausted, fed up. Director 2: Can you not shut up? Now, you talk straight to me, what’s wrong with my films? Let’s go. W1: They suck. Woman 2: They suck? What about yours? What, what, what, what about, what? What do you think about your movie? D1: My movies, they are OK, fine. They are better than making documentaries no one ever sees. What the fuck are you talking about? Did you ever move your fuckin' ass from Hollywood to go and film something real? You make people fuckin' sleep. Dream about bullshit.
(Applause)
Newton Aduaka: Thank you. The first clip, really, is totally trying to capture what cinema is for me, and where I'm coming from in terms of cinema. The first piece was, really, there's a young woman talking about Nigeria, that she has a feeling she'll be happy there. These are the sentiments of someone that's been away from home. And that was something that I went through, you know, and I'm still going through. I've not been home for quite a while, for about five years now. I've been away 20 years in total. And so it’s really -- it's really how suddenly, you know, this was made in 1997, which is the time of Abacha -- the military dictatorship, the worst part of Nigerian history, this post-colonial history. So, for this girl to have these dreams is simply how we preserve a sense of what home is. How -- and it's sort of, perhaps romantic, but I think beautiful, because you just need something to hold on to, especially in a society where you feel alienated.
Which takes us to the next piece, where the young man talks about lack of opportunity: living as a black person in Europe, the glass ceiling that we all know about, that we all talk about, and his reality. Again, this was my -- this was me talking about -- this was, again, the time of multiculturalism in the United Kingdom, and there was this buzzword -- and it was trying to say, what exactly does this multiculturalism mean in the real lives of people? And what would a child -- what does a child like Jamie -- the young boy -- think, I mean, with all this anger that's built up inside of him? What happens with that? What, of course, happens with that is violence, which we see when we talk about the ghettos and we talk about, you know, South Central L.A. and this kind of stuff, and which eventually, when channeled, becomes, you know, evolves and manifests itself as riots -- like the one in France two years ago, where I live, which shocked everybody, because everyone thought, "Oh well, France is a liberal society." But I lived in England for 18 years. I've lived in France for about four, and I feel actually thrown back 20 years, living in France. And then, the third piece. The third piece for me is the question: What is cinema to you? What do you do with cinema? There's a young director, Hollywood director, with his friends -- fellow filmmakers -- talking about what cinema means. I suppose that will take me to my last piece -- what cinema means for me. My life started as a -- I started life in 1966, a few months before the Biafran, which lasted for three years and it was three years of war. So that whole thing, that whole childhood echoes and takes me into the next piece.
(Video) Voice: Onicha, off to school with your brother. Onicha: Yes, mama. Commander: Soldiers, you are going to fight a battle, so you must get ready and willing to die. You must get -- ? Child Soldiers: Ready and willing to die. C: Success, the change is only coming through the barrel of the gun. CS: The barrel of the gun! C: This is the gun. CS: This is the gun. C: This is an AK-47 rifle. This is your life. This is your life. This is ... this is ... this is your life. Ezra: They give us the special drugs. We call it bubbles. Amphetamines. Soldiers: Rain come, sun come, soldier man dey go. I say rain come, sun come, soldier man dey go. We went from one village to another -- three villages. I don’t remember how we got there. Witness: We walked and walked for two days. We didn't eat. There was no food, just little rice. Without food -- I was sick. The injection made us not to have mind. God will forgive us. He knows we did not know. We did not know!
Committee Chairman: Do you remember January 6th, 1999? Ezra: I don’t remember.
Various Voices: You will die! You will die! (Screaming) Onicha: Ezra! (Ezra: Onicha! Onicha!) Various Voices: ♫ We don't need no more trouble ♫ ♫ No more trouble ♫ They killed my mother. The Mende sons of bastards. (Shouting) Who is she? Me. Why you giving these to me? So you can stop staring at me. My story is a little bit complicated. I’m interested. Mariam is pregnant. You know what you are? A crocodile. Big mouth. Short legs. In front of Rufus you are Ezra the coward. He’s not taking care of his troops. Troop, pay your last honor. Salute. Open your eyes, Ezra. A blind man can see that the diamonds end up in his pocket. ♫ We don't need no more trouble ♫ Get that idiot out! I take you are preparing a major attack? This must be the mine. Your girl is here. Well done, well done. That is what you are here for, no? You are planning to go back to fight are you? ♫ We don't need no more trouble ♫ ♫ No more trouble ♫ ♫ We don't need no more trouble ♫ ♫ No more trouble. ♫ Wake up! Everybody wake up. Road block! ♫ We don't need no more ... ♫
Committee Chairman: We hope that, with your help and the help of others, that this commission will go a long way towards understanding the causes of the rebel war. More than that, begin a healing process and finally to -- as an act of closure to a terrible period in this country’s history. The beginning of hope. Mr. Ezra Gelehun, please stand. State your name and age for the commission. Ezra: My name is Ezra Gelehun. I am 15 or 16. I don’t remember. Ask my sister, she is the witch, she knows everything. (Sister: 16.) CC: Mr. Gelehun, I’d like to remind you you’re not on trial here for any crimes you committed. E: We were fighting for our freedom. If killing in a war is a crime, then you have to charge every soldier in the world. War is a crime, yes, but I did not start it. You too are a retired General, not so? CC: Yes, correct. E: So you too must stand trial then. Our government was corrupt. Lack of education was their way to control power. If I may ask, do you pay for school in your country? CC: No, we don’t. E: You are richer than us. But we pay for school. Your country talks about democracy, but you support corrupt governments like my own. Why? Because you want our diamond. Ask if anyone in this room have ever seen real diamond before? No. CC: Mr. Gelehun, I'd like to remind you, you're not on trial here today. You are not on trial. E: Then let me go. CC: I can't do that, son. E: So you are a liar.
(Applause)
NA: Thank you. Just very quickly to say that my point really here, is that while we’re making all these huge advancements, what we're doing, which for me, you know, I think we should -- Africa should move forward, but we should remember, so we do not go back here again. Thank you.
Emeka Okafor: Thank you, Newton.
(Applause)
One of the themes that comes through very strongly in the piece we just watched is this sense of the psychological trauma of the young that have to play this role of being child soldiers. And considering where you are coming from, and when we consider the extent to which it’s not taken as seriously as it should be, what would you have to say about that?
NA: In the process of my research, I actually spent a bit of time in Sierra Leone researching this. And I remember I met a lot of child soldiers -- ex-combatants, as they like to be called. I met psychosocial workers who worked with them. I met psychiatrists who spent time with them, aid workers, NGOs, the whole lot. But I remember on the flight back on my last trip, I remember breaking down in tears and thinking to myself, if any kid in the West, in the western world, went through a day of what any of those kids have gone through, they will be in therapy for the rest of their natural lives. So for me, the thought that we have all these children -- it’s a generation, we have a whole generation of children -- who have been put through so much psychological trauma or damage, and Africa has to live with that. But I’m just saying to factor that in, factor that in with all this great advancement, all this pronouncement of great achievement. That’s really my thinking.
EO: Well, we thank you again for coming to the TED stage. That was a very moving piece.
NA: Thank you.
EO: Thank you.
(Applause) |
I am the daughter of a forger, not just any forger ... When you hear the word "forger," you often understand "mercenary." You understand "forged currency," "forged pictures." My father is no such man. For 30 years of his life, he made false papers -- never for himself, always for other people, and to come to the aid of the persecuted and the oppressed. Let me introduce him. Here is my father at age 19. It all began for him during World War II, when at age 17 he found himself thrust into a forged documents workshop. He quickly became the false papers expert of the Resistance. And it's not a banal story -- after the liberation he continued to make false papers until the '70s.
When I was a child I knew nothing about this, of course. This is me in the middle making faces. I grew up in the Paris suburbs and I was the youngest of three children. I had a "normal" dad like everybody else, apart from the fact that he was 30 years older than ... well, he was basically old enough to be my grandfather. Anyway, he was a photographer and a street educator, and he always taught us to obey the law very strictly. And, of course, he never talked about his past life when he was a forger.
There was, however, an incident I'm going to tell you about, that perhaps could have led me suspect something. I was in high school and got a bad grade, a rare event for me, so I decided to hide it from my parents. In order to do that, I set out to forge their signature. I started working on my mother's signature, because my father's is absolutely impossible to forge. So, I got working. I took some sheets of paper and started practicing, practicing, practicing, until I reached what I thought was a steady hand, and went into action. Later, while checking my school bag, my mother got hold of my school assignment and immediately saw that the signature was forged. She yelled at me like she never had before. I went to hide in my bedroom, under the blankets, and then I waited for my father to come back from work with, one could say, much apprehension. I heard him come in. I remained under the blankets. He entered my room, sat on the corner of the bed, and he was silent, so I pulled the blanket from my head, and when he saw me he started laughing. He was laughing so hard, he could not stop and he was holding my assignment in his hand. Then he said, "But really, Sarah, you could have worked harder! Can't you see it's really too small?" Indeed, it's rather small.
I was born in Algeria. There I would hear people say my father was a "moudjahid" and that means "fighter." Later on, in France, I loved eavesdropping on grownups' conversations, and I would hear all sorts of stories about my father's previous life, especially that he had "done" World War II, that he had "done" the Algerian war. And in my head I would be thinking that "doing" a war meant being a soldier. But knowing my father, and how he kept saying that he was a pacifist and non-violent, I found it very hard to picture him with a helmet and gun. And indeed, I was very far from the mark.
One day, while my father was working on a file for us to obtain French nationality, I happened to see some documents that caught my attention. These are real! These are mine, I was born an Argentinean. But the document I happened to see that would help us build a case for the authorities was a document from the army that thanked my father for his work on behalf of the secret services. And then, suddenly, I went "wow!" My father, a secret agent? It was very James Bond. I wanted to ask him questions, which he didn't answer. And later, I told myself that one day I would have to question him. And then I became a mother and had a son, and finally decided it was time -- that he absolutely had to talk to us. I had become a mother and he was celebrating his 77th birthday, and suddenly I was very, very afraid. I feared he'd go and take his silences with him, and take his secrets with him. I managed to convince him that it was important for us, but possibly also for other people that he shared his story. He decided to tell it to me and I made a book, from which I'm going to read you some excerpts later.
So, his story. My father was born in Argentina. His parents were of Russian descent. The whole family came to settle in France in the '30s. His parents were Jewish, Russian and above all, very poor. So at the age of 14 my father had to work. And with his only diploma, his primary education certificate, he found himself working at a dyer - dry cleaner. That's where he discovered something totally magical, and when he talks about it, it's fascinating -- it's the magic of dyeing chemistry. During that time the war was happening and his mother was killed when he was 15. This coincided with the time when he threw himself body and soul into chemistry because it was the only consolation for his sadness. All day he would ask many questions to his boss to learn, to accumulate more and more knowledge, and at night, when no one was looking, he'd put his experience to practice. He was mostly interested in ink bleaching.
All this to tell you that if my father became a forger, actually, it was almost by accident. His family was Jewish, so they were hounded. Finally they were all arrested and taken to the Drancy camp and they managed to get out at the last minute thanks to their Argentinean papers. Well, they were out, but they were always in danger. The big "Jew" stamp was still on their papers. It was my grandfather who decided they needed false documents. My father had been instilled with such respect for the law that although he was being persecuted, he'd never thought of false papers. But it was he who went to meet a man from the Resistance.
In those times documents had hard covers, they were filled in by hand, and they stated your job. In order to survive, he needed to be working. He asked the man to write "dyer." Suddenly the man looked very, very interested. As a "dyer," do you know how to bleach ink marks? Of course he knew. And suddenly the man started explaining that actually the whole Resistance had a huge problem: even the top experts could not manage to bleach an ink, called "indelible," the "Waterman" blue ink. And my father immediately replied that he knew exactly how to bleach it. Now, of course, the man was very impressed with this young man of 17 who could immediately give him the formula, so he recruited him. And actually, without knowing it, my father had invented something we can find in every schoolchild's pencil case: the so-called "correction pen." (Applause)
But it was only the beginning. That's my father. As soon as he got to the lab, even though he was the youngest, he immediately saw that there was a problem with the making of forged documents. All the movements stopped at falsifying. But demand was ever-growing and it was difficult to tamper with existing documents. He told himself it was necessary to make them from scratch. He started a press. He started photoengraving. He started making rubber stamps. He started inventing all kind of things -- with some materials he invented a centrifuge using a bicycle wheel. Anyway, he had to do all this because he was completely obsessed with output. He had made a simple calculation: In one hour he could make 30 forged documents. If he slept one hour, 30 people would die.
This sense of responsibility for other people's lives when he was just 17 -- and also his guilt for being a survivor, since he had escaped the camp when his friends had not -- stayed with him all his life. And this is maybe what explains why, for 30 years, he continued to make false papers at the expense of all kinds of sacrifices. I'd like to talk about those sacrifices, because there were many. There were obviously financial sacrifices because he always refused to be paid. To him, being paid would have meant being a mercenary. If he had accepted payment, he wouldn't be able to say "yes" or "no" depending on what he deemed a just or unjust cause. So he was a photographer by day, and a forger by night for 30 years. He was broke all of the time.
Then there were the emotional sacrifices: How can one live with a woman while having so many secrets? How can one explain what one does at night in the lab, every single night? Of course, there was another kind of sacrifice involving his family that I understood much later. One day my father introduced me to my sister. He also explained to me that I had a brother, too, and the first time I saw them I must have been three or four, and they were 30 years older than me. They are both in their sixties now.
In order to write the book, I asked my sister questions. I wanted to know who my father was, who was the father she had known. She explained that the father that she'd had would tell them he'd come and pick them up on Sunday to go for a walk. They would get all dressed up and wait for him, but he would almost never come. He'd say, "I'll call." He wouldn't call. And then he would not come. Then one day he totally disappeared. Time passed, and they thought he had surely forgotten them, at first. Then as time passed, at the end of almost two years, they thought, "Well, perhaps our father has died." And then I understood that asking my father so many questions was stirring up a whole past he probably didn't feel like talking about because it was painful. And while my half brother and sister thought they'd been abandoned, orphaned, my father was making false papers. And if he did not tell them, it was of course to protect them.
After the liberation he made false papers to allow the survivors of concentration camps to immigrate to Palestine before the creation of Israel. And then, as he was a staunch anti-colonialist, he made false papers for Algerians during the Algerian war. After the Algerian war, at the heart of the international resistance movements, his name circulated and the whole world came knocking at his door. In Africa there were countries fighting for their independence: Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Angola. And then my father connected with Nelson Mandela's anti-apartheid party. He made false papers for persecuted black South Africans.
There was also Latin America. My father helped those who resisted dictatorships in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and then it was the turn of Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Chile and Mexico. Then there was the Vietnam War. My father made false papers for the American deserters who did not wish to take up arms against the Vietnamese. Europe was not spared either. My father made false papers for the dissidents against Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, against the colonels' dictatorship in Greece, and even in France. There, just once, it happened in May of 1968. My father watched, benevolently, of course, the demonstrations of the month of May, but his heart was elsewhere, and so was his time because he had over 15 countries to serve.
Once, though, he agreed to make false papers for someone you might recognize. (Laughter) He was much younger in those days, and my father agreed to make false papers to enable him to come back and speak at a meeting. He told me that those false papers were the most media-relevant and the least useful he'd had to make in all his life. But, he agreed to do it, even though Daniel Cohn-Bendit's life was not in danger, just because it was a good opportunity to mock the authorities, and to show them that there's nothing more porous than borders -- and that ideas have no borders.
All my childhood, while my friends' dads would tell them Grimm's fairy tales, my father would tell me stories about very unassuming heroes with unshakeable utopias who managed to make miracles. And those heroes did not need an army behind them. Anyhow, nobody would have followed them, except for a handful [of] men and women of conviction and courage. I understood much later that actually it was his own story my father would tell me to get me to sleep. I asked him whether, considering the sacrifices he had to make, he ever had any regrets. He said no. He told me that he would have been unable to witness or submit to injustice without doing anything. He was persuaded, and he's still convinced that another world is possible -- a world where no one would ever need a forger. He's still dreaming about it. My father is here in the room today. His name is Adolfo Kaminsky and I'm going to ask him to stand up. (Applause) Thank you. |
I want to start with a story, a la Seth Godin, from when I was 12 years old. My uncle Ed gave me a beautiful blue sweater -- at least I thought it was beautiful. And it had fuzzy zebras walking across the stomach, and Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Meru were kind of right across the chest, that were also fuzzy. And I wore it whenever I could, thinking it was the most fabulous thing I owned.
Until one day in ninth grade, when I was standing with a number of the football players. And my body had clearly changed, and Matt, who was undeniably my nemesis in high school, said in a booming voice that we no longer had to go far away to go on ski trips, but we could all ski on Mount Novogratz. (Laughter) And I was so humiliated and mortified that I immediately ran home to my mother and chastised her for ever letting me wear the hideous sweater. We drove to the Goodwill and we threw the sweater away somewhat ceremoniously, my idea being that I would never have to think about the sweater nor see it ever again.
Fast forward -- 11 years later, I'm a 25-year-old kid. I'm working in Kigali, Rwanda, jogging through the steep slopes, when I see, 10 feet in front of me, a little boy -- 11 years old -- running toward me, wearing my sweater. And I'm thinking, no, this is not possible. But so, curious, I run up to the child -- of course scaring the living bejesus out of him -- grab him by the collar, turn it over, and there is my name written on the collar of this sweater.
I tell that story, because it has served and continues to serve as a metaphor to me about the level of connectedness that we all have on this Earth. We so often don't realize what our action and our inaction does to people we think we will never see and never know. I also tell it because it tells a larger contextual story of what aid is and can be. That this traveled into the Goodwill in Virginia, and moved its way into the larger industry, which at that point was giving millions of tons of secondhand clothing to Africa and Asia. Which was a very good thing, providing low cost clothing. And at the same time, certainly in Rwanda, it destroyed the local retailing industry. Not to say that it shouldn't have, but that we have to get better at answering the questions that need to be considered when we think about consequences and responses.
So, I'm going to stick in Rwanda, circa 1985, 1986, where I was doing two things. I had started a bakery with 20 unwed mothers. We were called the "Bad News Bears," and our notion was we were going to corner the snack food business in Kigali, which was not hard because there were no snacks before us. And because we had a good business model, we actually did it, and I watched these women transform on a micro-level. But at the same time, I started a micro-finance bank, and tomorrow Iqbal Quadir is going to talk about Grameen, which is the grandfather of all micro-finance banks, which now is a worldwide movement -- you talk about a meme -- but then it was quite new, especially in an economy that was moving from barter into trade.
We got a lot of things right. We focused on a business model; we insisted on skin in the game. The women made their own decisions at the end of the day as to how they would use this access to credit to build their little businesses, earn more income so they could take care of their families better.
What we didn't understand, what was happening all around us, with the confluence of fear, ethnic strife and certainly an aid game, if you will, that was playing into this invisible but certainly palpable movement inside Rwanda, that at that time, 30 percent of the budget was all foreign aid. The genocide happened in 1994, seven years after these women all worked together to build this dream. And the good news was that the institution, the banking institution, lasted. In fact, it became the largest rehabilitation lender in the country. The bakery was completely wiped out, but the lessons for me were that accountability counts -- got to build things with people on the ground, using business models where, as Steven Levitt would say, the incentives matter. Understand, however complex we may be, incentives matter.
So when Chris raised to me how wonderful everything that was happening in the world, that we were seeing a shift in zeitgeist, on the one hand I absolutely agree with him, and I was so thrilled to see what happened with the G8 -- that the world, because of people like Tony Blair and Bono and Bob Geldof -- the world is talking about global poverty; the world is talking about Africa in ways I have never seen in my life. It's thrilling. And at the same time, what keeps me up at night is a fear that we'll look at the victories of the G8 -- 50 billion dollars in increased aid to Africa, 40 billion in reduced debt -- as the victory, as more than chapter one, as our moral absolution.
And in fact, what we need to do is see that as chapter one, celebrate it, close it, and recognize that we need a chapter two that is all about execution, all about the how-to. And if you remember one thing from what I want to talk about today, it's that the only way to end poverty, to make it history, is to build viable systems on the ground that deliver critical and affordable goods and services to the poor, in ways that are financially sustainable and scaleable. If we do that, we really can make poverty history.
And it was that -- that whole philosophy -- that encouraged me to start my current endeavor called "Acumen Fund," which is trying to build some mini-blueprints for how we might do that in water, health and housing in Pakistan, India, Kenya, Tanzania and Egypt. And I want to talk a little bit about that, and some of the examples, so you can see what it is that we're doing. But before I do this -- and this is another one of my pet peeves -- I want to talk a little bit about who the poor are. Because we too often talk about them as these strong, huge masses of people yearning to be free, when in fact, it's quite an amazing story. On a macro level, four billion people on Earth make less than four dollars a day.
That's who we talk about when we think about "the poor." If you aggregate it, it's the third largest economy on Earth, and yet most of these people go invisible. Where we typically work, there's people making between one and three dollars a day. Who are these people? They are farmers and factory workers. They work in government offices. They're drivers. They are domestics. They typically pay for critical goods and services like water, like healthcare, like housing, and they pay 30 to 40 times what their middleclass counterparts pay -- certainly where we work in Karachi and Nairobi. The poor also are willing to make, and do make, smart decisions, if you give them that opportunity.
So, two examples. One is in India, where there are 240 million farmers, most of whom make less than two dollars a day. Where we work in Aurangabad, the land is extraordinarily parched. You see people on average making 60 cents to a dollar. This guy in pink is a social entrepreneur named Ami Tabar. What he did was see what was happening in Israel, larger approaches, and figure out how to do a drip irrigation, which is a way of bringing water directly to the plant stock. But previously it's only been created for large-scale farms, so Ami Tabar took this and modularized it down to an eighth of an acre. A couple of principles: build small. Make it infinitely expandable and affordable to the poor.
This family, Sarita and her husband, bought a 15-dollar unit when they were living in a -- literally a three-walled lean-to with a corrugated iron roof. After one harvest, they had increased their income enough to buy a second system to do their full quarter-acre. A couple of years later, I meet them. They now make four dollars a day, which is pretty much middle class for India, and they showed me the concrete foundation they had just laid to build their house. And I swear, you could see the future in that woman's eyes. Something I truly believe.
You can't talk about poverty today without talking about malaria bed nets, and I again give Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard huge kudos for bringing to the world this notion of his rage -- for five dollars you can save a life. Malaria is a disease that kills one to three million people a year. 300 to 500 million cases are reported. It's estimated that Africa loses about 13 billion dollars a year to the disease. Five dollars can save a life. We can send people to the moon; we can see if there's life on Mars -- why can't we get five-dollar nets to 500 million people?
The question, though, is not "Why can't we?" The question is how can we help Africans do this for themselves? A lot of hurdles. One: production is too low. Two: price is too high. Three: this is a good road in -- right near where our factory is located. Distribution is a nightmare, but not impossible. We started by making a 350,000-dollar loan to the largest traditional bed net manufacturer in Africa so that they could transfer technology from Japan and build these long-lasting, five-year nets. Here are just some pictures of the factory.
Today, three years later, the company has employed another thousand women. It contributes about 600,000 dollars in wages to the economy of Tanzania. It's the largest company in Tanzania. The throughput rate right now is 1.5 million nets, three million by the end of the year. We hope to have seven million at the end of next year. So the production side is working. On the distribution side, though, as a world, we have a lot of work to do. Right now, 95 percent of these nets are being bought by the U.N., and then given primarily to people around Africa. We're looking at building on some of the most precious resources of Africa: people. Their women.
And so I want you to meet Jacqueline, my namesake, 21 years old. If she were born anywhere else but Tanzania, I'm telling you, she could run Wall Street. She runs two of the lines, and has already saved enough money to put a down payment on her house. She makes about two dollars a day, is creating an education fund, and told me she is not marrying nor having children until these things are completed. And so, when I told her about our idea -- that maybe we could take a Tupperware model from the United States, and find a way for the women themselves to go out and sell these nets to others -- she quickly started calculating what she herself could make and signed up.
We took a lesson from IDEO, one of our favorite companies, and quickly did a prototyping on this, and took Jacqueline into the area where she lives. She brought 10 of the women with whom she interacts together to see if she could sell these nets, five dollars apiece, despite the fact that people say nobody will buy one, and we learned a lot about how you sell things. Not coming in with our own notions, because she didn't even talk about malaria until the very end. First, she talked about comfort, status, beauty. These nets, she said, you put them on the floor, bugs leave your house. Children can sleep through the night; the house looks beautiful; you hang them in the window. And we've started making curtains, and not only is it beautiful, but people can see status -- that you care about your children. Only then did she talk about saving your children's lives. A lot of lessons to be learned in terms of how we sell goods and services to the poor.
I want to end just by saying that there's enormous opportunity to make poverty history. To do it right, we have to build business models that matter, that are scaleable and that work with Africans, Indians, people all over the developing world who fit in this category, to do it themselves. Because at the end of the day, it's about engagement. It's about understanding that people really don't want handouts, that they want to make their own decisions; they want to solve their own problems; and that by engaging with them, not only do we create much more dignity for them, but for us as well. And so I urge all of you to think next time as to how to engage with this notion and this opportunity that we all have -- to make poverty history -- by really becoming part of the process and moving away from an us-and-them world, and realizing that it's about all of us, and the kind of world that we, together, want to live in and share. Thank you. (Applause) |
Now... let's go back in time. It's 1974. There is the gallery somewhere in the world, and there is a young girl, age 23, standing in the middle of the space. In the front of her is a table. On the table there are 76 objects for pleasure and for pain. Some of the objects are a glass of water, a coat, a shoe, a rose. But also the knife, the razor blade, the hammer and the pistol with one bullet. There are instructions which say, "I'm an object. You can use everything on the table on me. I'm taking all responsibility -- even killing me. And the time is six hours."
The beginning of this performance was easy. People would give me the glass of water to drink, they'd give me the rose. But very soon after, there was a man who took the scissors and cut my clothes, and then they took the thorns of the rose and stuck them in my stomach. Somebody took the razor blade and cut my neck and drank the blood, and I still have the scar. The women would tell the men what to do. And the men didn't rape me because it was just a normal opening, and it was all public, and they were with their wives. They carried me around and put me on the table, and put the knife between my legs. And somebody took the pistol and bullet and put it against my temple. And another person took the pistol and they started a fight.
And after six hours were finished, I... started walking towards the public. I was a mess. I was half-naked, I was full of blood and tears were running down my face. And everybody escaped, they just ran away. They could not confront myself, with myself as a normal human being. And then -- what happened is I went to the hotel, it was at two in the morning. And I looked at myself in the mirror, and I had a piece of gray hair. Alright -- please take off your blindfolds.
Welcome to the performance world. First of all, let's explain what the performance is. So many artists, so many different explanations, but my explanation for performance is very simple. Performance is a mental and physical construction that the performer makes in a specific time in a space in front of an audience and then energy dialogue happens. The audience and the performer make the piece together. And the difference between performance and theater is huge. In the theater, the knife is not a knife and the blood is just ketchup. In the performance, the blood is the material, and the razor blade or knife is the tool. It's all about being there in the real time, and you can't rehearse performance, because you can't do many of these types of things twice -- ever. Which is very important, the performance is -- you know, all human beings are always afraid of very simple things. We're afraid of suffering, we're afraid of pain, we're afraid of mortality. So what I'm doing -- I'm staging these kinds of fears in front of the audience. I'm using your energy, and with this energy I can go and push my body as far as I can. And then I liberate myself from these fears. And I'm your mirror. If I can do this for myself, you can do it for you.
After Belgrade, where I was born, I went to Amsterdam. And you know, I've been doing performances since the last 40 years. And here I met Ulay, and he was the person I actually fell in love with. And we made, for 12 years, performances together. You know the knife and the pistols and the bullets, I exchange into love and trust. So to do this kind work you have to trust the person completely because this arrow is pointing to my heart. So, heart beating and adrenaline is rushing and so on, is about trust, is about total trust to another human being.
Our relationship was 12 years, and we worked on so many subjects, both male and female energy. And as every relationship comes to an end, ours went too. We didn't make phone calls like normal human beings do and say, you know, "This is over." We walked the Great Wall of China to say goodbye. I started at the Yellow Sea, and he started from the Gobi Desert. We walked, each of us, three months, two and a half thousand kilometers. It was the mountains, it was difficult. It was climbing, it was ruins. It was, you know, going through the 12 Chinese provinces, this was before China was open in '87. And we succeeded to meet in the middle to say goodbye. And then our relationship stopped.
And now, it completely changed how I see the public. And one very important piece I made in those days was "Balkan Baroque." And this was the time of the Balkan Wars, and I wanted to create some very strong, charismatic image, something that could serve for any war at any time, because the Balkan Wars are now finished, but there's always some war, somewhere. So here I am washing two and a half thousand dead, big, bloody cow bones. You can't wash the blood, you never can wash shame off the wars. So I'm washing this six hours, six days, and wars are coming off these bones, and becoming possible -- an unbearable smell. But then something stays in the memory.
I want to show you the one who really changed my life, and this was the performance in MoMa, which I just recently made. This performance -- when I said to the curator, "I'm just going to sit at the chair, and there will be an empty chair at the front, and anybody from the public can come and sit as long as they want." The curator said to me, "That's ridiculous, you know, this is New York, this chair will be empty, nobody has time to sit in front of you."
(Laughter)
But I sit for three months. And I sit everyday, eight hours -- the opening of the museum -- and 10 hours on Friday when the museum is open 10 hours, and I never move. And I removed the table and I'm still sitting, and this changed everything. This performance, maybe 10 or 15 years ago -- nothing would have happened. But the need of people to actually experience something different, the public was not anymore the group -- relation was one to one. I was watching these people, they would come and sit in front of me, but they would have to wait for hours and hours and hours to get to this position, and finally, they sit.
And what happened? They are observed by the other people, they're photographed, they're filmed by the camera, they're observed by me and they have nowhere to escape except in themselves. And that makes a difference. There was so much pain and loneliness, there's so much incredible things when you look in somebody else's eyes, because in the gaze with that total stranger, that you never even say one word -- everything happened. And I understood when I stood up from that chair after three months, I am not the same anymore. And I understood that I have a very strong mission, that I have to communicate this experience to everybody.
And this is how, for me, was born the idea to have an institute of immaterial performing arts. Because thinking about immateriality, performance is time-based art. It's not like a painting. You have the painting on the wall, the next day it's there. Performance, if you are missing it, you only have the memory, or the story of somebody else telling you, but you actually missed the whole thing. So you have to be there. And in my point, if you talk about immaterial art, music is the highest -- absolutely highest art of all, because it's the most immaterial. And then after this is performance, and then everything else. That's my subjective way.
This institute is going to happen in Hudson, upstate New York, and we are trying to build with Rem Koolhaas, an idea. And it's very simple. If you want to get experience, you have to give me your time. You have to sign the contract before you enter the building, that you will spend there a full six hours, you have to give me your word of honor. It's something so old-fashioned, but if you don't respect your own word of honor and you leave before -- that's not my problem. But it's six hours, the experience. And then after you finish, you get a certificate of accomplishment, so get home and frame it if you want.
(Laughter)
This is orientation hall. The public comes in, and the first thing you have to do is dress in lab coats. It's this importance of stepping from being just a viewer into experimenter. And then you go to the lockers and you put your watch, your iPhone, your iPod, your computer and everything digital, electronic. And you are getting free time for yourself for the first time. Because there is nothing wrong with technology, our approach to technology is wrong. We are losing the time we have for ourselves. This is an institute to actually give you back this time.
So what you do here, first you start slow walking, you start slowing down. You're going back to simplicity. After slow walking, you're going to learn how to drink water -- very simple, drinking water for maybe half an hour. After this, you're going to the magnet chamber, where you're going to create some magnet streams on your body. Then after this, you go to crystal chamber. After crystal chamber, you go to eye-gazing chamber, after eye-gazing chamber, you go to a chamber where you are lying down. So it's the three basic positions of the human body, sitting, standing and lying. And slow walking. And there is a sound chamber. And then after you've seen all of this, and prepared yourself mentally and physically, then you are ready to see something with a long duration, like in immaterial art. It can be music, it can be opera, it can be a theater piece, it can be film, it can be video dance. You go to the long duration chairs because now you are comfortable. In the long duration chairs, you're transported to the big place where you're going to see the work. And if you fall asleep, which is very possible because it's been a long day, you're going to be transported to the parking lot.
(Laughter)
And you know, sleeping is very important. In sleeping, you're still receiving art. So in the parking lot you stay for a certain amount of time, and then after this you just, you know, go back, you see more of the things you like to see or go home with your certificate.
So this institute right now is virtual. Right now, I am just making my institute in Brazil, then it's going to be in Australia, then it's coming here, to Canada and everywhere. And this is to experience a kind of simple method, how you go back to simplicity in your own life. Counting rice will be another thing.
(Laughter)
You know, if you count rice you can make life, too. How to count rice for six hours? It's incredibly important. You know, you go through this whole range of being bored, being angry, being completely frustrated, not finishing the amount of rice you're counting. And then this unbelievable amount of peace you get when satisfying work is finished -- or counting sand in the desert. Or having the sound-isolated situation -- that you have headphones, that you don't hear anything, and you're just there together without sound, with the people experiencing silence, just the simple silence.
We are always doing things we like in our life. And this is why you're not changing. You do things in life -- it's just nothing happens if you always do things the same way. But my method is to do things I'm afraid of, the things I fear, the things I don't know, to go to territory that nobody's ever been.
And then also to include the failure. I think failure is important because if you go, if you experiment, you can fail. If you don't go into that area and you don't fail, you are actually repeating yourself over and over again. And I think that human beings right now need a change, and the only change to be made is a personal level change. You have to make the change on yourself. Because the only way to change consciousness and to change the world around us, is to start with yourself. It's so easy to criticize how it's different, the things in the world and they're not right, and the governments are corrupted and there's hunger in the world and there's wars -- the killing. But what we do on the personal level -- what is our contribution to this whole thing?
Can you turn to your neighbor, the one you don't know, and look at them for two full minutes in their eyes, right now?
(Chatter)
I'm asking two minutes of your time, that's so little. Breathe slowly, don't try to blink, don't be self-conscious. Be relaxed. And just look a complete stranger in your eyes, in his eyes.
(Silence) Thank you for trusting me.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you so much. |
I've spent my life working on sustainability. I set up a climate change NGO called The Climate Group. I worked on forestry issues in WWF. I worked on development and agriculture issues in the U.N. system. About 25 years in total, and then three years ago, I found myself talking to IKEA's CEO about joining his team. Like many people here, well, I want to maximize my personal impact in the world, so I'm going to explain why I joined the team there.
But first, let's just take three numbers.
The first number is three: three billion people. This is the number of people joining the global middle class by 2030, coming out of poverty. It's fantastic for them and their families, but we've got two billion people in the global middle class today, and this swells that number to five, a big challenge when we already have resource scarcity.
The second number is six: This is six degrees centigrade, what we're heading towards in terms of global warming. We're not heading towards one degree or three degrees or four degrees, we're heading toward six degrees. And if you think about it, all of the weird weather we've been having the last few years, much of that is due to just one degree warming, and we need CO2 emissions to peak by the end of this decade globally and then come down. It's not inevitable, but we need to act decisively.
The third number is 12: That's the number of cities in the world that had a million or more people when my grandmother was born. You can see my grandmother there. That was in the beginning of the last century. So just 12 cities. She was born in Manchester, England, the ninth largest city in the world. Now there are 500 cities, nearly, with a million people or more in them. And if you look at the century from 1950 to 2050, that's the century when we build all the world's cities, the century that we're in the middle of right now. Every other century was kind of practice, and this lays down a blueprint for how we live.
So think about it. We're building cities like never before, bringing people out of poverty like never before, and changing the climate like never before. Sustainability has gone from a nice-to-do to a must-do. it's about what we do right here, right now, and for the rest of our working lives.
So I'm going to talk a little bit about what business can do and what a business like IKEA can do, and we have a sustainability strategy called "people and planet positive" to help guide our business to have a positive impact on the world. Why would we not want to have a positive impact on the world as a business? Other companies have sustainability strategies. I'm going to refer to some of those as well, and I'm just going to mention a few of the commitments as illustrations that we've got.
But first, let's think of customers. We know from asking people from China to the U.S. that the vast majority of people care about sustainability after the day-to-day issues, the day-to-day issues of, how do I get my kids to school? Can I pay the bills at the end of the month? Then they care about big issues like climate change. But they want it to be easy, affordable and attractive, and they expect business to help, and they're a little bit disappointed today.
So take your mind back and think of the first sustainable products. We had detergents that could wash your whites grayer. We had the early energy-efficient light bulbs that took five minutes to warm up and then you were left looking a kind of sickly color. And we had the rough, recycled toilet paper. So every time you pulled on a t-shirt, or switched the light on, or went to the bathroom, or sometimes all three together, you were reminded sustainability was about compromise. It wasn't a great start.
Today we have choices. We can make products that are beautiful or ugly, sustainable or unsustainable, affordable or expensive, functional or useless. So let's make beautiful, functional, affordable, sustainable products.
Let's take the LED. The LED is the next best thing to daylight. The old-fashioned lightbulbs, the incandescent bulbs -- I'm not going to ask for a show of hands of how many of you still have them in your homes, wasting energy every time you switch them on -- change them after this -- or whether we have them on the stage here at TED or not -- but those old incandescent light bulbs really should have been sold as heaters. They were mis-sold for more than a hundred years. They produced heat and a little bit of light on the side. Now we have lights that produce light and a little bit of heat on the side. You save 85 percent of the electricity with an LED that you would have done in an old incandescent. And the best thing is, they'll also last for more than 20 years. So think about that. You'll change your smartphone seven or eight times, probably more if you're in this audience. You'll change your car, if you have one, three or four times. Your kids could go to school, go to college, go away and have kids of their own, come back, bring the grandkids, you'll have the same lightbulb saving you energy. So LEDs are fantastic. What we decided to do was not to sell LEDs on the side marked up high and continue to push all the old bulbs, the halogens and the CFLs. We decided, over the next two years, we will ban the halogens and the CFLs ourselves. We will go all in. And this is what business needs to do: go all-in, go 100 percent, because then you stop investing in the old stuff, you invest in the new stuff, you lower costs, you use your supply chain and your creativity and you get the prices down so everybody can afford the best lights so they can save energy.
(Applause)
It's not just about products in people's homes. We've got to think about the raw materials that produce our products. Obviously there's fantastic opportunities with recycled materials, and we can and will go zero waste. And there's opportunities in a circular economy. But we're still dependent on natural, raw materials. Let's take cotton. Cotton's brilliant. Probably many people are wearing cotton right now. It's a brilliant textile in use. It's really dirty in production. It uses lots of pesticides, lots of fertilizer, lots of water. So we've worked with others, with other businesses and NGOs, on the Better Cotton Initiative, working right back down to the farm, and there you can halve the amount of water and halve the chemical inputs, the yields increase, and 60 percent of the costs of running many of these farms with farmers with low incomes can be chemical imports. Yields increase, and you halve the input costs. Farmers are coming out of poverty. They love it. Already hundreds of thousands of farmers have been reached, and now we've got 60 percent better cotton in our business. Again, we're going all-in. By 2015, we'll be 100 percent Better Cotton.
Take the topic of 100 percent targets, actually. People sometimes think that 100 percent's going to be hard, and we've had the conversation in the business. Actually, we found 100 percent is easier to do than 90 percent or 50 percent. If you have a 90 percent target, everyone in the business finds a reason to be in the 10 percent. When it's 100 percent, it's kind of clear, and businesspeople like clarity, because then you just get the job done.
So, wood. We know with forestry, it's a choice. You've got illegal logging and deforestation still on a very large scale, or you can have fantastic, responsible forestry that we can be proud of. It's a simple choice, so we've worked for many years with the Forest Stewardship Council, with literally hundreds of other organizations, and there's a point here about collaboration. So hundreds of others, of NGOs, of forest workers' unions, and of businesses, have helped create the Forest Stewardship Council, which sets standards for forestry and then checks the forestry's good on the ground. Now together, through our supply chain, with partners, we've managed to certify 35 million hectares of forestry. That's about the size of Germany. And we've decided in the next three years, we will double the volume of certified material we put through our business. So be decisive on these issues. Use your supply chain to drive good.
But then it comes to your operations. Some things are certain, I think. We know we'll use electricity in 20 or 30 years' time. We know the sun will be shining somewhere, and the wind will still be blowing in 20 or 30 years' time. So why not make our energy out of the sun and the wind? And why not take control of it ourselves? So we're going 100 percent renewable. By 2020, we'll produce more renewable energy than the energy we consume as a business. For all of our stores, our own factories, our distribution centers, we've installed 300,000 solar panels so far, and we've got 14 wind farms we own and operate in six countries, and we're not done yet. But think of a solar panel. A solar panel pays for itself in seven or eight years. The electricity is free. Every time the sun comes out after that, the electricity is free. So this is a good thing for the CFO, not just the sustainability guy. Every business can do things like this.
But then we've got to look beyond our operations, and I think everybody would agree that now business has to take full responsibility for the impacts of your supply chain. Many businesses now, fortunately, have codes of conduct and audit their supply chains, but not every business. Far from it. And this came in IKEA actually in the '90s. We found there was a risk of child labor in the supply chain, and people in the business were shocked. And it was clearly totally unacceptable, so then you have to act. So a code of conduct was developed, and now we have 80 auditors out in the world every day making sure all our factories secure good working conditions and protect human rights and make sure there is no child labor.
But it's not just as simple as making sure there's no child labor. You've got to say that's not enough today. I think we'd all agree that children are the most important people in the world and the most vulnerable. So what can a business do today to actually use your total value chain to support a better quality of life and protect child rights? We've worked with UNICEF and Save the Children on developing some new business principles with children's rights. Increasing numbers of businesses are signing up to these, but actually in a survey, many business leaders said they thought their business had nothing to do with children. So what we decided to do was, we will look and ask ourselves the tough questions with partners who know more than us, what can we do to go beyond our business to help improve the lives of children? We also have a foundation that's committed to work through partners and help improve the lives and protect the rights of 100 million children by 2015.
You know the phrase, you can manage what you measure? Well, you should measure what you care about. If you're not measuring things, you don't care and you don't know. So let's take an example, measure the things that are important in your business. Isn't it about time that businesses were led equally by men and women?
(Applause)
So we know for our 17,000 managers across IKEA that 47 percent are women today, but it's not enough, and we want to close the gap and follow it all the way through to senior management. And we do not want to wait another hundred years. So we've launched a women's open network this week in IKEA, and we'll do whatever it takes to lead the change. So the message here is, measure what you care about and lead the change, and don't wait a hundred years.
So we've gone from sustainability being a nice-to-do to a must-do. It's a must-do. It's still nice to do, but it's a must-do. And everybody can do something on this as an individual. Be a discerning consumer. Vote with your wallets. Search out the companies that are acting on this. But also, there are other businesses already acting. I mentioned renewable energy. You go to Google or Lego, they're going 100 percent renewable too, in the same way that we are. On having really good sustainability strategies, there are companies like Nike, Patagonia, Timberland, Marks & Spencer. But I don't think any of those businesses would say they're perfect. We certainly wouldn't. We'll make mistakes going forward, but it's about setting a clear direction, being transparent, having a dialogue with the right partners, and choosing to lead on the issues that really count.
So if you're a business leader, if you're not already weaving sustainability right into the heart of your business model, I'd urge you to do so. And together, we can help create a sustainable world, and, if we get it right, we can make sustainability affordable for the many people, not a luxury for the few.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
I want to start with a story, a la Seth Godin, from when I was 12 years old. My uncle Ed gave me a beautiful blue sweater -- at least I thought it was beautiful. And it had fuzzy zebras walking across the stomach, and Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Meru were kind of right across the chest, that were also fuzzy. And I wore it whenever I could, thinking it was the most fabulous thing I owned.
Until one day in ninth grade, when I was standing with a number of the football players. And my body had clearly changed, and Matt Mussolina, who was undeniably my nemesis in high school, said in a booming voice that we no longer had to go far away to go on ski trips, but we could all ski on Mount Novogratz. (Laughter) And I was so humiliated and mortified that I immediately ran home to my mother and chastised her for ever letting me wear the hideous sweater. We drove to the Goodwill and we threw the sweater away somewhat ceremoniously, my idea being that I would never have to think about the sweater nor see it ever again.
Fast forward -- 11 years later, I'm a 25-year-old kid. I'm working in Kigali, Rwanda, jogging through the steep slopes, when I see, 10 feet in front of me, a little boy -- 11 years old -- running toward me, wearing my sweater. And I'm thinking, no, this is not possible. But so, curious, I run up to the child -- of course scaring the living bejesus out of him -- grab him by the collar, turn it over, and there is my name written on the collar of this sweater.
I tell that story, because it has served and continues to serve as a metaphor to me about the level of connectedness that we all have on this Earth. We so often don't realize what our action and our inaction does to people we think we will never see and never know. I also tell it because it tells a larger contextual story of what aid is and can be. That this traveled into the Goodwill in Virginia, and moved its way into the larger industry, which at that point was giving millions of tons of secondhand clothing to Africa and Asia. Which was a very good thing, providing low cost clothing. And at the same time, certainly in Rwanda, it destroyed the local retailing industry. Not to say that it shouldn't have, but that we have to get better at answering the questions that need to be considered when we think about consequences and responses.
So, I'm going to stick in Rwanda, circa 1985, 1986, where I was doing two things. I had started a bakery with 20 unwed mothers. We were called the "Bad News Bears," and our notion was we were going to corner the snack food business in Kigali, which was not hard because there were no snacks before us. And because we had a good business model, we actually did it, and I watched these women transform on a micro-level. But at the same time, I started a micro-finance bank, and tomorrow Iqbal Quadir is going to talk about Grameen, which is the grandfather of all micro-finance banks, which now is a worldwide movement -- you talk about a meme -- but then it was quite new, especially in an economy that was moving from barter into trade.
We got a lot of things right. We focused on a business model; we insisted on skin in the game. The women made their own decisions at the end of the day as to how they would use this access to credit to build their little businesses, earn more income so they could take care of their families better.
What we didn't understand, what was happening all around us, with the confluence of fear, ethnic strife and certainly an aid game, if you will, that was playing into this invisible but certainly palpable movement inside Rwanda, that at that time, 30 percent of the budget was all foreign aid. The genocide happened in 1994, seven years after these women all worked together to build this dream. And the good news was that the institution, the banking institution, lasted. In fact, it became the largest rehabilitation lender in the country. The bakery was completely wiped out, but the lessons for me were that accountability counts -- got to build things with people on the ground, using business models where, as Steven Levitt would say, the incentives matter. Understand, however complex we may be, incentives matter.
So when Chris raised to me how wonderful everything that was happening in the world, that we were seeing a shift in zeitgeist, on the one hand I absolutely agree with him, and I was so thrilled to see what happened with the G8 -- that the world, because of people like Tony Blair and Bono and Bob Geldof -- the world is talking about global poverty; the world is talking about Africa in ways I have never seen in my life. It's thrilling. And at the same time, what keeps me up at night is a fear that we'll look at the victories of the G8 -- 50 billion dollars in increased aid to Africa, 40 billion in reduced debt -- as the victory, as more than chapter one, as our moral absolution.
And in fact, what we need to do is see that as chapter one, celebrate it, close it, and recognize that we need a chapter two that is all about execution, all about the how-to. And if you remember one thing from what I want to talk about today, it's that the only way to end poverty, to make it history, is to build viable systems on the ground that deliver critical and affordable goods and services to the poor, in ways that are financially sustainable and scaleable. If we do that, we really can make poverty history.
And it was that -- that whole philosophy -- that encouraged me to start my current endeavor called "Acumen Fund," which is trying to build some mini-blueprints for how we might do that in water, health and housing in Pakistan, India, Kenya, Tanzania and Egypt. And I want to talk a little bit about that, and some of the examples, so you can see what it is that we're doing. But before I do this -- and this is another one of my pet peeves -- I want to talk a little bit about who the poor are. Because we too often talk about them as these strong, huge masses of people yearning to be free, when in fact, it's quite an amazing story. On a macro level, four billion people on Earth make less than four dollars a day.
That's who we talk about when we think about "the poor." If you aggregate it, it's the third largest economy on Earth, and yet most of these people go invisible. Where we typically work, there's people making between one and three dollars a day. Who are these people? They are farmers and factory workers. They work in government offices. They're drivers. They are domestics. They typically pay for critical goods and services like water, like healthcare, like housing, and they pay 30 to 40 times what their middleclass counterparts pay -- certainly where we work in Karachi and Nairobi. The poor also are willing to make, and do make, smart decisions, if you give them that opportunity.
So, two examples. One is in India, where there are 240 million farmers, most of whom make less than two dollars a day. Where we work in Aurangabad, the land is extraordinarily parched. You see people on average making 60 cents to a dollar. This guy in pink is a social entrepreneur named Ami Tabar. What he did was see what was happening in Israel, larger approaches, and figure out how to do a drip irrigation, which is a way of bringing water directly to the plant stock. But previously it's only been created for large-scale farms, so Ami Tabar took this and modularized it down to an eighth of an acre. A couple of principles: build small. Make it infinitely expandable and affordable to the poor.
This family, Sarita and her husband, bought a 15-dollar unit when they were living in a -- literally a three-walled lean-to with a corrugated iron roof. After one harvest, they had increased their income enough to buy a second system to do their full quarter-acre. A couple of years later, I meet them. They now make four dollars a day, which is pretty much middle class for India, and they showed me the concrete foundation they had just laid to build their house. And I swear, you could see the future in that woman's eyes. Something I truly believe.
You can't talk about poverty today without talking about malaria bed nets, and I again give Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard huge kudos for bringing to the world this notion of his rage -- for five dollars you can save a life. Malaria is a disease that kills one to three million people a year. 300 to 500 million cases are reported. It's estimated that Africa loses about 13 billion dollars a year to the disease. Five dollars can save a life. We can send people to the moon; we can see if there's life on Mars -- why can't we get five-dollar nets to 500 million people?
The question, though, is not "Why can't we?" The question is how can we help Africans do this for themselves? A lot of hurdles. One: production is too low. Two: price is too high. Three: this is a good road in -- right near where our factory is located. Distribution is a nightmare, but not impossible. We started by making a 350,000-dollar loan to the largest traditional bed net manufacturer in Africa so that they could transfer technology from Japan and build these long-lasting, five-year nets. Here are just some pictures of the factory.
Today, three years later, the company has employed another thousand women. It contributes about 600,000 dollars in wages to the economy of Tanzania. It's the largest company in Tanzania. The throughput rate right now is 1.5 million nets, three million by the end of the year. We hope to have seven million at the end of next year. So the production side is working. On the distribution side, though, as a world, we have a lot of work to do. Right now, 95 percent of these nets are being bought by the U.N., and then given primarily to people around Africa. We're looking at building on some of the most precious resources of Africa: people. Their women.
And so I want you to meet Jacqueline, my namesake, 21 years old. If she were born anywhere else but Tanzania, I'm telling you, she could run Wall Street. She runs two of the lines, and has already saved enough money to put a down payment on her house. She makes about two dollars a day, is creating an education fund, and told me she is not marrying nor having children until these things are completed. And so, when I told her about our idea -- that maybe we could take a Tupperware model from the United States, and find a way for the women themselves to go out and sell these nets to others -- she quickly started calculating what she herself could make and signed up.
We took a lesson from IDEO, one of our favorite companies, and quickly did a prototyping on this, and took Jacqueline into the area where she lives. She brought 10 of the women with whom she interacts together to see if she could sell these nets, five dollars apiece, despite the fact that people say nobody will buy one, and we learned a lot about how you sell things. Not coming in with our own notions, because she didn't even talk about malaria until the very end. First, she talked about comfort, status, beauty. These nets, she said, you put them on the floor, bugs leave your house. Children can sleep through the night; the house looks beautiful; you hang them in the window. And we've started making curtains, and not only is it beautiful, but people can see status -- that you care about your children. Only then did she talk about saving your children's lives. A lot of lessons to be learned in terms of how we sell goods and services to the poor.
I want to end just by saying that there's enormous opportunity to make poverty history. To do it right, we have to build business models that matter, that are scaleable and that work with Africans, Indians, people all over the developing world who fit in this category, to do it themselves. Because at the end of the day, it's about engagement. It's about understanding that people really don't want handouts, that they want to make their own decisions; they want to solve their own problems; and that by engaging with them, not only do we create much more dignity for them, but for us as well. And so I urge all of you to think next time as to how to engage with this notion and this opportunity that we all have -- to make poverty history -- by really becoming part of the process and moving away from an us-and-them world, and realizing that it's about all of us, and the kind of world that we, together, want to live in and share. Thank you. (Applause) |
So recently, we heard a lot about how social media helps empower protest, and that's true, but after more than a decade of studying and participating in multiple social movements, I've come to realize that the way technology empowers social movements can also paradoxically help weaken them. This is not inevitable, but overcoming it requires diving deep into what makes success possible over the long term. And the lessons apply in multiple domains.
Now, take Turkey's Gezi Park protests, July 2013, which I went back to study in the field. Twitter was key to its organizing. It was everywhere in the park -- well, along with a lot of tear gas. It wasn't all high tech. But the people in Turkey had already gotten used to the power of Twitter because of an unfortunate incident about a year before when military jets had bombed and killed 34 Kurdish smugglers near the border region, and Turkish media completely censored this news. Editors sat in their newsrooms and waited for the government to tell them what to do. One frustrated journalist could not take this anymore. He purchased his own plane ticket, and went to the village where this had occurred. And he was confronted by this scene: a line of coffins coming down a hill, relatives wailing. He later he told me how overwhelmed he felt, and didn't know what to do, so he took out his phone, like any one of us might, and snapped that picture and tweeted it out. And voila, that picture went viral and broke the censorship and forced mass media to cover it.
So when, a year later, Turkey's Gezi protests happened, it started as a protest about a park being razed, but became an anti-authoritarian protest. It wasn't surprising that media also censored it, but it got a little ridiculous at times. When things were so intense, when CNN International was broadcasting live from Istanbul, CNN Turkey instead was broadcasting a documentary on penguins. Now, I love penguin documentaries, but that wasn't the news of the day. An angry viewer put his two screens together and snapped that picture, and that one too went viral, and since then, people call Turkish media the penguin media. (Laughter)
But this time, people knew what to do. They just took out their phones and looked for actual news. Better, they knew to go to the park and take pictures and participate and share it more on social media. Digital connectivity was used for everything from food to donations. Everything was organized partially with the help of these new technologies.
And using Internet to mobilize and publicize protests actually goes back a long way. Remember the Zapatistas, the peasant uprising in the southern Chiapas region of Mexico led by the masked, pipe-smoking, charismatic Subcomandante Marcos? That was probably the first movement that got global attention thanks to the Internet. Or consider Seattle '99, when a multinational grassroots effort brought global attention to what was then an obscure organization, the World Trade Organization, by also utilizing these digital technologies to help them organize. And more recently, movement after movement has shaken country after country: the Arab uprisings from Bahrain to Tunisia to Egypt and more; indignados in Spain, Italy, Greece; the Gezi Park protests; Taiwan; Euromaidan in Ukraine; Hong Kong. And think of more recent initiatives, like the #BringBackOurGirls hashtags. Nowadays, a network of tweets can unleash a global awareness campaign. A Facebook page can become the hub of a massive mobilization. Amazing.
But think of the moments I just mentioned. The achievements they were able to have, their outcomes, are not really proportional to the size and energy they inspired. The hopes they rightfully raised are not really matched by what they were able to have as a result in the end. And this raises a question: As digital technology makes things easier for movements, why haven't successful outcomes become more likely as well? In embracing digital platforms for activism and politics, are we overlooking some of the benefits of doing things the hard way? Now, I believe so. I believe that the rule of thumb is: Easier to mobilize does not always mean easier to achieve gains.
Now, to be clear, technology does empower in multiple ways. It's very powerful. In Turkey, I watched four young college students organize a countrywide citizen journalism network called 140Journos that became the central hub for uncensored news in the country. In Egypt, I saw another four young people use digital connectivity to organize the supplies and logistics for 10 field hospitals, very large operations, during massive clashes near Tahrir Square in 2011. And I asked the founder of this effort, called Tahrir Supplies, how long it took him to go from when he had the idea to when he got started. "Five minutes," he said. Five minutes. And he had no training or background in logistics. Or think of the Occupy movement which rocked the world in 2011. It started with a single email from a magazine, Adbusters, to 90,000 subscribers in its list. About two months after that first email, there were in the United States 600 ongoing occupations and protests. Less than one month after the first physical occupation in Zuccotti Park, a global protest was held in about 82 countries, 950 cities. It was one of the largest global protests ever organized.
Now, compare that to what the Civil Rights Movement had to do in 1955 Alabama to protest the racially segregated bus system, which they wanted to boycott. They'd been preparing for many years and decided it was time to swing into action after Rosa Parks was arrested. But how do you get the word out -- tomorrow we're going to start the boycott -- when you don't have Facebook, texting, Twitter, none of that? So they had to mimeograph 52,000 leaflets by sneaking into a university duplicating room and working all night, secretly. They then used the 68 African-American organizations that criss-crossed the city to distribute those leaflets by hand. And the logistical tasks were daunting, because these were poor people. They had to get to work, boycott or no, so a massive carpool was organized, again by meeting. No texting, no Twitter, no Facebook. They had to meet almost all the time to keep this carpool going.
Today, it would be so much easier. We could create a database, available rides and what rides you need, have the database coordinate, and use texting. We wouldn't have to meet all that much. But again, consider this: the Civil Rights Movement in the United States navigated a minefield of political dangers, faced repression and overcame, won major policy concessions, navigated and innovated through risks. In contrast, three years after Occupy sparked that global conversation about inequality, the policies that fueled it are still in place. Europe was also rocked by anti-austerity protests, but the continent didn't shift its direction. In embracing these technologies, are we overlooking some of the benefits of slow and sustained? To understand this, I went back to Turkey about a year after the Gezi protests and I interviewed a range of people, from activists to politicians, from both the ruling party and the opposition party and movements. I found that the Gezi protesters were despairing. They were frustrated, and they had achieved much less than what they had hoped for. This echoed what I'd been hearing around the world from many other protesters that I'm in touch with. And I've come to realize that part of the problem is that today's protests have become a bit like climbing Mt. Everest with the help of 60 Sherpas, and the Internet is our Sherpa. What we're doing is taking the fast routes and not replacing the benefits of the slower work. Because, you see, the kind of work that went into organizing all those daunting, tedious logistical tasks did not just take care of those tasks, they also created the kind of organization that could think together collectively and make hard decisions together, create consensus and innovate, and maybe even more crucially, keep going together through differences. So when you see this March on Washington in 1963, when you look at that picture, where this is the march where Martin Luther King gave his famous "I have a dream" speech, 1963, you don't just see a march and you don't just hear a powerful speech, you also see the painstaking, long-term work that can put on that march. And if you're in power, you realize you have to take the capacity signaled by that march, not just the march, but the capacity signaled by that march, seriously. In contrast, when you look at Occupy's global marches that were organized in two weeks, you see a lot of discontent, but you don't necessarily see teeth that can bite over the long term. And crucially, the Civil Rights Movement innovated tactically from boycotts to lunch counter sit-ins to pickets to marches to freedom rides. Today's movements scale up very quickly without the organizational base that can see them through the challenges. They feel a little like startups that got very big without knowing what to do next, and they rarely manage to shift tactically because they don't have the depth of capacity to weather such transitions.
Now, I want to be clear: The magic is not in the mimeograph. It's in that capacity to work together, think together collectively, which can only be built over time with a lot of work. To understand all this, I interviewed a top official from the ruling party in Turkey, and I ask him, "How do you do it?" They too use digital technology extensively, so that's not it. So what's the secret? Well, he told me. He said the key is he never took sugar with his tea. I said, what has that got to do with anything? Well, he said, his party starts getting ready for the next election the day after the last one, and he spends all day every day meeting with voters in their homes, in their wedding parties, circumcision ceremonies, and then he meets with his colleagues to compare notes. With that many meetings every day, with tea offered at every one of them, which he could not refuse, because that would be rude, he could not take even one cube of sugar per cup of tea, because that would be many kilos of sugar, he can't even calculate how many kilos, and at that point I realized why he was speaking so fast. We had met in the afternoon, and he was already way over-caffeinated. But his party won two major elections within a year of the Gezi protests with comfortable margins. To be sure, governments have different resources to bring to the table. It's not the same game, but the differences are instructive. And like all such stories, this is not a story just of technology. It's what technology allows us to do converging with what we want to do. Today's social movements want to operate informally. They do not want institutional leadership. They want to stay out of politics because they fear corruption and cooptation. They have a point. Modern representative democracies are being strangled in many countries by powerful interests. But operating this way makes it hard for them to sustain over the long term and exert leverage over the system, which leads to frustrated protesters dropping out, and even more corrupt politics. And politics and democracy without an effective challenge hobbles, because the causes that have inspired the modern recent movements are crucial. Climate change is barreling towards us. Inequality is stifling human growth and potential and economies. Authoritarianism is choking many countries. We need movements to be more effective.
Now, some people have argued that the problem is today's movements are not formed of people who take as many risks as before, and that is not true. From Gezi to Tahrir to elsewhere, I've seen people put their lives and livelihoods on the line. It's also not true, as Malcolm Gladwell claimed, that today's protesters form weaker virtual ties. No, they come to these protests, just like before, with their friends, existing networks, and sometimes they do make new friends for life. I still see the friends that I made in those Zapatista-convened global protests more than a decade ago, and the bonds between strangers are not worthless. When I got tear-gassed in Gezi, people I didn't know helped me and one another instead of running away. In Tahrir, I saw people, protesters, working really hard to keep each other safe and protected. And digital awareness-raising is great, because changing minds is the bedrock of changing politics. But movements today have to move beyond participation at great scale very fast and figure out how to think together collectively, develop strong policy proposals, create consensus, figure out the political steps and relate them to leverage, because all these good intentions and bravery and sacrifice by itself are not going to be enough.
And there are many efforts. In New Zealand, a group of young people are developing a platform called Loomio for participatory decision making at scale. In Turkey, 140Journos are holding hack-a-thons so that they support communities as well as citizen journalism. In Argentina, an open-source platform called DemocracyOS is bringing participation to parliaments and political parties. These are all great, and we need more, but the answer won't just be better online decision-making, because to update democracy, we are going to need to innovate at every level, from the organizational to the political to the social. Because to succeed over the long term, sometimes you do need tea without sugar along with your Twitter. Thank you. (Applause) |
The new me is beauty. (Laughter) Yeah, people used to say, "Norman's OK, but if you followed what he said, everything would be usable but it would be ugly." Well, I didn't have that in mind, so ...
This is neat. Thank you for setting up my display. I mean, it's just wonderful. And I haven't the slightest idea of what it does or what it's good for, but I want it. And that's my new life. My new life is trying to understand what beauty is about, and "pretty," and "emotions." The new me is all about making things kind of neat and fun.
And so this is a Philippe Starck juicer, produced by Alessi. It's just neat; it's fun. It's so much fun I have it in my house -- but I have it in the entryway, I don't use it to make juice. (Laughter) In fact, I bought the gold-plated special edition and it comes with a little slip of paper that says, "Don't use this juicer to make juice." The acid will ruin the gold plating. (Laughter) So actually, I took a carton of orange juice and I poured it in the glass to take this picture. (Laughter)
Beneath it is a wonderful knife. It's a Global cutting knife made in Japan. First of all, look at the shape -- it's just wonderful to look at. Second of all, it's really beautifully balanced: it holds well, it feels well. And third of all, it's so sharp, it just cuts. It's a delight to use. And so it's got everything, right? It's beautiful and it's functional. And I can tell you stories about it, which makes it reflective, and so you'll see I have a theory of emotion. And those are the three components.
Hiroshi Ishii and his group at the MIT Media Lab took a ping-pong table and placed a projector above it, and on the ping-pong table they projected an image of water with fish swimming in it. And as you play ping-pong, whenever the ball hits part of the table, the ripples spread out and the fish run away. But of course, then the ball hits the other side, the ripples hit the -- poor fish, they can't find any peace and quiet. (Laughter) Is that a good way to play ping-pong? No. But is it fun? Yeah! Yeah.
Or look at Google. If you type in, oh say, "emotion and design," you get 10 pages of results. So Google just took their logo and they spread it out. Instead of saying, "You got 73,000 results. This is one through 20. Next," they just give you as many o's as there are pages. It's really simple and subtle. I bet a lot of you have seen it and never noticed it. That's the subconscious mind that sort of notices it -- it probably is kind of pleasant and you didn't know why. And it's just clever. And of course, what's especially good is, if you type "design and emotion," the first response out of those 10 pages is my website. (Laughter) Now, the weird thing is Google lies, because if I type "design and emotion," it says, "You don't need the 'and.' We do it anyway." So, OK. So I type "design emotion" and my website wasn't first again. It was third. Oh well, different story.
There was this wonderful review in The New York Times about the MINI Cooper automobile. It said, "You know, this is a car that has lots of faults. Buy it anyway. It's so much fun to drive." And if you look at the inside of the car -- I mean, I loved it, I wanted to see it, I rented it, this is me taking a picture while my son is driving -- and the inside of the car, the whole design is fun. It's round, it's neat. The controls work wonderfully. So that's my new life; it's all about fun.
I really have the feeling that pleasant things work better, and that never made any sense to me until I finally figured out -- look ... I'm going to put a plank on the ground. So, imagine I have a plank about two feet wide and 30 feet long and I'm going to walk on it, and you see I can walk on it without looking, I can go back and forth and I can jump up and down. No problem. Now I'm going to put the plank 300 feet in the air -- and I'm not going to go near it, thank you. Intense fear paralyzes you. It actually affects the way the brain works.
So, Paul Saffo, before his talk said that he didn't really have it down until just a few days or hours before the talk, and that anxiety was really helpful in causing him to focus. That's what fear and anxiety does; it causes you to be -- what's called depth-first processing -- to focus, not be distracted. And I couldn't force myself across that. Now some people can -- circus workers, steel workers. But it really changes the way you think.
And then, a psychologist, Alice Isen, did this wonderful experiment. She brought students in to solve problems. So, she'd bring people into the room, and there'd be a string hanging down here and a string hanging down here. It was an empty room, except for a table with a bunch of crap on it -- some papers and scissors and stuff. And she'd bring them in, and she'd say, "This is an IQ test and it determines how well you do in life. Would you tie those two strings together?" So they'd take one string and they'd pull it over here and they couldn't reach the other string. Still can't reach it. And, basically, none of them could solve it. You bring in a second group of people, and you say, "Oh, before we start, I got this box of candy, and I don't eat candy. Would you like the box of candy?" And turns out they liked it, and it made them happy -- not very happy, but a little bit of happy. And guess what -- they solved the problem.
And it turns out that when you're anxious you squirt neural transmitters in the brain, which focuses you makes you depth-first. And when you're happy -- what we call positive valence -- you squirt dopamine into the prefrontal lobes, which makes you a breadth-first problem solver: you're more susceptible to interruption; you do out-of-the-box thinking. That's what brainstorming is about, right? With brainstorming we make you happy, we play games, and we say, "No criticism," and you get all these weird, neat ideas. But in fact, if that's how you always were you'd never get any work done because you'd be working along and say, "Oh, I got a new way of doing it." So to get work done, you've got to set a deadline, right? You've got be anxious. The brain works differently if you're happy. Things work better because you're more creative. You get a little problem, you say, "Ah, I'll figure it out." No big deal.
There's something I call the visceral level of processing, and there will be visceral-level design. Biology -- we have co-adapted through biology to like bright colors. That's especially good that mammals and primates like fruits and bright plants, because you eat the fruit and you thereby spread the seed. There's an amazing amount of stuff that's built into the brain. We dislike bitter tastes, we dislike loud sounds, we dislike hot temperatures, cold temperatures. We dislike scolding voices. We dislike frowning faces; we like symmetrical faces, etc., etc. So that's the visceral level. In design, you can express visceral in lots of ways, like the choice of type fonts and the red for hot, exciting. Or the 1963 Jaguar: It's actually a crummy car, falls apart all the time, but the owners love it. And it's beautiful -- it's in the Museum of Modern Art. A water bottle: You buy it because of the bottle, not because of the water. And when people are finished, they don't throw it away. They keep it for -- you know, it's like the old wine bottles, you keep it for decoration or maybe fill it with water again, which proves it's not the water. It's all about the visceral experience.
The middle level of processing is the behavioral level and that's actually where most of our stuff gets done. Visceral is subconscious, you're unaware of it. Behavioral is subconscious, you're unaware of it. Almost everything we do is subconscious. I'm walking around the stage -- I'm not attending to the control of my legs. I'm doing a lot; most of my talk is subconscious; it has been rehearsed and thought about a lot. Most of what we do is subconscious. Automatic behavior -- skilled behavior -- is subconscious, controlled by the behavioral side. And behavioral design is all about feeling in control, which includes usability, understanding -- but also the feel and heft.
That's why the Global knives are so neat. They're so nicely balanced, so sharp, that you really feel you're in control of the cutting. Or, just driving a high-performance sports car over a demanding curb -- again, feeling that you are in complete control of the environment. Or the sensual feeling. This is a Kohler shower, a waterfall shower, and actually, all those knobs beneath are also showerheads. It will squirt you all around and you can stay in that shower for hours -- and not waste water, by the way, because it recirculates the same dirty water. (Laughter)
Or this -- this is a really neat teapot I found at high tea at The Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago. It's a Ronnefeldt tilting teapot. That's kind of what the teapot looks like but the way you use it is you lay it on its back, and you put tea in, and then you fill it with water. The water then seeps over the tea. And the tea is sitting in this stuff to the right -- the tea is to the right of this line. There's a little ledge inside, so the tea is sitting there and the water is filling it up like that. And when the tea is ready, or almost ready, you tilt it. And that means the tea is partially covered while it completes the brewing. And when it's finished, you put it vertically, and now the tea is -- you remember -- above this line and the water only comes to here -- and so it keeps the tea out. On top of that, it communicates, which is what emotion does.
Emotion is all about acting; emotion is really about acting. It's being safe in the world. Cognition is about understanding the world, emotion is about interpreting it -- saying good, bad, safe, dangerous, and getting us ready to act, which is why the muscles tense or relax. And that's why we can tell the emotion of somebody else -- because their muscles are acting, subconsciously, except that we've evolved to make the facial muscles really rich with emotion. Well, this has emotions if you like, because it signals the waiter that, "Hey, I'm finished. See -- upright." And the waiter can come by and say, "Would you like more water?" It's kind of neat. What a wonderful design.
And the third level is reflective, which is, if you like the superego, it's a little part of the brain that has no control over what you do, no control over the -- doesn't see the senses, doesn't control the muscles. It looks over what's going on. It's that little voice in your head that's watching and saying, "That's good. That's bad." Or, "Why are you doing that? I don't understand." It's that little voice in your head that's the seat of consciousness.
Here's a great reflective product. Owners of the Hummer have said, "You know I've owned many cars in my life -- all sorts of exotic cars, but never have I had a car that attracted so much attention." It's about attention. It's about their image, not about the car. If you want a more positive model -- this is the GM car. And the reason you might buy it now is because you care about the environment. And you'll buy it to protect the environment, even though the first few cars are going to be really expensive and not perfected. But that's reflective design as well. Or an expensive watch, so you can impress people -- "Oh gee, I didn't know you had that watch." As opposed to this one, which is a pure behavioral watch, which probably keeps better time than the $13,000 watch I just showed you. But it's ugly. This is a clear Don Norman watch.
And what's neat is sometimes you pit one emotion against the other, the visceral fear of falling against the reflective state saying, "It's OK. It's OK. It's safe. It's safe." If that amusement park were rusty and falling apart, you'd never go on the ride. So, it's pitting one against the other. The other neat thing ... (Laughter) So Jake Cress is this furniture maker, and he makes this unbelievable set of furniture. And this is his chair with claw, and the poor little chair has lost its ball and it's trying to get it back before anybody notices. And what's so neat about it is how you accept that story. And that's what's nice about emotion.
So that's the new me. I'm only saying positive things from now on. (Laughter) (Applause) |
Can I ask you to please recall a time when you really loved something -- a movie, an album, a song or a book -- and you recommended it wholeheartedly to someone you also really liked, and you anticipated that reaction, you waited for it, and it came back, and the person hated it? So, by way of introduction, that is the exact same state in which I spent every working day of the last six years. (Laughter) I teach high school math. I sell a product to a market that doesn't want it, but is forced by law to buy it. I mean, it's just a losing proposition.
So there's a useful stereotype about students that I see, a useful stereotype about you all. I could give you guys an algebra-two final exam, and I would expect no higher than a 25 percent pass rate. And both of these facts say less about you or my students than they do about what we call math education in the U.S. today.
To start with, I'd like to break math down into two categories. One is computation; this is the stuff you've forgotten. For example, factoring quadratics with leading coefficients greater than one. This stuff is also really easy to relearn, provided you have a really strong grounding in reasoning. Math reasoning -- we'll call it the application of math processes to the world around us -- this is hard to teach. This is what we would love students to retain, even if they don't go into mathematical fields. This is also something that, the way we teach it in the U.S. all but ensures they won't retain it. So, I'd like to talk about why that is, why that's such a calamity for society, what we can do about it and, to close with, why this is an amazing time to be a math teacher.
So first, five symptoms that you're doing math reasoning wrong in your classroom. One is a lack of initiative; your students don't self-start. You finish your lecture block and immediately you have five hands going up asking you to re-explain the entire thing at their desks. Students lack perseverance. They lack retention; you find yourself re-explaining concepts three months later, wholesale. There's an aversion to word problems, which describes 99 percent of my students. And then the other one percent is eagerly looking for the formula to apply in that situation. This is really destructive.
David Milch, creator of "Deadwood" and other amazing TV shows, has a really good description for this. He swore off creating contemporary drama, shows set in the present day, because he saw that when people fill their mind with four hours a day of, for example, "Two and a Half Men," no disrespect, it shapes the neural pathways, he said, in such a way that they expect simple problems. He called it, "an impatience with irresolution." You're impatient with things that don't resolve quickly. You expect sitcom-sized problems that wrap up in 22 minutes, three commercial breaks and a laugh track. And I'll put it to all of you, what you already know, that no problem worth solving is that simple. I am very concerned about this because I'm going to retire in a world that my students will run. I'm doing bad things to my own future and well-being when I teach this way. I'm here to tell you that the way our textbooks -- particularly mass-adopted textbooks -- teach math reasoning and patient problem solving, it's functionally equivalent to turning on "Two and a Half Men" and calling it a day.
(Laughter)
In all seriousness. Here's an example from a physics textbook. It applies equally to math. Notice, first of all here, that you have exactly three pieces of information there, each of which will figure into a formula somewhere, eventually, which the student will then compute. I believe in real life. And ask yourself, what problem have you solved, ever, that was worth solving where you knew all of the given information in advance; where you didn't have a surplus of information and you had to filter it out, or you didn't have sufficient information and had to go find some. I'm sure we all agree that no problem worth solving is like that. And the textbook, I think, knows how it's hamstringing students because, watch this, this is the practice problem set. When it comes time to do the actual problem set, we have problems like this right here where we're just swapping out numbers and tweaking the context a little bit. And if the student still doesn't recognize the stamp this was molded from, it helpfully explains to you what sample problem you can return to to find the formula. You could literally, I mean this, pass this particular unit without knowing any physics, just knowing how to decode a textbook. That's a shame.
So I can diagnose the problem a little more specifically in math. Here's a really cool problem. I like this. It's about defining steepness and slope using a ski lift. But what you have here is actually four separate layers, and I'm curious which of you can see the four separate layers and, particularly, how when they're compressed together and presented to the student all at once, how that creates this impatient problem solving. I'll define them here: You have the visual. You also have the mathematical structure, talking about grids, measurements, labels, points, axes, that sort of thing. You have substeps, which all lead to what we really want to talk about: which section is the steepest.
So I hope you can see. I really hope you can see how what we're doing here is taking a compelling question, a compelling answer, but we're paving a smooth, straight path from one to the other and congratulating our students for how well they can step over the small cracks in the way. That's all we're doing here. So I want to put to you that if we can separate these in a different way and build them up with students, we can have everything we're looking for in terms of patient problem solving.
So right here I start with the visual, and I immediately ask the question: Which section is the steepest? And this starts conversation because the visual is created in such a way where you can defend two answers. So you get people arguing against each other, friend versus friend, in pairs, journaling, whatever. And then eventually we realize it's getting annoying to talk about the skier in the lower left-hand side of the screen or the skier just above the mid line. And we realize how great would it be if we just had some A, B, C and D labels to talk about them more easily. And then as we start to define what does steepness mean, we realize it would be nice to have some measurements to really narrow it down, specifically what that means. And then and only then, we throw down that mathematical structure. The math serves the conversation, the conversation doesn't serve the math. And at that point, I'll put it to you that nine out of 10 classes are good to go on the whole slope, steepness thing. But if you need to, your students can then develop those substeps together.
Do you guys see how this, right here, compared to that -- which one creates that patient problem solving, that math reasoning? It's been obvious in my practice, to me. And I'll yield the floor here for a second to Einstein, who, I believe, has paid his dues. He talked about the formulation of a problem being so incredibly important, and yet in my practice, in the U.S. here, we just give problems to students; we don't involve them in the formulation of the problem.
So 90 percent of what I do with my five hours of prep time per week is to take fairly compelling elements of problems like this from my textbook and rebuild them in a way that supports math reasoning and patient problem solving. And here's how it works. I like this question. It's about a water tank. The question is: How long will it take you to fill it up? First things first, we eliminate all the substeps. Students have to develop those, they have to formulate those. And then notice that all the information written on there is stuff you'll need. None of it's a distractor, so we lose that. Students need to decide, "All right, well, does the height matter? Does the side of it matter? Does the color of the valve matter? What matters here?" Such an underrepresented question in math curriculum. So now we have a water tank. How long will it take you to fill it up? And that's it.
And because this is the 21st century and we would love to talk about the real world on its own terms, not in terms of line art or clip art that you so often see in textbooks, we go out and we take a picture of it. So now we have the real deal. How long will it take it to fill it up? And then even better is we take a video, a video of someone filling it up. And it's filling up slowly, agonizingly slowly. It's tedious. Students are looking at their watches, rolling their eyes, and they're all wondering at some point or another, "Man, how long is it going to take to fill up?" (Laughter) That's how you know you've baited the hook, right?
And that question, off this right here, is really fun for me because, like the intro, I teach kids -- because of my inexperience -- I teach the kids that are the most remedial, all right? And I've got kids who will not join a conversation about math because someone else has the formula; someone else knows how to work the formula better than me, so I won't talk about it. But here, every student is on a level playing field of intuition. Everyone's filled something up with water before, so I get kids answering the question, "How long will it take?" I've got kids who are mathematically and conversationally intimidated joining the conversation. We put names on the board, attach them to guesses, and kids have bought in here. And then we follow the process I've described. And the best part here, or one of the better parts is that we don't get our answer from the answer key in the back of the teacher's edition. We, instead, just watch the end of the movie. (Laughter) And that's terrifying, because the theoretical models that always work out in the answer key in the back of a teacher's edition, that's great, but it's scary to talk about sources of error when the theoretical does not match up with the practical. But those conversations have been so valuable, among the most valuable.
So I'm here to report some really fun games with students who come pre-installed with these viruses day one of the class. These are the kids who now, one semester in, I can put something on the board, totally new, totally foreign, and they'll have a conversation about it for three or four minutes more than they would have at the start of the year, which is just so fun. We're no longer averse to word problems, because we've redefined what a word problem is. We're no longer intimidated by math, because we're slowly redefining what math is. This has been a lot of fun.
I encourage math teachers I talk to to use multimedia, because it brings the real world into your classroom in high resolution and full color; to encourage student intuition for that level playing field; to ask the shortest question you possibly can and let those more specific questions come out in conversation; to let students build the problem, because Einstein said so; and to finally, in total, just be less helpful, because the textbook is helping you in all the wrong ways: It's buying you out of your obligation, for patient problem solving and math reasoning, to be less helpful.
And why this is an amazing time to be a math teacher right now is because we have the tools to create this high-quality curriculum in our front pocket. It's ubiquitous and fairly cheap, and the tools to distribute it freely under open licenses has also never been cheaper or more ubiquitous. I put a video series on my blog not so long ago and it got 6,000 views in two weeks. I get emails still from teachers in countries I've never visited saying, "Wow, yeah. We had a good conversation about that. Oh, and by the way, here's how I made your stuff better," which, wow. I put this problem on my blog recently: In a grocery store, which line do you get into, the one that has one cart and 19 items or the line with four carts and three, five, two and one items. And the linear modeling involved in that was some good stuff for my classroom, but it eventually got me on "Good Morning America" a few weeks later, which is just bizarre, right?
And from all of this, I can only conclude that people, not just students, are really hungry for this. Math makes sense of the world. Math is the vocabulary for your own intuition. So I just really encourage you, whatever your stake is in education -- whether you're a student, parent, teacher, policy maker, whatever -- insist on better math curriculum. We need more patient problem solvers. Thank you. (Applause) |
I'd like to speak about technology trends, which is something that many of you follow -- but we also follow, for related reasons. Obviously, being a technology magazine, technology trends are something that we write about and need to know about.
But also it's part of being any monthly magazine -- you live in the future. And we have a long lead-time. We have to plan issues many months in advance; we have to guess at what public appetites are going to be six months, nine months down the road. So we're in the forecasting business.
We also, like a lot of companies, create a product that's based on technology trends. In this case, ours is about ideas and information, and, if we're lucky, some entertainment. But the concept's quite the same. And so we have to understand not only why tech's important, where it's going, but also, very importantly, when -- the timing is everything.
And it's interesting, when you look at the predictions made during the peak of the boom in the 1990s, about e-commerce, or Internet traffic, or broadband adoption, or Internet advertising, they were all right -- they were just wrong in time. Almost every one of those has come true just a few years later. But the difference of a few years on stock-market valuations is obviously extreme. And that's why timing is everything.
You've probably seen something like this before. This is the classic Gartner Hype Curve, which talks about kind of the trajectory of a technology's lifespan. And just for fun, we put a bunch of technologies on it, to show whether they were kind of rising for the first high peak, or whether they were about to crash into the trough of disillusionment, or rise back in the slope of enlightenment, etc. And this is one way to do technology forecasting: get a sense of where technology is and then anticipate the next upturn.
We tend to do any technology that we think is sufficiently important; we'll typically do it twice. Once, we want to do it first. We want to be the first to do it, for the geeks who appreciate that, we'll catch it right there at the technology-trigger. You can see in 1997, we put Linux on the cover. But then it comes back. And sufficiently big technologies are going to hit the mainstream, and they're going to burst out. And then it's time to do it again. Last year. And that's one way that we try to time technology trends.
I'd like to talk about a way of thinking about technology trends that I call my "grand unified theory of predicting the future," but it's closer to a petite unified theory of predicting the future. It's based on the presumption, the observation even, that all important technologies go through four stages in their life -- at least one of the four stages, sometimes all four of the stages. And at each one of these stages, can be seen as a collision -- a collision with something else -- for example, a critical price-line that changes both the technology and also changes its effect on the world. It's an inflection point. And these are the inflection points that tell you what the next chapter in that technology's life is going to be, and maybe how you can do something about it.
The first is the critical price. The first stage in a technology's advance is that it'll fall below a critical price. After it falls below a critical price, it will tend, if it's successful, to rise above a critical mass, a penetration. Many technologies, at that point, displace another technology, and that's another important point. And then finally, a lot of technologies commoditize. Towards the end of their life, they become nearly free.
Each one of those is an opportunity to do something about it; it's an opportunity for the technology to change. And even if you missed, you know, the first boom of Wi-Fi -- you know, Wi-Fi did the critical price, it did the critical mass, but hasn't done displacement yet, and hasn't done free yet -- there's still more opportunity in that.
I'd like to demonstrate what I mean by this by telling the story of the DVD, which is a technology which has done all of these. The DVD, as you know, was introduced in the mid-1990s and it was quite expensive. But you can see that by 1998, it had fallen below 400 dollars, and 400 dollars was a psychological threshold. And it started to take off. And you can see that the units started to trend up, the hidden inflection point -- it was taking off.
The next thing it hit, a year later, was critical mass. In this case, 20 percent is often a good proxy for critical mass in a household. And what's interesting here is that something else took off along with it: home-theater units. Suddenly you have a DVD in the house; you've got high-quality digital video; you have a reason to have a big-screen television; you have a reason for Dolby 5.1 surround-sound. And maybe you have reasons for starting to connect them, and bring the rest of your entertainment in. What's interesting also is -- note that Netflix was founded in 1999. Reed Hastings is here. He clearly saw that that was a moment, that was an inflection point that he could do something with.
The next phase it hit was displacement. You can see around 2001 it finally out-sold the VCR. And here too, you can see the implications in the world at large. Netflix was right -- the Netflix model could capitalize on the DVD in a way that the video-rental stores couldn't. Among the DVD's many assets is that it's very small; you can stick it in the mailer and post it cheaply. That gave an advantage; that was an implication of the technology's rise that wasn't obvious to everybody.
And then finally, DVDs are approaching free. There's a company called Apex, a no-name Chinese firm, who has, several times in the past year, been the number-one DVD seller in America. Their average price, for last year, was 48 dollars. You're aware of the perhaps apocryphal Wal-Mart stampede over the 30-dollar DVD. But they're getting very, very cheap, and look at the interesting implication of it. As they get cheaper, the premium brands, the Sonys and such, are losing market share, and the no-names, the Apexes, are gaining them. They're being commodified, and that's what happens when things go to zero. It's a tough market out there. (Laughter)
Now they've introduced these four ways of looking at technology, these four stages of technology's life. I'd like to talk about some other technologies out there, just technologies on our radar -- and I'll use this lens, these four, as a way to kind of tell you where each one of those technologies is in its development. They're not necessarily the top-10 technologies out there -- they're just examples of technologies that are in each one of these periods. But I think that the implications of them approaching these crossovers, these intersections, are interesting to think about.
Start with gene sequencing. As you probably know, gene sequencing -- in a large part, because it's built on computers -- is falling in price at a kind of a Moore's Law-like level. It is now possible -- will be possible, and if Craig Venter indeed comes today, he may tell you something about this -- to sequence the human genome for 40 million dollars by the end of this year. That's as opposed to billions just a few years ago. You know, our ability to capture the tools of creation is getting closer and closer.
What's interesting is that at the same time, the number of genes that we're discovering is rising very quickly. Each one of these genes has potential diagnostic test. There will come a day when you can have hundreds of thousands of tests done, very cheaply, if you want to know. You can learn about your own mosaic.
Here's another technology that's approaching a critical price. This is a fascinating research from WHO that shows the effect of generic drugs on anti-retroviral drug compounds and cocktails. In January 2000, the price was 10,000 dollars, or 27 dollars a day. The generics came in, first in Brazil and elsewhere, and the effect was just dramatic on pricing. Today it's less than 50 cents a day. And what's interesting is if you look at the price elasticity, if you look at the correlation between these two, as the anti-retrovirals come down, the number of people you can treat goes radically up. And the Clinton Foundation and WHO believe that they can treat three million people worldwide by 2005 -- two million in sub-Saharan Africa. And the falling price of drugs has a lot to do with that.
Linux is another good example. Now we've switched to critical mass. These are now technologies that are hitting critical mass. If you look here, here's Linux in red, and it's hit 20 percent. Interestingly, it's done a crossover before, but not the crossovers that matter. The crossover that's going to matter is the one with the blue. But you can look and see the direction those lines are going, you can see that at the 20 percent, it's now taken seriously. It's not just for the geeks any more. That is, I imagine, what people in Redmond wake up in the middle of the night thinking about. (Laughter)
Another technology that we see all around us out here is hybrid cars. I don't know whether anybody has a Prius 2004, but they're fantastic. And if you look at the trends here, by about 2008 -- and I don't think this is a crazy forecast -- they'll be two percent of auto sales. Two percent isn't 20 percent, but in the car business, which is slow moving, that's huge; that's arrival. At two percent, you start seeing them on the roads everywhere.
And what's interesting about the hybrids taking off is you've now introduced electric motors to the automobile industry. It's the first radical change in automobile technology in 100 years. And once you have electric motors, you can do anything: you can change the structure of the car in any way you want. You can have regenerative braking; you can have drive-by-wire; you can have replaceable body shapes -- it's a little thing that starts with a hybrid, but it can lead to a whole new era of the car.
Voice Over IP is something you may have heard something about. Again, it's kind of coming out of nowhere; it's a little hard to use right now. There's a company created by the Kazaa founders called Skype. Look at these numbers. They launched it in August of last year; they already have nearly four million registered users -- that's critical mass. And the same thing's happening on the carrier side. You're looking at IP taking over from some of the traditional telecom standards. This is a tipping point -- if Malcolm's here, forgive me -- and it's going to change the economics, and the speed, and the players in the industry. It's going to look a little bit like that.
And finally, free. Free is really, really interesting. Free is something that comes with digital, because the reproduction costs are essentially free. It comes with IP, because it's such an efficient protocol. It comes with fiber optics, because there's so much bandwidth. Free is really, you know, the gift of Silicon Valley to the world. It's an economic force; it's a technical force. It's a deflationary force, if not handled right. It is abundance, as opposed to scarcity. Free is probably the most interesting thing.
And here you have just the number of songs that can be stored on a hard drive. You know, there could be a film's [unclear] there, but it's basically, every song ever made could be stored on 400 dollars worth of storage by 2008. It takes that entire element, the physical element, of songs off the table. And you've seen the numbers. I mean, you know, the music industry is imploding in front of our very eyes, and Hollywood's worried as well. They're facing a force that they haven't faced before. And their response is draconian, and not necessarily the one that's going to get them out of this.
And finally, I'll give you one last example of free -- perhaps the most powerful of all. I mentioned fiber optics -- their abundance tends to make things free. This is the price of a phone call to India per minute. And what's interesting is that it was just 1990 when it was more than two dollars a minute. India had, still has, a regulated phone system and so did we. It was surprisingly non-innovative, moved very slowly, but then there was just so much fiber out there, you couldn't hold back, and look how quickly the price fell. It's seven cents a minute, in many cases.
And the consequence of cheap phone calling, free phone calling, to India, is the pissed-off programmer, is the outsourcing. It is probably one of the most dramatic shifts in globalization and one of the most powerful economic tools that we're seeing in our world today. The force of India, and then China, and any other country that can contact our markets and will work with our companies -- because the communications are free -- is just beginning to be felt. And I think that's probably one of the most important technology trends that we're looking at today. Thank you. |
When most people think about the beginnings of AIDS, they're gonna think back to the 1980s. And certainly, this was the decade in which we discovered AIDS and the virus that causes it, HIV. But in fact this virus crossed over into humans many decades before, from chimpanzees, where the virus originated, into humans who hunt these apes.
This photo was taken before the Great Depression in Brazzaville, Congo. At this time, there were thousands of individuals, we think, that were infected with HIV.
So I have a couple of really important questions for you. If this virus was in thousands of individuals at this point, why was it the case that it took us until 1984 to be able to discover this virus? OK now, more importantly, had we been there in the '40s and '50s, '60s, had we seen this disease, had we understood exactly what was going on with it, how might that have changed and completely transformed the nature of the way this pandemic moved?
In fact, this is not unique to HIV. The vast majority of viruses come from animals. And you can kind of think of this as a pyramid of this bubbling up of viruses from animals into human populations. But only at the very top of this pyramid do these things become completely human. Nevertheless, we spend the vast majority of our energy focused on this level of the pyramid, trying to tackle things that are already completely adapted to human beings, that are going to be very very difficult to address -- as we've seen in the case of HIV.
So during the last 15 years, I've been working to actually study the earlier interface here -- what I've labeled "viral chatter," which was a term coined by my mentor Don Burke. This is the idea that we can study the sort of pinging of these viruses into human populations, the movement of these agents over into humans; and by capturing this moment, we might be able to move to a situation where we can catch them early.
OK, so this is a picture, and I'm going to show you some pictures now from the field. This is a picture of a central African hunter. It's actually a fairly common picture. One of the things I want you to note from it is blood -- that you see a tremendous amount of blood contact. This was absolutely key for us. This is a very intimate form of connection. So if we're going to study viral chatter, we need to get to these populations who have intensive contact with wild animals.
And so we've been studying people like this individual. We collect blood from them, other specimens. We look at the diseases, which are in the animals as well as the humans. And ideally, this is going to allow us to catch these things early on, as they're moving over into human populations. And the basic objective of this work is not to just go out once and look at these individuals, but to establish thousands of individuals in these populations that we would monitor continuously on a regular basis. When they were sick, we would collect specimens from them.
We would actually enlist them -- which we've done now -- to collect specimens from animals. We give them these little pieces of filter paper. When they sample from animals, they collect the blood on the filter paper and this allows us to identify yet-unknown viruses from exactly the right animals -- the ones that are actually being hunted.
(Video) Narrator: Deep in a remote region of Cameroon, two hunters stalk their prey. Their names are Patrice and Patee. They're searching for bush meat; forest animals they can kill to feed their families. Patrice and Patee set out most days to go out hunting in the forest around their homes. They have a series of traps, of snares that they've set up to catch wild pigs, snakes, monkeys, rodents -- anything they can, really. Patrice and Patee have been out for hours but found nothing. The animals are simply gone.
We stop for a drink of water. Then there is a rustle in the brush. A group of hunters approach, their packs loaded with wild game. There's at least three viruses that you know about, which are in this particular monkey.
Nathan Wolfe: This species, yeah. And there's many many more pathogens that are present in these animals. These individuals are at specific risk, particularly if there's blood contact, they're at risk for transmission and possibly infection with novel viruses.
Narrator: As the hunters display their kills, something surprising happens. They show us filter paper they've used to collect the animals' blood. The blood will be tested for zoonotic viruses, part of a program Dr. Wolfe has spent years setting up.
NW: So this is from this animal right here, Greater Spot-Nosed Guenon. Every person who has one of those filter papers has at least, at a minimum, been through our basic health education about the risks associated with these activities, which presumably, from our perspective, gives them the ability to decrease their own risk, and then obviously the risk to their families, the village, the country, and the world.
NW: OK, before I continue, I think it's important to take just a moment to talk about bush meat. Bush meat is the hunting of wild game. OK? And you can consider all sorts of different bush meat. I'm going to be talking about this. When your children and grandchildren sort of pose questions to you about this period of time, one of the things they're gonna ask you, is how it was they we allowed some of our closest living relatives, some of the most valuable and endangered species on our planet, to go extinct because we weren't able to address some of the issues of poverty in these parts of the world.
But in fact that's not the only question they're going to ask you about this. They're also going to ask you the question that when we knew that this was the way that HIV entered into the human population, and that other diseases had the potential to enter like this, why did we let these behaviors continue? Why did we not find some other solution to this? They're going to say, in regions of profound instability throughout the world, where you have intense poverty, where populations are growing and you don't have sustainable resources like this, this is going to lead to food insecurity.
But they're also going to ask you probably a different question. It's one that I think we all need to ask ourselves, which is, why we thought the responsibility rested with this individual here. Now this is the individual -- you can see just right up over his right shoulder -- this is the individual that hunted the monkey from the last picture that I showed you. OK, take a look at his shirt. You know, take a look at his face. Bush meat is one of the central crises, which is occurring in our population right now, in humanity, on this planet. But it can't be the fault of somebody like this. OK? And solving it cannot be his responsibility alone. There's no easy solutions, but what I'm saying to you is that we neglect this problem at our own peril.
So, in 1998, along with my mentors Don Burke and Colonel Mpoudi-Ngole, we went to actually start this work in Central Africa, to work with hunters in this part of the world. And my job -- at that time I was a post-doctoral fellow, and I was really tasked with setting this up. So I said to myself, "OK, great -- we're gonna collect all kinds of specimens. We're gonna go to all these different locations. It's going to be wonderful." You know, I looked at the map; I picked out 17 sites; I figured, no problem. (Laughter)
Needless to say, I was drastically wrong. This is challenging work to do. Fortunately, I had and continue to have an absolutely wonderful team of colleagues and collaborators in my own team, and that's the only way that this work can really occur. We have a whole range of challenges about this work.
One of them is just obtaining trust from individuals that we work with in the field. The person you see on the right hand side is Paul DeLong-Minutu. He's one of the best communicators that I've really ever dealt with. When I arrived I didn't speak a word of French, and I still seemed to understand what it was he was saying. Paul worked for years on the Cameroonian national radio and television, and he spoke about health issues. He was a health correspondent. So we figured we'd hire this person -- when we got there he could be a great communicator. When we would get to these rural villages, though, what we found out is that no one had television, so they wouldn't recognize his face. But -- when he began to speak they would actually recognize his voice from the radio. And this was somebody who had incredible potential to spread aspects of our message, whether it be with regards to wildlife conservation or health prevention.
Often we run into obstacles. This is us coming back from one of these very rural sites, with specimens from 200 individuals that we needed to get back to the lab within 48 hours. I like to show this shot -- this is Ubald Tamoufe, who's the lead investigator in our Cameroon site. Ubald laughs at me when I show this photo because of course you can't see his face. But the reason I like to show the shot is because you can see that he's about to solve this problem. (Laughter) Which -- which he did, which he did. Just a few quick before and after shots. This was our laboratory before. This is what it looks like now. Early on, in order to ship our specimens, we had to have dry ice. To get dry ice we had to go to the breweries -- beg, borrow, steal to get these folks to give it to us. Now we have our own liquid nitrogen. I like to call our laboratory the coldest place in Central Africa -- it might be. And here's a shot of me, this is the before shot of me. (Laughter) No comment.
So what happened? So during the 10 years that we've been doing this work, we actually surprised ourselves. We made a number of discoveries. And what we've found is that if you look in the right place, you can actually monitor the flow of these viruses into human populations. That gave us a tremendous amount of hope. What we've found is a whole range of new viruses in these individuals, including new viruses in the same group as HIV -- so, brand new retroviruses. And let's face it, any new retrovirus in the human population -- it's something we should be aware of. It's something we should be following. It's not something that we should be surprised by.
Needless to say in the past these viruses entering into these rural communities might very well have gone extinct. That's no longer the case. Logging roads provide access to urban areas. And critically, what happens in central Africa doesn't stay in Central Africa. So, once we discovered that it was really possible that we could actually do this monitoring, we decided to move this from research, to really attempt to phase up to a global monitoring effort. Through generous support and partnership scientifically with Google.org and the Skoll Foundation, we were able to start the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative and begin work in four different sites in Africa and Asia. Needless to say, different populations from different parts of the world have different sorts of contact. So it's not just hunters in Central Africa. It's also working in live animal markets -- these wet markets -- which is exactly the place where SARS emerged in Asia. But really, this is just the beginning from our perspective.
Our objective right now, in addition to deploying to these sites and getting everything moving, is to identify new partners because we feel like this effort needs to be extended to probably 20 or more sites throughout the world -- to viral hotspots -- because really the idea here is to cast an incredibly wide net so that we can catch these things, ideally, before they make it to blood banks, sexual networks, airplanes. And that's really our objective. There was a time not very long ago when the discovery of unknown organisms was something that held incredible awe for us. It had potential to really change the way that we saw ourselves, and thought about ourselves.
Many people, I think, on our planet right now despair, and they think we've reached a point where we've discovered most of the things. I'm going tell you right now: please don't despair. If an intelligent extra-terrestrial was taxed with writing the encyclopedia of life on our planet, 27 out of 30 of these volumes would be devoted to bacteria and virus, with just a few of the volumes left for plants, fungus and animals, humans being a footnote; interesting footnote but a footnote nonetheless. This is honestly the most exciting period ever for the study of unknown life forms on our planet. The dominant things that exist here we know almost nothing about. And yet finally, we have the tools, which will allow us to actually explore that world and understand them.
Thank you very much. (Applause) |
So it's 2006. My friend Harold Ford calls me. He's running for U.S. Senate in Tennessee, and he says, "Mellody, I desperately need some national press. Do you have any ideas?" So I had an idea. I called a friend who was in New York at one of the most successful media companies in the world, and she said, "Why don't we host an editorial board lunch for Harold? You come with him."
Harold and I arrive in New York. We are in our best suits. We look like shiny new pennies. And we get to the receptionist, and we say, "We're here for the lunch." She motions for us to follow her. We walk through a series of corridors, and all of a sudden we find ourselves in a stark room, at which point she looks at us and she says, "Where are your uniforms?"
Just as this happens, my friend rushes in. The blood drains from her face. There are literally no words, right? And I look at her, and I say, "Now, don't you think we need more than one black person in the U.S. Senate?"
Now Harold and I -- (Applause) — we still laugh about that story, and in many ways, the moment caught me off guard, but deep, deep down inside, I actually wasn't surprised. And I wasn't surprised because of something my mother taught me about 30 years before. You see, my mother was ruthlessly realistic. I remember one day coming home from a birthday party where I was the only black kid invited, and instead of asking me the normal motherly questions like, "Did you have fun?" or "How was the cake?" my mother looked at me and she said, "How did they treat you?" I was seven. I did not understand. I mean, why would anyone treat me differently? But she knew. And she looked me right in the eye and she said, "They will not always treat you well."
Now, race is one of those topics in America that makes people extraordinarily uncomfortable. You bring it up at a dinner party or in a workplace environment, it is literally the conversational equivalent of touching the third rail. There is shock, followed by a long silence. And even coming here today, I told some friends and colleagues that I planned to talk about race, and they warned me, they told me, don't do it, that there'd be huge risks in me talking about this topic, that people might think I'm a militant black woman and I would ruin my career. And I have to tell you, I actually for a moment was a bit afraid. Then I realized, the first step to solving any problem is to not hide from it, and the first step to any form of action is awareness. And so I decided to actually talk about race. And I decided that if I came here and shared with you some of my experiences, that maybe we could all be a little less anxious and a little more bold in our conversations about race.
Now I know there are people out there who will say that the election of Barack Obama meant that it was the end of racial discrimination for all eternity, right? But I work in the investment business, and we have a saying: The numbers do not lie. And here, there are significant, quantifiable racial disparities that cannot be ignored, in household wealth, household income, job opportunities, healthcare. One example from corporate America: Even though white men make up just 30 percent of the U.S. population, they hold 70 percent of all corporate board seats. Of the Fortune 250, there are only seven CEOs that are minorities, and of the thousands of publicly traded companies today, thousands, only two are chaired by black women, and you're looking at one of them, the same one who, not too long ago, was nearly mistaken for kitchen help. So that is a fact. Now I have this thought experiment that I play with myself, when I say, imagine if I walked you into a room and it was of a major corporation, like ExxonMobil, and every single person around the boardroom were black, you would think that were weird. But if I walked you into a Fortune 500 company, and everyone around the table is a white male, when will it be that we think that's weird too?
And I know how we got here. (Applause)
I know how we got here. You know, there was institutionalized, at one time legalized, discrimination in our country. There's no question about it. But still, as I grapple with this issue, my mother's question hangs in the air for me: How did they treat you?
Now, I do not raise this issue to complain or in any way to elicit any kind of sympathy. I have succeeded in my life beyond my wildest expectations, and I have been treated well by people of all races more often than I have not. I tell the uniform story because it happened. I cite those statistics around corporate board diversity because they are real, and I stand here today talking about this issue of racial discrimination because I believe it threatens to rob another generation of all the opportunities that all of us want for all of our children, no matter what their color or where they come from. And I think it also threatens to hold back businesses. You see, researchers have coined this term "color blindness" to describe a learned behavior where we pretend that we don't notice race. If you happen to be surrounded by a bunch of people who look like you, that's purely accidental. Now, color blindness, in my view, doesn't mean that there's no racial discrimination, and there's fairness. It doesn't mean that at all. It doesn't ensure it. In my view, color blindness is very dangerous because it means we're ignoring the problem. There was a corporate study that said that, instead of avoiding race, the really smart corporations actually deal with it head on. They actually recognize that embracing diversity means recognizing all races, including the majority one. But I'll be the first one to tell you, this subject matter can be hard, awkward, uncomfortable -- but that's kind of the point.
In the spirit of debunking racial stereotypes, the one that black people don't like to swim, I'm going to tell you how much I love to swim. I love to swim so much that as an adult, I swim with a coach. And one day my coach had me do a drill where I had to swim to one end of a 25-meter pool without taking a breath. And every single time I failed, I had to start over. And I failed a lot. By the end, I got it, but when I got out of the pool, I was exasperated and tired and annoyed, and I said, "Why are we doing breath-holding exercises?" And my coach looked me at me, and he said, "Mellody, that was not a breath-holding exercise. That drill was to make you comfortable being uncomfortable, because that's how most of us spend our days." If we can learn to deal with our discomfort, and just relax into it, we'll have a better life.
So I think it's time for us to be comfortable with the uncomfortable conversation about race: black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, all of us, if we truly believe in equal rights and equal opportunity in America, I think we have to have real conversations about this issue. We cannot afford to be color blind. We have to be color brave. We have to be willing, as teachers and parents and entrepreneurs and scientists, we have to be willing to have proactive conversations about race with honesty and understanding and courage, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's the smart thing to do, because our businesses and our products and our science, our research, all of that will be better with greater diversity.
Now, my favorite example of color bravery is a guy named John Skipper. He runs ESPN. He's a North Carolina native, quintessential Southern gentleman, white. He joined ESPN, which already had a culture of inclusion and diversity, but he took it up a notch. He demanded that every open position have a diverse slate of candidates. Now he says the senior people in the beginning bristled, and they would come to him and say, "Do you want me to hire the minority, or do you want me to hire the best person for the job?" And Skipper says his answers were always the same: "Yes." And by saying yes to diversity, I honestly believe that ESPN is the most valuable cable franchise in the world. I think that's a part of the secret sauce.
Now I can tell you, in my own industry, at Ariel Investments, we actually view our diversity as a competitive advantage, and that advantage can extend way beyond business. There's a guy named Scott Page at the University of Michigan. He is the first person to develop a mathematical calculation for diversity. He says, if you're trying to solve a really hard problem, really hard, that you should have a diverse group of people, including those with diverse intellects. The example that he gives is the smallpox epidemic. When it was ravaging Europe, they brought together all these scientists, and they were stumped. And the beginnings of the cure to the disease came from the most unlikely source, a dairy farmer who noticed that the milkmaids were not getting smallpox. And the smallpox vaccination is bovine-based because of that dairy farmer.
Now I'm sure you're sitting here and you're saying, I don't run a cable company, I don't run an investment firm, I am not a dairy farmer. What can I do? And I'm telling you, you can be color brave. If you're part of a hiring process or an admissions process, you can be color brave. If you are trying to solve a really hard problem, you can speak up and be color brave. Now I know people will say, but that doesn't add up to a lot, but I'm actually asking you to do something really simple: observe your environment, at work, at school, at home. I'm asking you to look at the people around you purposefully and intentionally. Invite people into your life who don't look like you, don't think like you, don't act like you, don't come from where you come from, and you might find that they will challenge your assumptions and make you grow as a person. You might get powerful new insights from these individuals, or, like my husband, who happens to be white, you might learn that black people, men, women, children, we use body lotion every single day.
Now, I also think that this is very important so that the next generation really understands that this progress will help them, because they're expecting us to be great role models.
Now, I told you, my mother, she was ruthlessly realistic. She was an unbelievable role model. She was the kind of person who got to be the way she was because she was a single mom with six kids in Chicago. She was in the real estate business, where she worked extraordinarily hard but oftentimes had a hard time making ends meet. And that meant sometimes we got our phone disconnected, or our lights turned off, or we got evicted. When we got evicted, sometimes we lived in these small apartments that she owned, sometimes in only one or two rooms, because they weren't completed, and we would heat our bathwater on hot plates. But she never gave up hope, ever, and she never allowed us to give up hope either. This brutal pragmatism that she had, I mean, I was four and she told me, "Mommy is Santa." (Laughter) She was this brutal pragmatism. She taught me so many lessons, but the most important lesson was that every single day she told me, "Mellody, you can be anything." And because of those words, I would wake up at the crack of dawn, and because of those words, I would love school more than anything, and because of those words, when I was on a bus going to school, I dreamed the biggest dreams. And it's because of those words that I stand here right now full of passion, asking you to be brave for the kids who are dreaming those dreams today. (Applause)
You see, I want them to look at a CEO on television and say, "I can be like her," or, "He looks like me." And I want them to know that anything is possible, that they can achieve the highest level that they ever imagined, that they will be welcome in any corporate boardroom, or they can lead any company. You see this idea of being the land of the free and the home of the brave, it's woven into the fabric of America. America, when we have a challenge, we take it head on, we don't shrink away from it. We take a stand. We show courage. So right now, what I'm asking you to do, I'm asking you to show courage. I'm asking you to be bold. As business leaders, I'm asking you not to leave anything on the table. As citizens, I'm asking you not to leave any child behind. I'm asking you not to be color blind, but to be color brave, so that every child knows that their future matters and their dreams are possible.
Thank you.
(Applause) Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. (Applause) |
I'm going to begin by reciting a poem. "Oh beloved dentist: Your rubber fingers in my mouth ... your voice so soft and muffled ... Lower the mask, dear dentist, lower the mask."
(Laughter)
Okay, in this presentation, I'm going to be putting the right side of your brains through a fairly serious workout. You're going to see a lot of imagery, and it's not always connected to what I'm talking about, so I need you to kind of split your brains in half and let the images flow over one side and listen to me on the other. So I am one of those people with a transformative personal story. Six years ago, after 20 years in graphic design and typography, I changed the way I was working and the way most graphic designers work to pursue a more personal approach to my work, with only the humble attempt to simply make a living doing something that I loved. But something weird happened. I became bizarrely popular. My current work seems to resonate with people in a way that has so taken me by surprise that I still frequently wonder what in the hell is going on. And I'm slowly coming to understand that the appeal of what I do may be connected to why I do it.
These days, I call myself a graphic artist. So where my work as a graphic designer was to follow strategy, my work now follows my heart and my interests with the guidance of my ego to create work that is mutually beneficial to myself and a client. Now, this is heresy in the design world. The ego is not supposed to be involved in graphic design. But I find that for myself, without exception, the more I deal with the work as something of my own, as something that is personal, the more successful it is as something that's compelling, interesting and sustaining. So I exist somewhat outside of the mainstream of design thinking. Where others might look at measurable results, I tend to be interested in more ethereal qualities, like "Does it bring joy?" "Is there a sense of wonder?" and "Does it invoke curiosity?"
This is a scientific diagram, by the way. I don't have time to explain it, but it has to do with DNA and RNA. So I have a particular imaginative approach to visual work. The things that interest me when I'm working are visual structure, surprise and anything that requires figuring things out. So for this reason, I'm particularly drawn to systems and patterns. I'm going to give you a couple of examples of how my brain works.
This is a piece that I did for The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. They have a magazine that they call G2. And this is for their puzzle special in 2007. And puzzling it is. I started by creating a series of tiling units. And these tiling units, I designed specifically so that they would contain parts of letterforms within their shapes so that I could then join those pieces together to create letters and then words within the abstract patterning. But then as well, I was able to just flip them, rotate them and combine them in different ways to create either regular patterns or abstract patterns. So here's the word puzzle again. And here it is with the abstract surrounding. And as you can see, it's extremely difficult to read. But all I have to do is fill certain areas of those letterforms and I can bring those words out of the background pattern. But maybe that's a little too obvious. So then I can add some color in with the background and add a bit more color in with the words themselves, and this way, working with the art director, I'm able to bring it to just the right point that it's puzzling for the audience -- they can figure out that there's something they have to read -- but it's not impossible for them to read.
I'm also interested in working with unusual materials and common materials in unusual ways. So this requires figuring out how to get the most out of something's innate properties and also how to bend it to my will. So ultimately, my goal is to create something unexpected. To this end, I have worked in sugar for Stefan Sagmeister, three-time TED speaker. And this project began essentially on my kitchen table. I've been eating cereal for breakfast all of my life. And for that same amount of time, I've been spilling sugar on the table and just kind of playing with it with my fingers. And eventually I used this technique to create a piece of artwork. And then I used it again to create six pieces for Stefan's book, "Things in My Life I've Learned So Far." And these were created without sketches, just freehand, by putting the sugar down on a white surface and then manipulating it to get the words and designs out of it. Recently, I've also made some rather highbrow baroque borders out of lowbrow pasta. And this is for a chapter that I'm doing in a book, and the chapter is on honor. So it's a little bit unexpected, but, in a way, it refers to the macaroni art that children make for their parents or they make in school and give to their parents, which is in itself a form of honor. This is what you can do with some household tinfoil. Okay, well, it's what I can do with some household tinfoil.
(Laughter)
I'm very interested in wonder, in design as an impetus to inquiring. To say I wonder is to say I question, I ask. And to experience wonder is to experience awe. So I'm currently working on a book, which plays with both senses of the word, as I explore some of my own ideas and inquiries in a visual display of rather peacock-like grandeur. The world is full of wonder. But the world of graphic design, for the most part, is not. So I'm using my own writings as a kind of testing ground for a book that has an interdependency between word and image as a kind of seductive force. I think that one of the things that religions got right was the use of visual wonder to deliver a message. I think this true marriage of art and information is woefully underused in adult literature, and I'm mystified as to why visual wealth is not more commonly used to enhance intellectual wealth. When we look at works like this, we tend to associate them with children's literature. There's an implication that ornamental graphics detract from the seriousness of the content. But I really hope to have the opportunity to change that perception. This book is taking rather a long time, but I'm nearly done.
For some reason, I thought it would be a good idea to put an intermission in my talk. And this is it -- just to give you and me a moment to catch up.
(Laughter)
So I do these valentines. I've been sending out valentines on a fairly large scale since 2005. These are my valentines from 2005 and 2006. And I started by doing just a single image like this and sending them out to each person. But in 2007, I got the cockamamie idea to hand-draw each valentine for everyone on my mailing list. I reduced my mailing list to 150 people. And I drew each person their own unique valentine and put their name on it and numbered it and signed it and sent it out. Believe it or not, I devised this as a timesaving method. I was very busy in the beginning of that year, and I didn't know when I was going to find time to design and print a single valentine. And I thought that I could kind of do this piecemeal as I was traveling. It didn't exactly work out that way. There's a longer story to this, but I did get them all done in time, and they were extremely well received. I got an almost 100 percent response rate. (Laughter) And those who didn't respond will never receive anything from me ever again.
(Laughter)
Last year, I took a more conceptual approach to the valentine. I had this idea that I wanted people to receive a kind of mysterious love letter, like a found fragment in their mailbox. I wanted it to be something that was not addressed to them or signed by me, something that caused them to wonder what on Earth this thing was. And I specifically wrote four pages that don't connect. There were four different versions of this. And I wrote them so that they begin in the middle of a sentence, end in the middle of a sentence. And they're on the one hand, universal, so I avoid specific names or places, but on the other hand, they're personal. So I wanted people to really get the sense that they had received something that could have been a love letter to them. And I'm just going to read one of them to you.
"You've never really been sure of this, but I can assure you that this quirk you're so self-conscious of is intensely endearing. Just please accept that this piece of you escapes with your smile, and those of us who notice are happy to catch it in passing. Time spent with you is like chasing and catching small birds, but without the scratches and bird shit." (Laughter) "That is to say, your thoughts and words flit and dart, disconcertedly elusive at times, but when caught and examined -- ahh, such a wonder, such a delightful reward. There's no passing time with you, only collecting -- the collecting of moments with the hope for preservation and at the same time release. Impossible? I don't think so. I know this makes you embarrassed. I'm certain I can see you blushing. But I just have to tell you because sometimes I hear your self-doubt, and it's so crushing to think that you may not know how truly wonderful you are, how inspiring and delightful and really, truly the most completely ..."
(Laughter)
(Applause)
So Valentine's Day is coming up in a couple of days, and these are currently arriving in mailboxes all around the world. This year, I got, what I really have to say is a rather brilliant idea, to laser cut my valentines out of used Christmas cards. So I solicited friends to send me their used Christmas cards, and I made 500 of these. Each one of them is completely different. I'm just really, really thrilled with them. I don't have that much else to say, but they turned out really well.
I do spend a lot of time on my work. And one of the things that I've been thinking about recently is what is worth while. What is it that's worth spending my time on and my life on in this way? Working in the commercial world, this is something that I do have to struggle with at times. And yes, sometimes I'm swayed by money. But ultimately, I don't consider that a worthy goal. What makes something worthwhile for me is the people I work for or with, the conditions I work under and the audience that I'm able to reach. So I might ask: "Who is it for?" "What does it say?" and "What does it do?"
You know, I have to tell you, it's really difficult for someone like me to come up on stage at this conference with these unbelievably brilliant minds, who are thinking these really big-picture, world-changing, life-changing ideas and technologies. And it's very, very common for designers and people in the visual arts to feel that we're not contributing enough, or worse, that all we're doing is contributing to landfill. Here I am; I'm showing you some pretty visuals and talking about aesthetics. But I've come to believe that truly imaginative visual work is extremely important in society.
Just in the way that I'm inspired by books and magazines of all kinds, conversations I have, movies, so I also think, when I put visual work out there into the mass media, work that is interesting, unusual, intriguing, work that maybe opens up that sense of inquiry in the mind, that I'm seeding the imagination of the populace. And you just never know who is going to take something from that and turn it into something else, because inspiration is cross-pollinating. So a piece of mine may inspire a playwright or a novelist or a scientist, and that in turn may be the seed that inspires a doctor or a philanthropist or a babysitter. And this isn't something that you can quantify or track or measure, and we tend to undervalue things in society that we can't measure.
But I really believe that a fully operating, rich society needs these seeds coming from all directions and all disciplines in order to keep the gears of inspiration and imagination flowing and cycling and growing. So that's why I do what I do, and why I spend so much time and effort on it, and why I work in the commercial, public sphere, as opposed to the isolated, private sphere of fine art: because I want as many people as possible to see my work, notice it, be drawn into it, and be able to take something from it. And I actually really feel that it's worthwhile to spend my valuable and limited time on this Earth in this way. And I thank you for allowing me to show it to you.
(Applause) |
Two twin domes, two radically opposed design cultures. One is made of thousands of steel parts, the other of a single silk thread. One is synthetic, the other organic. One is imposed on the environment, the other creates it. One is designed for nature, the other is designed by her.
Michelangelo said that when he looked at raw marble, he saw a figure struggling to be free. The chisel was Michelangelo's only tool. But living things are not chiseled. They grow. And in our smallest units of life, our cells, we carry all the information that's required for every other cell to function and to replicate.
Tools also have consequences. At least since the Industrial Revolution, the world of design has been dominated by the rigors of manufacturing and mass production. Assembly lines have dictated a world made of parts, framing the imagination of designers and architects who have been trained to think about their objects as assemblies of discrete parts with distinct functions.
But you don't find homogenous material assemblies in nature. Take human skin, for example. Our facial skins are thin with large pores. Our back skins are thicker, with small pores. One acts mainly as filter, the other mainly as barrier, and yet it's the same skin: no parts, no assemblies. It's a system that gradually varies its functionality by varying elasticity. So here this is a split screen to represent my split world view, the split personality of every designer and architect operating today between the chisel and the gene, between machine and organism, between assembly and growth, between Henry Ford and Charles Darwin. These two worldviews, my left brain and right brain, analysis and synthesis, will play out on the two screens behind me. My work, at its simplest level, is about uniting these two worldviews, moving away from assembly and closer into growth.
You're probably asking yourselves: Why now? Why was this not possible 10 or even five years ago? We live in a very special time in history, a rare time, a time when the confluence of four fields is giving designers access to tools we've never had access to before. These fields are computational design, allowing us to design complex forms with simple code; additive manufacturing, letting us produce parts by adding material rather than carving it out; materials engineering, which lets us design the behavior of materials in high resolution; and synthetic biology, enabling us to design new biological functionality by editing DNA. And at the intersection of these four fields, my team and I create. Please meet the minds and hands of my students.
We design objects and products and structures and tools across scales, from the large-scale, like this robotic arm with an 80-foot diameter reach with a vehicular base that will one day soon print entire buildings, to nanoscale graphics made entirely of genetically engineered microorganisms that glow in the dark. Here we've reimagined the mashrabiya, an archetype of ancient Arabic architecture, and created a screen where every aperture is uniquely sized to shape the form of light and heat moving through it.
In our next project, we explore the possibility of creating a cape and skirt -- this was for a Paris fashion show with Iris van Herpen -- like a second skin that are made of a single part, stiff at the contours, flexible around the waist. Together with my long-term 3D printing collaborator Stratasys, we 3D-printed this cape and skirt with no seams between the cells, and I'll show more objects like it. This helmet combines stiff and soft materials in 20-micron resolution. This is the resolution of a human hair. It's also the resolution of a CT scanner. That designers have access to such high-resolution analytic and synthetic tools, enables to design products that fit not only the shape of our bodies, but also the physiological makeup of our tissues. Next, we designed an acoustic chair, a chair that would be at once structural, comfortable and would also absorb sound. Professor Carter, my collaborator, and I turned to nature for inspiration, and by designing this irregular surface pattern, it becomes sound-absorbent. We printed its surface out of 44 different properties, varying in rigidity, opacity and color, corresponding to pressure points on the human body. Its surface, as in nature, varies its functionality not by adding another material or another assembly, but by continuously and delicately varying material property.
But is nature ideal? Are there no parts in nature? I wasn't raised in a religious Jewish home, but when I was young, my grandmother used to tell me stories from the Hebrew Bible, and one of them stuck with me and came to define much of what I care about. As she recounts: "On the third day of Creation, God commands the Earth to grow a fruit-bearing fruit tree." For this first fruit tree, there was to be no differentiation between trunk, branches, leaves and fruit. The whole tree was a fruit. Instead, the land grew trees that have bark and stems and flowers. The land created a world made of parts. I often ask myself, "What would design be like if objects were made of a single part? Would we return to a better state of creation?"
So we looked for that biblical material, that fruit-bearing fruit tree kind of material, and we found it. The second-most abundant biopolymer on the planet is called chitin, and some 100 million tons of it are produced every year by organisms such as shrimps, crabs, scorpions and butterflies. We thought if we could tune its properties, we could generate structures that are multifunctional out of a single part. So that's what we did. We called Legal Seafood --
(Laughter)
we ordered a bunch of shrimp shells, we grinded them and we produced chitosan paste. By varying chemical concentrations, we were able to achieve a wide array of properties -- from dark, stiff and opaque, to light, soft and transparent. In order to print the structures in large scale, we built a robotically controlled extrusion system with multiple nozzles. The robot would vary material properties on the fly and create these 12-foot-long structures made of a single material, 100 percent recyclable. When the parts are ready, they're left to dry and find a form naturally upon contact with air. So why are we still designing with plastics? The air bubbles that were a byproduct of the printing process were used to contain photosynthetic microorganisms that first appeared on our planet 3.5 billion year ago, as we learned yesterday. Together with our collaborators at Harvard and MIT, we embedded bacteria that were genetically engineered to rapidly capture carbon from the atmosphere and convert it into sugar. For the first time, we were able to generate structures that would seamlessly transition from beam to mesh, and if scaled even larger, to windows. A fruit-bearing fruit tree. Working with an ancient material, one of the first lifeforms on the planet, plenty of water and a little bit of synthetic biology, we were able to transform a structure made of shrimp shells into an architecture that behaves like a tree. And here's the best part: for objects designed to biodegrade, put them in the sea, and they will nourish marine life; place them in soil, and they will help grow a tree.
The setting for our next exploration using the same design principles was the solar system. We looked for the possibility of creating life-sustaining clothing for interplanetary voyages. To do that, we needed to contain bacteria and be able to control their flow. So like the periodic table, we came up with our own table of the elements: new lifeforms that were computationally grown, additively manufactured and biologically augmented. I like to think of synthetic biology as liquid alchemy, only instead of transmuting precious metals, you're synthesizing new biological functionality inside very small channels. It's called microfluidics. We 3D-printed our own channels in order to control the flow of these liquid bacterial cultures. In our first piece of clothing, we combined two microorganisms. The first is cyanobacteria. It lives in our oceans and in freshwater ponds. And the second, E. coli, the bacterium that inhabits the human gut. One converts light into sugar, the other consumes that sugar and produces biofuels useful for the built environment. Now, these two microorganisms never interact in nature. In fact, they never met each other. They've been here, engineered for the first time, to have a relationship inside a piece of clothing. Think of it as evolution not by natural selection, but evolution by design. In order to contain these relationships, we've created a single channel that resembles the digestive tract, that will help flow these bacteria and alter their function along the way. We then started growing these channels on the human body, varying material properties according to the desired functionality. Where we wanted more photosynthesis, we would design more transparent channels. This wearable digestive system, when it's stretched end to end, spans 60 meters. This is half the length of a football field, and 10 times as long as our small intestines. And here it is for the first time unveiled at TED -- our first photosynthetic wearable, liquid channels glowing with life inside a wearable clothing.
(Applause)
Thank you.
Mary Shelley said, "We are unfashioned creatures, but only half made up." What if design could provide that other half? What if we could create structures that would augment living matter? What if we could create personal microbiomes that would scan our skins, repair damaged tissue and sustain our bodies? Think of this as a form of edited biology. This entire collection, Wanderers, that was named after planets, was not to me really about fashion per se, but it provided an opportunity to speculate about the future of our race on our planet and beyond, to combine scientific insight with lots of mystery and to move away from the age of the machine to a new age of symbiosis between our bodies, the microorganisms that we inhabit, our products and even our buildings. I call this material ecology.
To do this, we always need to return back to nature. By now, you know that a 3D printer prints material in layers. You also know that nature doesn't. It grows. It adds with sophistication. This silkworm cocoon, for example, creates a highly sophisticated architecture, a home inside which to metamorphisize. No additive manufacturing today gets even close to this level of sophistication. It does so by combining not two materials, but two proteins in different concentrations. One acts as the structure, the other is the glue, or the matrix, holding those fibers together. And this happens across scales. The silkworm first attaches itself to the environment -- it creates a tensile structure -- and it then starts spinning a compressive cocoon. Tension and compression, the two forces of life, manifested in a single material.
In order to better understand how this complex process works, we glued a tiny earth magnet to the head of a silkworm, to the spinneret. We placed it inside a box with magnetic sensors, and that allowed us to create this 3-dimensional point cloud and visualize the complex architecture of the silkworm cocoon. However, when we placed the silkworm on a flat patch, not inside a box, we realized it would spin a flat cocoon and it would still healthily metamorphisize. So we started designing different environments, different scaffolds, and we discovered that the shape, the composition, the structure of the cocoon, was directly informed by the environment.
Silkworms are often boiled to death inside their cocoons, their silk unraveled and used in the textile industry. We realized that designing these templates allowed us to give shape to raw silk without boiling a single cocoon.
(Applause)
They would healthily metamorphisize, and we would be able to create these things.
So we scaled this process up to architectural scale. We had a robot spin the template out of silk, and we placed it on our site. We knew silkworms migrated toward darker and colder areas, so we used a sun path diagram to reveal the distribution of light and heat on our structure. We then created holes, or apertures, that would lock in the rays of light and heat, distributing those silkworms on the structure.
We were ready to receive the caterpillars. We ordered 6,500 silkworms from an online silk farm. And after four weeks of feeding, they were ready to spin with us. We placed them carefully at the bottom rim of the scaffold, and as they spin they pupate, they mate, they lay eggs, and life begins all over again -- just like us but much, much shorter.
Bucky Fuller said that tension is the great integrity, and he was right. As they spin biological silk over robotically spun silk, they give this entire pavilion its integrity. And over two to three weeks, 6,500 silkworms spin 6,500 kilometers. In a curious symmetry, this is also the length of the Silk Road. The moths, after they hatch, produce 1.5 million eggs. This could be used for 250 additional pavilions for the future.
So here they are, the two worldviews. One spins silk out of a robotic arm, the other fills in the gaps.
If the final frontier of design is to breathe life into the products and the buildings around us, to form a two-material ecology, then designers must unite these two worldviews. Which brings us back, of course, to the beginning. Here's to a new age of design, a new age of creation, that takes us from a nature-inspired design to a design-inspired nature, and that demands of us for the first time that we mother nature.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Thank you very much. Thank you.
(Applause) |
I've always written primarily about architecture, about buildings, and writing about architecture is based on certain assumptions. An architect designs a building, and it becomes a place, or many architects design many buildings, and it becomes a city, and regardless of this complicated mix of forces of politics and culture and economics that shapes these places, at the end of the day, you can go and you can visit them. You can walk around them. You can smell them. You can get a feel for them. You can experience their sense of place.
But what was striking to me over the last several years was that less and less was I going out into the world, and more and more, I was sitting in front of my computer screen. And especially since about 2007, when I got an iPhone, I was not only sitting in front of my screen all day, but I was also getting up at the end of the day and looking at this little screen that I carried in my pocket. And what was surprising to me was how quickly my relationship to the physical world had changed. In this very short period of time, you know, whether you call it the last 15 years or so of being online, or the last, you know, four or five years of being online all the time, our relationship to our surroundings had changed in that our attention is constantly divided. You know, we're both looking inside the screens and we're looking out in the world around us.
And what was even more striking to me, and what I really got hung up on, was that the world inside the screen seemed to have no physical reality of its own. If you went and looked for images of the Internet, this was all that you found, this famous image by Opte of the Internet as the kind of Milky Way, this infinite expanse where we don't seem to be anywhere on it. We can never seem to grasp it in its totality. It's always reminded me of the Apollo image of the Earth, the blue marble picture, and it's similarly meant to suggest, I think, that we can't really understand it as a whole. We're always sort of small in the face of its expanse.
So if there was this world and this screen, and if there was the physical world around me, I couldn't ever get them together in the same place.
And then this happened. My Internet broke one day, as it occasionally does, and the cable guy came to fix it, and he started with the dusty clump of cables behind the couch, and he followed it to the front of my building and into the basement and out to the back yard, and there was this big jumble of cables against the wall. And then he saw a squirrel running along the wire, and he said, "There's your problem. A squirrel is chewing on your Internet." (Laughter) And this seemed astounding. The Internet is a transcendent idea. It's a set of protocols that has changed everything from shopping to dating to revolutions. It was unequivocally not something a squirrel could chew on. (Laughter) But that in fact seemed to be the case. A squirrel had in fact chewed on my Internet. (Laughter) And then I got this image in my head of what would happen if you yanked the wire from the wall and if you started to follow it. Where would it go? Was the Internet actually a place that you could visit? Could I go there? Who would I meet? You know, was there something actually out there?
And the answer, by all accounts, was no. This was the Internet, this black box with a red light on it, as represented in the sitcom "The IT Crowd." Normally it lives on the top of Big Ben, because that's where you get the best reception, but they had negotiated that their colleague could borrow it for the afternoon to use in an office presentation. The elders of the Internet were willing to part with it for a short while, and she looks at it and she says, "This is the Internet? The whole Internet? Is it heavy?" They say, "Of course not, the Internet doesn't weigh anything."
And I was embarrassed. I was looking for this thing that only fools seem to look for. The Internet was that amorphous blob, or it was a silly black box with a blinking red light on it. It wasn't a real world out there.
But, in fact, it is. There is a real world of the Internet out there, and that's what I spent about two years visiting, these places of the Internet. I was in large data centers that use as much power as the cities in which they sit, and I visited places like this, 60 Hudson Street in New York, which is one of the buildings in the world, one of a very short list of buildings, about a dozen buildings, where more networks of the Internet connect to each other than anywhere else. And that connection is an unequivocally physical process. It's about the router of one network, a Facebook or a Google or a B.T. or a Comcast or a Time Warner, whatever it is, connecting with usually a yellow fiber optic cable up into the ceiling and down into the router of another network, and that's unequivocally physical, and it's surprisingly intimate. A building like 60 Hudson, and a dozen or so others, has 10 times more networks connecting within it than the next tier of buildings. There's a very short list of these places. And 60 Hudson in particular is interesting because it's home to about a half a dozen very important networks, which are the networks which serve the undersea cables that travel underneath the ocean that connect Europe and America and connect all of us. And it's those cables in particular that I want to focus on.
If the Internet is a global phenomenon, if we live in a global village, it's because there are cables underneath the ocean, cables like this. And in this dimension, they are incredibly small. You can you hold them in your hand. They're like a garden hose. But in the other dimension they are incredibly expansive, as expansive as you can imagine. They stretch across the ocean. They're three or five or eight thousand miles in length, and if the material science and the computational technology is incredibly complicated, the basic physical process is shockingly simple. Light goes in on one end of the ocean and comes out on the other, and it usually comes from a building called a landing station that's often tucked away inconspicuously in a little seaside neighborhood, and there are amplifiers that sit on the ocean floor that look kind of like bluefin tuna, and every 50 miles they amplify the signal, and since the rate of transmission is incredibly fast, the basic unit is a 10-gigabit-per-second wavelength of light, maybe a thousand times your own connection, or capable of carrying 10,000 video streams, but not only that, but you'll put not just one wavelength of light through one of the fibers, but you'll put maybe 50 or 60 or 70 different wavelengths or colors of light through a single fiber, and then you'll have maybe eight fibers in a cable, four going in each direction. And they're tiny. They're the thickness of a hair.
And then they connect to the continent somewhere. They connect in a manhole like this. Literally, this is where the 5,000-mile cable plugs in. This is in Halifax, a cable that stretches from Halifax to Ireland. And the landscape is changing. Three years ago, when I started thinking about this, there was one cable down the Western coast of Africa, represented in this map by Steve Song as that thin black line. Now there are six cables and more coming, three down each coast. Because once a country gets plugged in by one cable, they realize that it's not enough. If they're going to build an industry around it, they need to know that their connection isn't tenuous but permanent, because if a cable breaks, you have to send a ship out into the water, throw a grappling hook over the side, pick it up, find the other end, and then fuse the two ends back together and then dump it over. It's an intensely, intensely physical process.
So this is my friend Simon Cooper, who until very recently worked for Tata Communications, the communications wing of Tata, the big Indian industrial conglomerate. And I've never met him. We've only communicated via this telepresence system, which always makes me think of him as the man inside the Internet. (Laughter) And he is English. The undersea cable industry is dominated by Englishmen, and they all seem to be 42. (Laughter) Because they all started at the same time with the boom about 20 years ago. And Tata had gotten its start as a communications business when they bought two cables, one across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific, and proceeded to add pieces onto them, until they had built a belt around the world, which means they will send your bits to the East or the West. They have -- this is literally a beam of light around the world, and if a cable breaks in the Pacific, it'll send it around the other direction. And then having done that, they started to look for places to wire next. They looked for the unwired places, and that's meant North and South, primarily these cables to Africa. But what amazes me is Simon's incredible geographic imagination. He thinks about the world with this incredible expansiveness.
And I was particularly interested because I wanted to see one of these cables being built. See, you know, all the time online we experience these fleeting moments of connection, these sort of brief adjacencies, a tweet or a Facebook post or an email, and it seemed like there was a physical corollary to that. It seemed like there was a moment when the continent was being plugged in, and I wanted to see that. And Simon was working on a new cable, WACS, the West Africa Cable System, that stretched from Lisbon down the west coast of Africa, to Cote d'Ivoire, to Ghana, to Nigeria, to Cameroon. And he said there was coming soon, depending on the weather, but he'd let me know when, and so with about four days notice, he said to go to this beach south of Lisbon, and a little after 9, this guy will walk out of the water. (Laughter) And he'll be carrying a green nylon line, a lightweight line, called a messenger line, and that was the first link between sea and land, this link that would then be leveraged into this 9,000-mile path of light. Then a bulldozer began to pull the cable in from this specialized cable landing ship, and it was floated on these buoys until it was in the right place. Then you can see the English engineers looking on. And then, once it was in the right place, he got back in the water holding a big knife, and he cut each buoy off, and the buoy popped up into the air, and the cable dropped to the sea floor, and he did that all the way out to the ship, and when he got there, they gave him a glass of juice and a cookie, and then he jumped back in, and he swam back to shore, and then he lit a cigarette. (Laughter)
And then once that cable was on shore, they began to prepare to connect it to the other side, for the cable that had been brought down from the landing station. And first they got it with a hacksaw, and then they start sort of shaving away at this plastic interior with a -- sort of working like chefs, and then finally they're working like jewelers to get these hair-thin fibers to line up with the cable that had come down, and with this hole-punch machine they fuse it together. And when you see these guys going at this cable with a hacksaw, you stop thinking about the Internet as a cloud. It starts to seem like an incredibly physical thing. And what surprised me as well was that as much as this is based on the most sophisticated technology, as much as this is an incredibly new thing, the physical process itself has been around for a long time, and the culture is the same. You see the local laborers. You see the English engineer giving directions in the background. And more importantly, the places are the same. These cables still connect these classic port cities, places like Lisbon, Mombasa, Mumbai, Singapore, New York.
And then the process on shore takes around three or four days, and then, when it's done, they put the manhole cover back on top, and they push the sand over that, and we all forget about it.
And it seems to me that we talk a lot about the cloud, but every time we put something on the cloud, we give up some responsibility for it. We are less connected to it. We let other people worry about it. And that doesn't seem right. There's a great Neal Stephenson line where he says that wired people should know something about wires. And we should know, I think, we should know where our Internet comes from, and we should know what it is that physically, physically connects us all. Thank you. (Applause) (Applause) Thanks. (Applause) |
I want to talk to you about one thing and just one thing only, and this has to do with when people ask me, what do you do? To which I usually respond, I do computer music.
Now, a number of people just stop talking to me right then and there, and the rest who are left usually have this blank look in their eye, as if to say, what does that mean? And I feel like I'm actually depriving them of information by telling them this, at which point I usually panic and spit out the first thing that comes to my mind, which is, I have no idea what I'm doing. Which is true. That's usually followed by a second thought, which is, whatever it is that I'm doing, I love it. And today, I want to, well, share with you something I love, and also why.
And I think we'll begin with just this question: What is computer music? And I'm going to try to do my best to provide a definition, maybe by telling you a story that goes through some of the stuff I've been working on.
And the first thing, I think, in our story is going to be something called ChucK. Now, ChucK is a programming language for music, and it's open-source, it's freely available, and I like to think that it crashes equally well on all modern operating systems. And instead of telling you more about it, I'm just going to give you a demo. By the way, I'm just going to nerd out for just a few minutes here, so I would say, don't freak out. In fact, I would invite all of you to join me in just geeking out. If you've never written a line of code before in your life, do not worry. I'll bet you'll be able to come along on this.
First thing I'm going to do is to make a sine wave oscillator, and we're going to called the sine wave generator "Ge." And then we're going to connect "Ge" to the DAC. Now this is kind of the abstraction for the sound output on my computer. Okay? So I've connected myself into the speaker. Next, I'm going to say my frequency is 440 hertz, and I'm going to let time advance by two seconds through this operation. All right, so if I were to play this -- (Tone) — you would hear a sine wave at 440 hertz for two seconds. Okay, great. Now I'm going to copy and paste this, and then just change some of these numbers, 220.5, 440 I shall leave it as that, and .5 and 880. By doubling the frequency, we're actually going up in successive octaves, and then we have this sequence -- (Tones) — of tones. Okay, great, now I can imagine creating all kinds of really horrible single sine wave pieces of music with this, but I'm going to do something that computers are really good at, which is repetition. I'm going to put this all in a while loop, and you actually don't need to indent, but this is purely for aesthetic reasons. It's good practice. And when we do this — (Tones) — that's going to go on for a while. In fact, it's probably not going to stop until this computer disintegrates. And I can't really empirically prove that to you, but I hope you'll believe me when I say that. Next, I'm going to replace this 220 by math.random2f. I'm going to generate a random number between 30 and 1,000 and send that to the frequency of me. And I'm going to do this every half a second. (Tones) Let's do this every 200 milliseconds. (Tones) One hundred. (Tones) All right. At this point, we've reached something that I would like to think of as the canonical computer music. This is, to me, the sound that mainframes are supposed to be making when they're thinking really hard. It's this sound, it's like, the square root of five million.
So is this computer music? Yeah, I guess by definition, it's kind of computer music. It's probably not the kind of music you would listen to cruising down the highway, but it's a foundation of computer-generated music, and using ChucK, we've actually been building instruments in the Stanford Laptop Orchestra, based right here at Stanford Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics.
Now the Laptop Orchestra is an ensemble of laptops, humans and special hemispherical speaker arrays. Now the reason we have these is so that for the instruments that we create out of the laptop, we want the sound to come out of somewhere near the instrument and the performer, kind of much like a traditional, acoustic instrument. Like, if I were to play a violin here, the sound would naturally not come out of the P.A. system, but from the artifact itself. So these speakers are meant to emulate that. In fact, I'm going to show you how we actually built them. The first step is to go to IKEA and buy a salad bowl. This is an 11-inch Blanda Matt. That's the actual name, and I actually use one of these to make salad at home as well, I kid you not. And the first step is you turn it upside down, and then you drill holes in them, six holes per hemi, and then make a base plate, put car speaker drivers in them along with amplifiers in the enclosure, and you put that all together and you have these hemispherical speaker arrays. Add people, add laptops, you have a laptop orchestra.
And what might a laptop orchestra sound like? Well, let me give you a demonstration of about 200 instruments we've created so far for the Laptop Orchestra. And what I'm going to do is actually come over to this thing. This thing I have in front of me actually used to be a commodity gaming controller called a Gametrak. This thing actually has a glove you can put on your hands. It's tethered to the base, and this will track the position of your hands in real time. It was originally designed as a golfing controller to detect the motion of your swing. That turned out to be a rather large commercial non-success, at which point they slashed prices to 10 dollars, at which point computer music researchers said, "This is awesome! We can prototype instruments out of this."
So let me show you one instrument we've created, one of many, and this instrument is called "Twilight," and it's meant to go with this metaphor of pulling a sound out of the ground. So let me see if this will work.
(Music)
And put it back. And then if you go to the left, right, it sounds like an elephant in pain.
This is a slightly metallic sound. Turn it just a bit.
(Music) It's like a hovering car.
Okay.
This third one is a ratchet-like interaction, so let me turn it up.
(Music)
So it's a slightly different interaction.
The fourth one is a drone.
(Music) And finally, let's see, this is a totally different interaction, and I think you have to imagine that there's this giant invisible drum sitting right here on stage, and I'm going to bang it. (Drum) (Laughter) So there we go, so that's one of many instruments in the Laptop Orchestra.
(Applause)
Thank you.
And when you put that together, you get something that sounds like this.
(Music)
Okay, and so, I think from the experience of building a lot of instruments for the Laptop Orchestra, and I think from the curiosity of wondering, what if we took these hopefully expressive instruments and we brought it to a lot of people, plus then a healthy bout of insanity — put those three things together — led to me actually co-founding a startup company in 2008 called Smule.
Now Smule's mission is to create expressive, mobile music things, and one of the first musical instruments we created is called Ocarina. And I'm going to just demo this for you real quick. So Ocarina — (Music) — is based on this ancient flute-like instrument called the ocarina, and this one is the four-hole English pendant configuration, and you're literally blowing into the microphone to make the sound. And there's actually a little ChucK script running in here that's detecting the strength of your blowing and also synthesizing the sound. (Music) And vibrato is mapped to the accelerometer, so you can get — (Music) All right. So let me play a little ditty for you, a little Bach. And here, you'll hear a little accompaniment with the melody. The accompaniment actually follows the melody, not the other way around.
(Music)
And this was designed to let you take your time and figure out where your expressive space is, and you can just hang out here for a while, for a really dramatic effect, if you want, and whenever you're ready —
(Music)
And on these longer notes, I'm going to use more vibrato towards the end of the notes to give it a little bit more of an expressive quality.
(Music)
Huh, that's a nice chord to end this excerpt on.
(Applause)
Thank you.
So I think a good question to ask about Ocarina is, is this a toy or it an instrument? Maybe it's both, but for me, I think the more important question is, is it expressive? And at the same time, I think creating these types of instruments asks a question about the role of technology, and its place for how we make music. Apparently, for example, not that long ago, like only a hundred years ago — that's not that long in the course of human history — families back then used to make music together as a common form of entertainment. I don't think that's really happening that much anymore. You know, this is before radio, before recording. In the last hundred years, with all this technology, we now have more access to music as listeners and consumers, but somehow, I think we're making less music than ever before. I'm not sure why that would be. Maybe it's because it's too easy just to hit play. And while listening to music is wonderful, there's a special joy to making music that's all its own. And I think that's one part of the goal of why I do what I do is kind of to take us back to the past a little bit. Right?
Now, if that's one goal, the other goal is to look to the future and think about what kind of new musical things can we make that we don't perhaps yet have names for that's enabled by technology, but ultimately might change the way that humans make music. And I'll just give you one example here, and this is Ocarina's other feature. This is a globe, and here you're actually listening to other users of Ocarina blow into their iPhones to play something. This is "G.I.R." from Texas, "R.I.K." I don't know why it's these three-letter names today, Los Angeles. They're all playing pretty, somewhat minimal music here.
(Music)
And the idea with this is that, well, technology should not be foregrounded here, and — (Laughter) — we've actually opened this up. The first thought is that, hey, you know there's somebody somewhere out there playing some music, and this is a small but I think important human connection to make that perhaps the technology affords.
As a final example, and perhaps my favorite example, is that in the wake of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster in Japan, a woman reached out in one of our singing apps to try to get people to join in to sing with her on a version of "Lean on Me." Now, in these apps, there's this thing that allows any user to add their voice to an existing performance by any other user or group of users, so in some sense, she's created this kind of global ad hoc corral of strangers, and within weeks, thousands of people joined in on this, and you can kind of see people coming from all around the world and all these lines converging on the origin where the first rendition of the song was sung, and that's in Tokyo. And this is what it sounds like when there's 1,000 people. This is 1,000 voices.
(Recording) ♪ Sometimes in our lives ♪
♪ We all have pain, we all have sorrow ♪
♪ But if we are wise ♪
♪ We know that there's always tomorrow ♪
♪ Lean on me ♪
♪ When you're not strong ♪
♪ And I'll be your friend ♪
♪ I'll help you carry on ♪
♪ For it won't be long ♪
♪ Till I'm gonna need ♪
♪ Somebody to lean on ♪
♪ Just lean on — ♪
Is this computer music?
(Applause)
Was that computer music? Yeah, I guess so; it's something that you really couldn't have done without computers. But at the same time, it's also just human, and I think what I've essentially answered so far is maybe why I do the stuff that I do, and let's just finally return to the first question: What is computer music? And I think that the catch here is that, at least to me, computer music isn't really about computers. It is about people. It's about how we can use technology to change the way we think and do and make music, and maybe even add to how we can connect with each other through music.
And with that, I want to say, this is computer music, and thank you for listening.
(Applause) |
In 2007, I became the attorney general of the state of New Jersey. Before that, I'd been a criminal prosecutor, first in the Manhattan district attorney's office, and then at the United States Department of Justice.
But when I became the attorney general, two things happened that changed the way I see criminal justice. The first is that I asked what I thought were really basic questions. I wanted to understand who we were arresting, who we were charging, and who we were putting in our nation's jails and prisons. I also wanted to understand if we were making decisions in a way that made us safer. And I couldn't get this information out. It turned out that most big criminal justice agencies like my own didn't track the things that matter. So after about a month of being incredibly frustrated, I walked down into a conference room that was filled with detectives and stacks and stacks of case files, and the detectives were sitting there with yellow legal pads taking notes. They were trying to get the information I was looking for by going through case by case for the past five years. And as you can imagine, when we finally got the results, they weren't good. It turned out that we were doing a lot of low-level drug cases on the streets just around the corner from our office in Trenton.
The second thing that happened is that I spent the day in the Camden, New Jersey police department. Now, at that time, Camden, New Jersey, was the most dangerous city in America. I ran the Camden Police Department because of that. I spent the day in the police department, and I was taken into a room with senior police officials, all of whom were working hard and trying very hard to reduce crime in Camden. And what I saw in that room, as we talked about how to reduce crime, were a series of officers with a lot of little yellow sticky notes. And they would take a yellow sticky and they would write something on it and they would put it up on a board. And one of them said, "We had a robbery two weeks ago. We have no suspects." And another said, "We had a shooting in this neighborhood last week. We have no suspects." We weren't using data-driven policing. We were essentially trying to fight crime with yellow Post-it notes.
Now, both of these things made me realize fundamentally that we were failing. We didn't even know who was in our criminal justice system, we didn't have any data about the things that mattered, and we didn't share data or use analytics or tools to help us make better decisions and to reduce crime. And for the first time, I started to think about how we made decisions. When I was an assistant D.A., and when I was a federal prosecutor, I looked at the cases in front of me, and I generally made decisions based on my instinct and my experience. When I became attorney general, I could look at the system as a whole, and what surprised me is that I found that that was exactly how we were doing it across the entire system -- in police departments, in prosecutors's offices, in courts and in jails. And what I learned very quickly is that we weren't doing a good job. So I wanted to do things differently. I wanted to introduce data and analytics and rigorous statistical analysis into our work. In short, I wanted to moneyball criminal justice.
Now, moneyball, as many of you know, is what the Oakland A's did, where they used smart data and statistics to figure out how to pick players that would help them win games, and they went from a system that was based on baseball scouts who used to go out and watch players and use their instinct and experience, the scouts' instincts and experience, to pick players, from one to use smart data and rigorous statistical analysis to figure out how to pick players that would help them win games.
It worked for the Oakland A's, and it worked in the state of New Jersey. We took Camden off the top of the list as the most dangerous city in America. We reduced murders there by 41 percent, which actually means 37 lives were saved. And we reduced all crime in the city by 26 percent. We also changed the way we did criminal prosecutions. So we went from doing low-level drug crimes that were outside our building to doing cases of statewide importance, on things like reducing violence with the most violent offenders, prosecuting street gangs, gun and drug trafficking, and political corruption.
And all of this matters greatly, because public safety to me is the most important function of government. If we're not safe, we can't be educated, we can't be healthy, we can't do any of the other things we want to do in our lives. And we live in a country today where we face serious criminal justice problems. We have 12 million arrests every single year. The vast majority of those arrests are for low-level crimes, like misdemeanors, 70 to 80 percent. Less than five percent of all arrests are for violent crime. Yet we spend 75 billion, that's b for billion, dollars a year on state and local corrections costs. Right now, today, we have 2.3 million people in our jails and prisons. And we face unbelievable public safety challenges because we have a situation in which two thirds of the people in our jails are there waiting for trial. They haven't yet been convicted of a crime. They're just waiting for their day in court. And 67 percent of people come back. Our recidivism rate is amongst the highest in the world. Almost seven in 10 people who are released from prison will be rearrested in a constant cycle of crime and incarceration.
So when I started my job at the Arnold Foundation, I came back to looking at a lot of these questions, and I came back to thinking about how we had used data and analytics to transform the way we did criminal justice in New Jersey. And when I look at the criminal justice system in the United States today, I feel the exact same way that I did about the state of New Jersey when I started there, which is that we absolutely have to do better, and I know that we can do better.
So I decided to focus on using data and analytics to help make the most critical decision in public safety, and that decision is the determination of whether, when someone has been arrested, whether they pose a risk to public safety and should be detained, or whether they don't pose a risk to public safety and should be released. Everything that happens in criminal cases comes out of this one decision. It impacts everything. It impacts sentencing. It impacts whether someone gets drug treatment. It impacts crime and violence. And when I talk to judges around the United States, which I do all the time now, they all say the same thing, which is that we put dangerous people in jail, and we let non-dangerous, nonviolent people out. They mean it and they believe it. But when you start to look at the data, which, by the way, the judges don't have, when we start to look at the data, what we find time and time again, is that this isn't the case. We find low-risk offenders, which makes up 50 percent of our entire criminal justice population, we find that they're in jail. Take Leslie Chew, who was a Texas man who stole four blankets on a cold winter night. He was arrested, and he was kept in jail on 3,500 dollars bail, an amount that he could not afford to pay. And he stayed in jail for eight months until his case came up for trial, at a cost to taxpayers of more than 9,000 dollars. And at the other end of the spectrum, we're doing an equally terrible job. The people who we find are the highest-risk offenders, the people who we think have the highest likelihood of committing a new crime if they're released, we see nationally that 50 percent of those people are being released.
The reason for this is the way we make decisions. Judges have the best intentions when they make these decisions about risk, but they're making them subjectively. They're like the baseball scouts 20 years ago who were using their instinct and their experience to try to decide what risk someone poses. They're being subjective, and we know what happens with subjective decision making, which is that we are often wrong. What we need in this space are strong data and analytics.
What I decided to look for was a strong data and analytic risk assessment tool, something that would let judges actually understand with a scientific and objective way what the risk was that was posed by someone in front of them. I looked all over the country, and I found that between five and 10 percent of all U.S. jurisdictions actually use any type of risk assessment tool, and when I looked at these tools, I quickly realized why. They were unbelievably expensive to administer, they were time-consuming, they were limited to the local jurisdiction in which they'd been created. So basically, they couldn't be scaled or transferred to other places.
So I went out and built a phenomenal team of data scientists and researchers and statisticians to build a universal risk assessment tool, so that every single judge in the United States of America can have an objective, scientific measure of risk. In the tool that we've built, what we did was we collected 1.5 million cases from all around the United States, from cities, from counties, from every single state in the country, the federal districts. And with those 1.5 million cases, which is the largest data set on pretrial in the United States today, we were able to basically find that there were 900-plus risk factors that we could look at to try to figure out what mattered most. And we found that there were nine specific things that mattered all across the country and that were the most highly predictive of risk. And so we built a universal risk assessment tool. And it looks like this. As you'll see, we put some information in, but most of it is incredibly simple, it's easy to use, it focuses on things like the defendant's prior convictions, whether they've been sentenced to incarceration, whether they've engaged in violence before, whether they've even failed to come back to court. And with this tool, we can predict three things. First, whether or not someone will commit a new crime if they're released. Second, for the first time, and I think this is incredibly important, we can predict whether someone will commit an act of violence if they're released. And that's the single most important thing that judges say when you talk to them. And third, we can predict whether someone will come back to court. And every single judge in the United States of America can use it, because it's been created on a universal data set.
What judges see if they run the risk assessment tool is this -- it's a dashboard. At the top, you see the New Criminal Activity Score, six of course being the highest, and then in the middle you see, "Elevated risk of violence." What that says is that this person is someone who has an elevated risk of violence that the judge should look twice at. And then, towards the bottom, you see the Failure to Appear Score, which again is the likelihood that someone will come back to court.
Now I want to say something really important. It's not that I think we should be eliminating the judge's instinct and experience from this process. I don't. I actually believe the problem that we see and the reason that we have these incredible system errors, where we're incarcerating low-level, nonviolent people and we're releasing high-risk, dangerous people, is that we don't have an objective measure of risk. But what I believe should happen is that we should take that data-driven risk assessment and combine that with the judge's instinct and experience to lead us to better decision making. The tool went statewide in Kentucky on July 1, and we're about to go up in a number of other U.S. jurisdictions. Our goal, quite simply, is that every single judge in the United States will use a data-driven risk tool within the next five years. We're now working on risk tools for prosecutors and for police officers as well, to try to take a system that runs today in America the same way it did 50 years ago, based on instinct and experience, and make it into one that runs on data and analytics.
Now, the great news about all this, and we have a ton of work left to do, and we have a lot of culture to change, but the great news about all of it is that we know it works. It's why Google is Google, and it's why all these baseball teams use moneyball to win games. The great news for us as well is that it's the way that we can transform the American criminal justice system. It's how we can make our streets safer, we can reduce our prison costs, and we can make our system much fairer and more just. Some people call it data science. I call it moneyballing criminal justice.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
When I was about 16 years old I can remember flipping through channels at home during summer vacation, looking for a movie to watch on HBO -- and how many of you remember "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? Oh yeah, great movie, right? -- Well, I saw Matthew Broderick on the screen, and so I thought, "Sweet! Ferris Bueller. I'll watch this!" It wasn't Ferris Bueller. And forgive me Matthew Broderick, I know you've done other movies besides Ferris Bueller, but that's how I remember you; you're Ferris. But you weren't doing Ferris-y things at the time; you were doing gay things at the time.
He was in a movie called "Torch Song Trilogy." And "Torch Song Trilogy" was based on a play about this drag queen who essentially was looking for love. Love and respect -- that's what the whole film was about.
And as I'm watching it, I'm realizing that they're talking about me. Not the drag queen part -- I am not shaving my hair for anyone -- but the gay part. The finding love and respect, the part about trying to find your place in the world. So as I'm watching this, I see this powerful scene that brought me to tears, and it stuck with me for the past 25 years. And there's this quote that the main character, Arnold, tells his mother as they're fighting about who he is and the life that he lives.
"There's one thing more -- there's just one more thing you better understand. I've taught myself to sew, cook, fix plumbing, build furniture, I can even pat myself on the back when necessary, all so I don't have to ask anyone for anything. There's nothing I need from anyone except for love and respect, and anyone who can't give me those two things has no place in my life."
I remember that scene like it was yesterday; I was 16, I was in tears, I was in the closet, and I'm looking at these two people, Ferris Bueller and some guy I'd never seen before, fighting for love. When I finally got to a place in my life where I came out and accepted who I was, and was really quite happy, to tell you the truth, I was happily gay and I guess that's supposed to be right because gay means happy too. I realized there were a lot of people who weren't as gay as I was -- gay being happy, not gay being attracted to the same sex. In fact, I heard that there was a lot of hate and a lot of anger and a lot of frustration and a lot of fear about who I was and the gay lifestyle.
Now, I'm sitting here trying to figure out "the gay lifestyle," "the gay lifestyle," and I keep hearing this word over and over and over again: lifestyle, lifestyle, lifestyle. I've even heard politicians say that the gay lifestyle is a greater threat to civilization than terrorism. That's when I got scared. Because I'm thinking, if I'm gay and I'm doing something that's going to destroy civilization, I need to figure out what this stuff is, and I need to stop doing it right now. (Laughter)
So, I took a look at my life, a hard look at my life, and I saw some things very disturbing. (Laughter) And I want to begin sharing these evil things that I've been doing with you, starting with my mornings. I drink coffee. Not only do I drink coffee, I know other gay people who drink coffee. I get stuck in traffic -- evil, evil traffic. Sometimes I get stuck in lines at airports.
I look around, and I go, "My God, look at all these gay people! We're all trapped in these lines! These long lines trying to get on an airplane! My God, this lifestyle that I'm living is so freaking evil!"
I clean up. This is not an actual photograph of my son's room; his is messier. And because I have a 15-year-old, all I do is cook and cook and cook. Any parents out there of teenagers? All we do is cook for these people -- they eat two, three, four dinners a night -- it's ridiculous! This is the gay lifestyle.
And after I'm done cooking and cleaning and standing in line and getting stuck in traffic, my partner and I, we get together and we decide that we're gonna go and have some wild and crazy fun. (Laughter) We're usually in bed before we find out who's eliminated on "American Idol." We have to wake up and find out the next day who's still on because we're too freaking tired to hear who stays on. This is the super duper evil gay lifestyle. Run for your heterosexual lives, people. (Applause)
When my partner, Steve, and I first started dating, he told me this story about penguins. And I didn't know where he was going with it at first. He was kind of a little bit nervous when he was sharing it with me, but he told me that when a penguin finds a mate that they want to spend the rest of their life with, they present them with a pebble -- the perfect pebble. And then he reaches into his pocket, and he brings this out to me. And I looked at it, and I was like, this is really cool.
And he says, "I want to spend the rest of my life with you."
So I wear this whenever I have to do something that makes me a little nervous, like, I don't know, a TEDx talk. I wear this when I am apart from him for a long period of time. And sometimes I just wear it just because.
How many people out there are in love? Anyone in love out there? You might be gay. (Laughter) Because I, too, am in love, and apparently that's part of the gay lifestyle that I warned you about. (Applause) You may want to tell your spouse. Who, if they're in love, might be gay as well. How many of you are single? Any single people out there? You too might be gay! Because I know some gay people who are also single. It's really scary, this gay lifestyle thing; it's super duper evil and there's no end to it! It goes and goes and engulfs!
It's really quite silly, isn't it? That's why I'm so happy to finally hear President Obama come out and say (Applause) that he supports -- (Applause) that he supports marriage equality. It's a wonderful day in our country's history; it's a wonderful day in the globe's history to be able to have an actual sitting president say, enough of this -- first to himself, and then to the rest of the world. It's wonderful.
But there's something that's been disturbing me since he made that remark just a short time ago. And that is, apparently, this is just another move by the gay activists that's on the gay agenda. And I'm disturbed by this because I've been openly gay now for quite some time. I've been to all of the functions, I've been to fundraisers, I've written about the topic, and I have yet to receive my copy of this gay agenda. (Laughter) I've paid my dues on time, (Laughter) I've marched in gay pride flags parades and the whole nine, and I've yet to see a copy of the gay agenda. It's very, very frustrating, and I was feeling left out, like I wasn't quite gay enough.
But then something wonderful happened: I was out shopping, as I tend to do, and I came across a bootleg copy of the official gay agenda.
And I said to myself, "LZ, for so long, you have been denied this. When you get in front of this crowd, you're gonna share the news. You're gonna spread the gay agenda so no one else has to wonder, what exactly is in the gay agenda? What are these gays up to? What do they want?"
So, without further ado, I will present to you, ladies and gentlemen -- now be careful, 'cause it's evil -- a copy, the official copy, of the gay agenda. (Music) The gay agenda, people! (Applause) There it is! Did you soak it all in? The gay agenda.
Some of you may be calling it, what, the Constitution of the United States, is that what you call it too? The U.S. Constitution is the gay agenda. These gays, people like me, want to be treated like full citizens and it's all written down in plain sight. I was blown away when I saw it. I was like, wait, this is the gay agenda? Why didn't you just call it the Constitution so I knew what you were talking about? I wouldn't have been so confused; I wouldn't have been so upset. But there it is. The gay agenda. Run for your heterosexual lives.
Did you know that in all the states where there is no shading that people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered can be kicked out of their apartments for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered? That's the only reason that a landlord needs to have them removed, because there's no protection from discrimination of GLBT people. Did you know in the states where there's no shading that you can be fired for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered? Not based upon the quality of your work, how long you've been there, if you stink, just if you're gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. All of which flies in the face of the gay agenda, also known as the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, this little amendment right here:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
I'm looking at you, North Carolina. But you're not looking at the U.S. Constitution. This is the gay agenda: equality. Not special rights, but the rights that were already written by these people -- these elitists, if you will. Educated, well-dressed, (Laughter) some would dare say questionably dressed. (Laughter) Nonetheless, our forefathers, right? The people that, we say, knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution -- the gay agenda, if you will. All of that flies in the face of what they did.
That is the reason why I felt it was imperative that I presented you with this copy of the gay agenda. Because I figured if I made it funny, you wouldn't be as threatened. I figured if I was a bit irreverent, you wouldn't find it serious. But when you see the map, and you see our state of Michigan -- it's legal to fire someone for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, that it's legal to remove someone from their home because they're gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, then you realize that this whole conversation about marriage equality is not about stripping someone's rights away, it's about granting them the rights that [have] already been stated. And we're just trying to walk in those rights that have already been stated, that we've already agreed upon. There are people living in fear of losing their jobs so they don't show anyone who they really are right here at home. This isn't just about North Carolina; all those states that were clear, it's legal.
If I could brag for a second, I have a 15-year-old son from my marriage. He has a 4.0. He is starting a new club at school, Policy Debate. He's a budding track star; he has almost every single record in middle school for every event that he competed in. He volunteers. He prays before he eats. I would like to think, as his father -- and he lives with me primarily -- that I had a little something to do with all of that. I would like to think that he's a good boy, a respectful young man. I would like to think that I've proven to be a capable father. But if I were to go to the state of Michigan today, and try to adopt a young person who is in an orphanage, I would be disqualified for only one reason: because I'm gay. It doesn't matter what I've already proven, what I can do with my heart. It's because of what the state of Michigan says that I am that I am disqualified for any sort of adoption. And that's not just about me, that's about so many other Michiganders, U.S. citizens, who don't understand why what they are is so much more significant than who they are.
This story just keeps playing over and over and over again in our country's history. There was a time in which, I don't know, people who were black couldn't have the same rights. People who happened to be women didn't have the same rights, couldn't vote. There was a point in our history in which, if you were considered disabled, that an employer could just fire you, before the Americans with Disabilities Act. We keep doing this over and over again.
And so here we are, 2012, gay agenda, gay lifestyle, and I'm not a good dad and people don't deserve to be able to protect their families because of what they are, not who they are. So when you hear the words "gay lifestyle" and "gay agenda" in the future, I encourage you to do two things: One, remember the U.S. Constitution, and then two, if you wouldn't mind looking to your left, please. Look to your right. That person next to you is a brother, is a sister. And they should be treated with love and respect. Thank you. |
(Applause) I want to talk to you a little bit about user-generated content. I'm going to tell you three stories on the way to one argument that's going to tell you a little bit about how we open user-generated content up for business. So, here's the first story.
1906. This man, John Philip Sousa, traveled to this place, the United States Capitol, to talk about this technology, what he called the, quote, "talking machines." Sousa was not a fan of the talking machines. This is what he had to say. "These talking machines are going to ruin artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day, or the old songs. Today, you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left," Sousa said. "The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."
Now, this is the picture I want you to focus on. This is a picture of culture. We could describe it using modern computer terminology as a kind of read-write culture. It's a culture where people participate in the creation and the re-creation of their culture. In that sense, it's read-write. Sousa's fear was that we would lose that capacity because of these, quote, "infernal machines." They would take it away. And in its place, we'd have the opposite of read-write culture, what we could call read-only culture. Culture where creativity was consumed but the consumer is not a creator. A culture which is top-down, owned, where the vocal chords of the millions have been lost.
Now, as you look back at the twentieth century, at least in what we think of as the, quote, "developed world" -- hard not to conclude that Sousa was right. Never before in the history of human culture had it been as professionalized, never before as concentrated. Never before has creativity of the millions been as effectively displaced, and displaced because of these, quote, "infernal machines." The twentieth century was that century where, at least for those places we know the best, culture moved from this read-write to read-only existence.
So, second. Land is a kind of property -- it is property. It's protected by law. As Lord Blackstone described it, land is protected by trespass law, for most of the history of trespass law, by presuming it protects the land all the way down below and to an indefinite extent upward. Now, that was a pretty good system for most of the history of the regulation of land, until this technology came along, and people began to wonder, were these instruments trespassers as they flew over land without clearing the rights of the farms below as they traveled across the country? Well, in 1945, Supreme Court got a chance to address that question.
Two farmers, Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby, who raised chickens, had a significant complaint because of these technologies. The complaint was that their chickens followed the pattern of the airplanes and flew themselves into the walls of the barn when the airplanes flew over the land. And so they appealed to Lord Blackstone to say these airplanes were trespassing. Since time immemorial, the law had said, you can't fly over the land without permission of the landowner, so this flight must stop. Well, the Supreme Court considered this 100-years tradition and said, in an opinion written by Justice Douglas, that the Causbys must lose. The Supreme Court said the doctrine protecting land all the way to the sky has no place in the modern world, otherwise every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense, a rare idea in the law, but here it was. Common sense -- (Laughter) -- Revolts at the idea. Common sense.
Finally. Before the Internet, the last great terror to rain down on the content industry was a terror created by this technology. Broadcasting: a new way to spread content, and therefore a new battle over the control of the businesses that would spread content. Now, at that time, the entity, the legal cartel, that controlled the performance rights for most of the music that would be broadcast using these technologies was ASCAP. They had an exclusive license on the most popular content, and they exercised it in a way that tried to demonstrate to the broadcasters who really was in charge. So, between 1931 and 1939, they raised rates by some 448 percent, until the broadcasters finally got together and said, okay, enough of this. And in 1939, a lawyer, Sydney Kaye, started something called Broadcast Music Inc. We know it as BMI. And BMI was much more democratic in the art that it would include within its repertoire, including African American music for the first time in the repertoire. But most important was that BMI took public domain works and made arrangements of them, which they gave away for free to their subscribers. So that in 1940, when ASCAP threatened to double their rates, the majority of broadcasters switched to BMI. Now, ASCAP said they didn't care. The people will revolt, they predicted, because the very best music was no longer available, because they had shifted to the second best public domain provided by BMI. Well, they didn't revolt, and in 1941, ASCAP cracked. And the important point to recognize is that even though these broadcasters were broadcasting something you would call second best, that competition was enough to break, at that time, this legal cartel over access to music.
Okay. Three stories. Here's the argument. In my view, the most significant thing to recognize about what this Internet is doing is its opportunity to revive the read-write culture that Sousa romanticized. Digital technology is the opportunity for the revival of these vocal chords that he spoke so passionately to Congress about. User-generated content, spreading in businesses in extraordinarily valuable ways like these, celebrating amateur culture. By which I don't mean amateurish culture, I mean culture where people produce for the love of what they're doing and not for the money. I mean the culture that your kids are producing all the time. For when you think of what Sousa romanticized in the young people together, singing the songs of the day, of the old songs, you should recognize what your kids are doing right now. Taking the songs of the day and the old songs and remixing them to make them something different. It's how they understand access to this culture. So, let's have some very few examples to get a sense of what I'm talking about here.
Here's something called Anime Music Video, first example, taking anime captured from television re-edited to music tracks. (Music) This one you should be -- confidence. Jesus survives. Don't worry. (Music) (Laughter) And this is the best. (Music) My love ... There's only you in my life ... The only thing that's bright ... My first love ... You're every breath that I take ... You're every step I make ... And I .... I want to share all my love with you ... No one else will do ... And your eyes ... They tell me how much you care ... (Music) So, this is remix, right? (Applause) And it's important to emphasize that what this is not is not what we call, quote, "piracy." I'm not talking about nor justifying people taking other people's content in wholesale and distributing it without the permission of the copyright owner. I'm talking about people taking and recreating using other people's content, using digital technologies to say things differently. Now, the importance of this is not the technique that you've seen here. Because, of course, every technique that you've seen here is something that television and film producers have been able to do for the last 50 years. The importance is that that technique has been democratized. It is now anybody with access to a $1,500 computer who can take sounds and images from the culture around us and use it to say things differently. These tools of creativity have become tools of speech. It is a literacy for this generation. This is how our kids speak. It is how our kids think. It is what your kids are as they increasingly understand digital technologies and their relationship to themselves.
Now, in response to this new use of culture using digital technologies, the law has not greeted this Sousa revival with very much common sense. Instead, the architecture of copyright law and the architecture of digital technologies, as they interact, have produced the presumption that these activities are illegal. Because if copyright law at its core regulates something called copies, then in the digital world the one fact we can't escape is that every single use of culture produces a copy. Every single use therefore requires permission; without permission, you are a trespasser. You're a trespasser with about as much sense as these people were trespassers. Common sense here, though, has not yet revolted in response to this response that the law has offered to these forms of creativity. Instead, what we've seen is something much worse than a revolt. There's a growing extremism that comes from both sides in this debate, in response to this conflict between the law and the use of these technologies.
One side builds new technologies, such as one recently announced that will enable them to automatically take down from sites like YouTube any content that has any copyrighted content in it, whether or not there's a judgment of fair use that might be applied to the use of that content. And on the other side, among our kids, there's a growing copyright abolitionism, a generation that rejects the very notion of what copyright is supposed to do, rejects copyright and believes that the law is nothing more than an ass to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible. The extremism on one side begets extremism on the other, a fact we should have learned many, many times over, and both extremes in this debate are just wrong. Now, the balance that I try to fight for, I, as any good liberal, try to fight for first by looking to the government. Total mistake, right? (Laughter)
Looked first to the courts and the legislatures to try to get them to do something to make the system make more sense. It failed partly because the courts are too passive, partly because the legislatures are corrupted, by which I don't mean that there's bribery operating to stop real change, but more the economy of influence that governs how Congress functions means that policymakers here will not understand this until it's too late to fix it. So, we need something different, we need a different kind of solution. And the solution here, in my view, is a private solution, a solution that looks to legalize what it is to be young again, and to realize the economic potential of that, and that's where the story of BMI becomes relevant. Because, as BMI demonstrated, competition here can achieve some form of balance. The same thing can happen now. We don't have a public domain to draw upon now, so instead what we need is two types of changes.
First, that artists and creators embrace the idea, choose that their work be made available more freely. So, for example, they can say their work is available freely for non-commercial, this amateur-type of use, but not freely for any commercial use. And second, we need the businesses that are building out this read-write culture to embrace this opportunity expressly, to enable it, so that this ecology of free content, or freer content, can grow on a neutral platform where they both exist simultaneously, so that more-free can compete with less-free, and the opportunity to develop the creativity in that competition can teach one the lessons of the other.
Now, I would talk about one particular such plan that I know something about, but I don't want to violate TED's first commandment of selling, so I'm not going to talk about this at all. I'm instead just going to remind you of the point that BMI teaches us. That artist choice is the key for new technology having an opportunity to be open for business, and we need to build artist choice here if these new technologies are to have that opportunity. But let me end with something I think much more important -- much more important than business. It's the point about how this connects to our kids. We have to recognize they're different from us. This is us, right? (Laughter) We made mixed tapes; they remix music. We watched TV; they make TV.
It is technology that has made them different, and as we see what this technology can do, we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it. We can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again. We can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good? We live in this weird time. It's kind of age of prohibitions, where in many areas of our life, we live life constantly against the law. Ordinary people live life against the law, and that's what I -- we are doing to our kids. They live life knowing they live it against the law. That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting. And in a democracy, we ought to be able to do better. Do better, at least for them, if not for opening for business. Thank you very much. (Applause) |
Now, I don't usually like cartoons, I don't think many of them are funny, I find them weird. But I love this cartoon from the New Yorker.
(Text: Never, ever think outside the box.) (Laughter)
So, the guy is telling the cat, don't you dare think outside the box. Well, I'm afraid I used to be the cat. I always wanted to be outside the box. And it's partly because I came to this field from a different background, chemist and a bacterial geneticist. So, what people were saying to me about the cause of cancer, sources of cancer, or, for that matter, why you are who you are, didn't make sense.
So, let me quickly try and tell you why I thought that and how I went about it. So, to begin with, however, I have to give you a very, very quick lesson in developmental biology, with apologies to those of you who know some biology. So, when your mom and dad met, there is a fertilized egg, that round thing with that little blip. It grows and then it grows, and then it makes this handsome man.
(Applause)
So, this guy, with all the cells in his body, all have the same genetic information. So how did his nose become his nose, his elbow his elbow, and why doesn't he get up one morning and have his nose turn into his foot? It could. It has the genetic information. You all remember, dolly, it came from a single mammary cell. So, why doesn't it do it? So, have a guess of how many cells he has in his body. Somewhere between 10 trillion to 70 trillion cells in his body. Trillion! Now, how did these cells, all with the same genetic material, make all those tissues? And so, the question I raised before becomes even more interesting if you thought about the enormity of this in every one of your bodies.
Now, the dominant cancer theory would say that there is a single oncogene in a single cancer cell, and it would make you a cancer victim. Well, this did not make sense to me. Do you even know how a trillion looks? Now, let's look at it. There it comes, these zeroes after zeroes after zeroes. Now, if .0001 of these cells got mutated, and .00001 got cancer, you will be a lump of cancer. You will have cancer all over you. And you're not. Why not?
So, I decided over the years, because of a series of experiments that this is because of context and architecture.
And let me quickly tell you some crucial experiment that was able to actually show this. To begin with, I came to work with this virus that causes that ugly tumor in the chicken. Rous discovered this in 1911. It was the first cancer virus discovered, and when I call it "oncogene," meaning "cancer gene." So, he made a filtrate, he took this filter which was the liquid after he passed the tumor through a filter, and he injected it to another chicken, and he got another tumor.
So, scientists were very excited, and they said, a single oncogene can do it. All you need is a single oncogene. So, they put the cells in cultures, chicken cells, dumped the virus on it, and it would pile up, and they would say, this is malignant and this is normal.
And again this didn't make sense to me. So for various reasons, we took this oncogene, attached it to a blue marker, and we injected it into the embryos. Now look at that. There is that beautiful feather in the embryo. Every one of those blue cells are a cancer gene inside a cancer cell, and they're part of the feather. So, when we dissociated the feather and put it in a dish, we got a mass of blue cells. So, in the chicken you get a tumor, in the embryo you don't, you dissociate, you put it in a dish, you get another tumor. What does that mean? That means that microenvironment and the context which surrounds those cells actually are telling the cancer gene and the cancer cell what to do.
Now, let's take a normal example. The normal example, let's take the human mammary gland. I work on breast cancer. So, here is a lovely human breast. And many of you know how it looks, except that inside that breast, there are all these pretty, developing, tree-like structures. So, we decided that what we like to do is take just a bit of that mammary gland, which is called an "acinus," where there are all these little things inside the breast where the milk goes, and the end of the nipple comes through that little tube when the baby sucks.
And we said, wonderful! Look at this pretty structure. We want to make this a structure, and ask the question, how do the cells do that? So, we took the red cells -- you see the red cells are surrounded by blue, other cells that squeeze them, and behind it is material that people thought was mainly inert, and it was just having a structure to keep the shape, and so we first photographed it with the electron microscope years and years ago, and you see this cell is actually quite pretty. It has a bottom, it has a top, it is secreting gobs and gobs of milk, because it just came from an early pregnant mouse.
You take these cells, you put them in a dish, and within three days, they look like that. They completely forget. So you take them out, you put them in a dish, they don't make milk. They completely forget. For example, here is a lovely yellow droplet of milk on the left, there is nothing on the right. Look at the nuclei. The nuclei in the cell on the left is in the animal, the one on the right is in a dish. They are completely different from each other.
So, what does this tell you? This tells you that here also, context overrides. In different contexts, cells do different things. But how does context signal? So, Einstein said that "For an idea that does not first seem insane, there is no hope." So, you can imagine the amount of skepticism I received -- couldn't get money, couldn't do a whole lot of other things, but I'm so glad it all worked out.
So, we made a section of the mammary gland of the mouse, and all those lovely acini are there, every one of those with the red around them are an acinus, and we said okay, we are going to try and make this, and I said, maybe that red stuff around the acinus that people think there's just a structural scaffold, maybe it has information, maybe it tells the cells what to do, maybe it tells the nucleus what to do. So I said, extracellular matrix, which is this stuff called ECM, signals and actually tells the cells what to do.
So, we decided to make things that would look like that. We found some gooey material that had the right extracellular matrix in it, we put the cells in it, and lo and behold, in about four days, they got reorganized and on the right, is what we can make in culture. On the left is what's inside the animal, we call it in vivo, and the one in culture was full of milk, the lovely red there is full of milk. So, we Got Milk, for the American audience. All right. And here is this beautiful human cell, and you can imagine that here also, context goes.
So, what do we do now? I made a radical hypothesis. I said, if it's true that architecture is dominant, architecture restored to a cancer cell should make the cancer cell think it's normal. Could this be done? So, we tried it. In order to do that, however, we needed to have a method of distinguishing normal from malignant, and on the left is the single normal cell, human breast, put in three-dimensional gooey gel that has extracellular matrix, it makes all these beautiful structures. On the right, you see it looks very ugly, the cells continue to grow, the normal ones stop. And you see here in higher magnification the normal acinus and the ugly tumor.
So we said, what is on the surface of these ugly tumors? Could we calm them down -- they were signaling like crazy and they have pathways all messed up -- and make them to the level of the normal? Well, it was wonderful. Boggles my mind. This is what we got. We can revert the malignant phenotype.
(Applause)
And in order to show you that the malignant phenotype I didn't just choose one, here are little movies, sort of fuzzy, but you see that on the left are the malignant cells, all of them are malignant, we add one single inhibitor in the beginning, and look what happens, they all look like that. We inject them into the mouse, the ones on the right, and none of them would make tumors. We inject the other ones in the mouse, 100 percent tumors.
So, it's a new way of thinking about cancer, it's a hopeful way of thinking about cancer. We should be able to be dealing with these things at this level, and these conclusions say that growth and malignant behavior is regulated at the level of tissue organization and that the tissue organization is dependent on the extracellular matrix and the microenvironment. All right, thus form and function interact dynamically and reciprocally. And here is another five seconds of repose, is my mantra. Form and function.
And of course, we now ask, where do we go now? We'd like to take this kind of thinking into the clinic. But before we do that, I'd like you to think that at any given time when you're sitting there, in your 70 trillion cells, the extracellular matrix signaling to your nucleus, the nucleus is signaling to your extracellular matrix and this is how your balance is kept and restored.
We have made a lot of discoveries, we have shown that extracellular matrix talks to chromatin. We have shown that there's little pieces of DNA on the specific genes of the mammary gland that actually respond to extracellular matrix. It has taken many years, but it has been very rewarding.
And before I get to the next slide, I have to tell you that there are so many additional discoveries to be made. There is so much mystery we don't know. And I always say to the students and post-docs I lecture to, don't be arrogant, because arrogance kills curiosity. Curiosity and passion. You need to always think, what else needs to be discovered? And maybe my discovery needs to be added to or maybe it needs to be changed.
So, we have now made an amazing discovery, a post-doc in the lab who is a physicist asked me, what do the cells do when you put them in? What do they do in the beginning when they do? I said, I don't know, we couldn't look at them. We didn't have high images in the old days. So she, being an imager and a physicist, did this incredible thing. This is a single human breast cell in three dimensions. Look at it. It's constantly doing this. Has a coherent movement. You put the cancer cells there, and they do go all over, they do this. They don't do this. And when we revert the cancer cell, it again does this. Absolutely boggles my mind. So the cell acts like an embryo. What an exciting thing.
So I'd like to finish with a poem. Well I used to love English literature, and I debated in college, which one should I do? And unfortunately or fortunately, chemistry won. But here is a poem from Yeats. I'll just read you the last two lines. It's called "Among the School Children." "O body swayed to music / O brightening glance / How [can we know] the dancer from the dance?" And here is Merce Cunningham, I was fortunate to dance with him when I was younger, and here he is a dancer, and while he is dancing, he is both the dancer and the dance. The minute he stops, we have neither. So it's like form and function.
Now, I'd like to show you a current picture of my group. I have been fortunate to have had these magnificant students and post-docs who have taught me so much, and I have had many of these groups come and go. They are the future and I try to make them not be afraid of being the cat and being told, don't think outside the box.
And I'd like to leave you with this thought. On the left is water coming through the shore, taken from a NASA satellite. On the right, there is a coral. Now if you take the mammary gland and spread it and take the fat away, on a dish it looks like that. Do they look the same? Do they have the same patterns? Why is it that nature keeps doing that over and over again?
And I'd like to submit to you that we have sequenced the human genome, we know everything about the sequence of the gene, the language of the gene, the alphabet of the gene, But we know nothing, but nothing, about the language and alphabet of form. So, it's a wonderful new horizon, it's a wonderful thing to discover for the young and the passionate old, and that's me.
So go to it!
(Applause) |
Hi. So, this chap here, he thinks he can tell you the future. His name is Nostradamus, although here the Sun have made him look a little bit like Sean Connery. (Laughter)
And like most of you, I suspect, I don't really believe that people can see into the future. I don't believe in precognition, and every now and then, you hear that somebody has been able to predict something that happened in the future, and that's probably because it was a fluke, and we only hear about the flukes and about the freaks. We don't hear about all the times that people got stuff wrong. Now we expect that to happen with silly stories about precognition, but the problem is, we have exactly the same problem in academia and in medicine, and in this environment, it costs lives.
So firstly, thinking just about precognition, as it turns out, just last year a researcher called Daryl Bem conducted a piece of research where he found evidence of precognitive powers in undergraduate students, and this was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and most of the people who read this just said, "Okay, well, fair enough, but I think that's a fluke, that's a freak, because I know that if I did a study where I found no evidence that undergraduate students had precognitive powers, it probably wouldn't get published in a journal. And in fact, we know that that's true, because several different groups of research scientists tried to replicate the findings of this precognition study, and when they submitted it to the exact same journal, the journal said, "No, we're not interested in publishing replication. We're not interested in your negative data." So this is already evidence of how, in the academic literature, we will see a biased sample of the true picture of all of the scientific studies that have been conducted.
But it doesn't just happen in the dry academic field of psychology. It also happens in, for example, cancer research. So in March, 2012, just one month ago, some researchers reported in the journal Nature how they had tried to replicate 53 different basic science studies looking at potential treatment targets in cancer, and out of those 53 studies, they were only able to successfully replicate six. Forty-seven out of those 53 were unreplicable. And they say in their discussion that this is very likely because freaks get published. People will do lots and lots and lots of different studies, and the occasions when it works they will publish, and the ones where it doesn't work they won't. And their first recommendation of how to fix this problem, because it is a problem, because it sends us all down blind alleys, their first recommendation of how to fix this problem is to make it easier to publish negative results in science, and to change the incentives so that scientists are encouraged to post more of their negative results in public.
But it doesn't just happen in the very dry world of preclinical basic science cancer research. It also happens in the very real, flesh and blood of academic medicine. So in 1980, some researchers did a study on a drug called lorcainide, and this was an anti-arrhythmic drug, a drug that suppresses abnormal heart rhythms, and the idea was, after people have had a heart attack, they're quite likely to have abnormal heart rhythms, so if we give them a drug that suppresses abnormal heart rhythms, this will increase the chances of them surviving. Early on its development, they did a very small trial, just under a hundred patients. Fifty patients got lorcainide, and of those patients, 10 died. Another 50 patients got a dummy placebo sugar pill with no active ingredient, and only one of them died. So they rightly regarded this drug as a failure, and its commercial development was stopped, and because its commercial development was stopped, this trial was never published.
Unfortunately, over the course of the next five, 10 years, other companies had the same idea about drugs that would prevent arrhythmias in people who have had heart attacks. These drugs were brought to market. They were prescribed very widely because heart attacks are a very common thing, and it took so long for us to find out that these drugs also caused an increased rate of death that before we detected that safety signal, over 100,000 people died unnecessarily in America from the prescription of anti-arrhythmic drugs.
Now actually, in 1993, the researchers who did that 1980 study, that early study, published a mea culpa, an apology to the scientific community, in which they said, "When we carried out our study in 1980, we thought that the increased death rate that occurred in the lorcainide group was an effect of chance." The development of lorcainide was abandoned for commercial reasons, and this study was never published; it's now a good example of publication bias. That's the technical term for the phenomenon where unflattering data gets lost, gets unpublished, is left missing in action, and they say the results described here "might have provided an early warning of trouble ahead."
Now these are stories from basic science. These are stories from 20, 30 years ago. The academic publishing environment is very different now. There are academic journals like "Trials," the open access journal, which will publish any trial conducted in humans regardless of whether it has a positive or a negative result. But this problem of negative results that go missing in action is still very prevalent. In fact it's so prevalent that it cuts to the core of evidence-based medicine. So this is a drug called reboxetine, and this is a drug that I myself have prescribed. It's an antidepressant. And I'm a very nerdy doctor, so I read all of the studies that I could on this drug. I read the one study that was published that showed that reboxetine was better than placebo, and I read the other three studies that were published that showed that reboxetine was just as good as any other antidepressant, and because this patient hadn't done well on those other antidepressants, I thought, well, reboxetine is just as good. It's one to try. But it turned out that I was misled. In fact, seven trials were conducted comparing reboxetine against a dummy placebo sugar pill. One of them was positive and that was published, but six of them were negative and they were left unpublished. Three trials were published comparing reboxetine against other antidepressants in which reboxetine was just as good, and they were published, but three times as many patients' worth of data was collected which showed that reboxetine was worse than those other treatments, and those trials were not published. I felt misled.
Now you might say, well, that's an extremely unusual example, and I wouldn't want to be guilty of the same kind of cherry-picking and selective referencing that I'm accusing other people of. But it turns out that this phenomenon of publication bias has actually been very, very well studied. So here is one example of how you approach it. The classic model is, you get a bunch of studies where you know that they've been conducted and completed, and then you go and see if they've been published anywhere in the academic literature. So this took all of the trials that had ever been conducted on antidepressants that were approved over a 15-year period by the FDA. They took all of the trials which were submitted to the FDA as part of the approval package. So that's not all of the trials that were ever conducted on these drugs, because we can never know if we have those, but it is the ones that were conducted in order to get the marketing authorization. And then they went to see if these trials had been published in the peer-reviewed academic literature. And this is what they found. It was pretty much a 50-50 split. Half of these trials were positive, half of them were negative, in reality. But when they went to look for these trials in the peer-reviewed academic literature, what they found was a very different picture. Only three of the negative trials were published, but all but one of the positive trials were published. Now if we just flick back and forth between those two, you can see what a staggering difference there was between reality and what doctors, patients, commissioners of health services, and academics were able to see in the peer-reviewed academic literature. We were misled, and this is a systematic flaw in the core of medicine.
In fact, there have been so many studies conducted on publication bias now, over a hundred, that they've been collected in a systematic review, published in 2010, that took every single study on publication bias that they could find. Publication bias affects every field of medicine. About half of all trials, on average, go missing in action, and we know that positive findings are around twice as likely to be published as negative findings.
This is a cancer at the core of evidence-based medicine. If I flipped a coin 100 times but then withheld the results from you from half of those tosses, I could make it look as if I had a coin that always came up heads. But that wouldn't mean that I had a two-headed coin. That would mean that I was a chancer and you were an idiot for letting me get away with it. (Laughter) But this is exactly what we blindly tolerate in the whole of evidence-based medicine. And to me, this is research misconduct. If I conducted one study and I withheld half of the data points from that one study, you would rightly accuse me, essentially, of research fraud. And yet, for some reason, if somebody conducts 10 studies but only publishes the five that give the result that they want, we don't consider that to be research misconduct. And when that responsibility is diffused between a whole network of researchers, academics, industry sponsors, journal editors, for some reason we find it more acceptable, but the effect on patients is damning.
And this is happening right now, today. This is a drug called Tamiflu. Tamiflu is a drug which governments around the world have spent billions and billions of dollars on stockpiling, and we've stockpiled Tamiflu in panic, in the belief that it will reduce the rate of complications of influenza. Complications is a medical euphemism for pneumonia and death. (Laughter) Now when the Cochrane systematic reviewers were trying to collect together all of the data from all of the trials that had ever been conducted on whether Tamiflu actually did this or not, they found that several of those trials were unpublished. The results were unavailable to them. And when they started obtaining the writeups of those trials through various different means, through Freedom of Information Act requests, through harassing various different organizations, what they found was inconsistent. And when they tried to get a hold of the clinical study reports, the 10,000-page long documents that have the best possible rendition of the information, they were told they weren't allowed to have them. And if you want to read the full correspondence and the excuses and the explanations given by the drug company, you can see that written up in this week's edition of PLOS Medicine.
And the most staggering thing of all of this, to me, is that not only is this a problem, not only do we recognize that this is a problem, but we've had to suffer fake fixes. We've had people pretend that this is a problem that's been fixed. First of all, we had trials registers, and everybody said, oh, it's okay. We'll get everyone to register their trials, they'll post the protocol, they'll say what they're going to do before they do it, and then afterwards we'll be able to check and see if all the trials which have been conducted and completed have been published. But people didn't bother to use those registers. And so then the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors came along, and they said, oh, well, we will hold the line. We won't publish any journals, we won't publish any trials, unless they've been registered before they began. But they didn't hold the line. In 2008, a study was conducted which showed that half of all of trials published by journals edited by members of the ICMJE weren't properly registered, and a quarter of them weren't registered at all. And then finally, the FDA Amendment Act was passed a couple of years ago saying that everybody who conducts a trial must post the results of that trial within one year. And in the BMJ, in the first edition of January, 2012, you can see a study which looks to see if people kept to that ruling, and it turns out that only one in five have done so.
This is a disaster. We cannot know the true effects of the medicines that we prescribe if we do not have access to all of the information.
And this is not a difficult problem to fix. We need to force people to publish all trials conducted in humans, including the older trials, because the FDA Amendment Act only asks that you publish the trials conducted after 2008, and I don't know what world it is in which we're only practicing medicine on the basis of trials that completed in the past two years. We need to publish all trials in humans, including the older trials, for all drugs in current use, and you need to tell everyone you know that this is a problem and that it has not been fixed. Thank you very much. (Applause) (Applause) |
America's favorite pie is?
Audience: Apple. Kenneth Cukier: Apple. Of course it is. How do we know it? Because of data. You look at supermarket sales. You look at supermarket sales of 30-centimeter pies that are frozen, and apple wins, no contest. The majority of the sales are apple. But then supermarkets started selling smaller, 11-centimeter pies, and suddenly, apple fell to fourth or fifth place. Why? What happened? Okay, think about it. When you buy a 30-centimeter pie, the whole family has to agree, and apple is everyone's second favorite. (Laughter) But when you buy an individual 11-centimeter pie, you can buy the one that you want. You can get your first choice. You have more data. You can see something that you couldn't see when you only had smaller amounts of it.
Now, the point here is that more data doesn't just let us see more, more of the same thing we were looking at. More data allows us to see new. It allows us to see better. It allows us to see different. In this case, it allows us to see what America's favorite pie is: not apple.
Now, you probably all have heard the term big data. In fact, you're probably sick of hearing the term big data. It is true that there is a lot of hype around the term, and that is very unfortunate, because big data is an extremely important tool by which society is going to advance. In the past, we used to look at small data and think about what it would mean to try to understand the world, and now we have a lot more of it, more than we ever could before. What we find is that when we have a large body of data, we can fundamentally do things that we couldn't do when we only had smaller amounts. Big data is important, and big data is new, and when you think about it, the only way this planet is going to deal with its global challenges — to feed people, supply them with medical care, supply them with energy, electricity, and to make sure they're not burnt to a crisp because of global warming — is because of the effective use of data.
So what is new about big data? What is the big deal? Well, to answer that question, let's think about what information looked like, physically looked like in the past. In 1908, on the island of Crete, archaeologists discovered a clay disc. They dated it from 2000 B.C., so it's 4,000 years old. Now, there's inscriptions on this disc, but we actually don't know what it means. It's a complete mystery, but the point is that this is what information used to look like 4,000 years ago. This is how society stored and transmitted information.
Now, society hasn't advanced all that much. We still store information on discs, but now we can store a lot more information, more than ever before. Searching it is easier. Copying it easier. Sharing it is easier. Processing it is easier. And what we can do is we can reuse this information for uses that we never even imagined when we first collected the data. In this respect, the data has gone from a stock to a flow, from something that is stationary and static to something that is fluid and dynamic. There is, if you will, a liquidity to information. The disc that was discovered off of Crete that's 4,000 years old, is heavy, it doesn't store a lot of information, and that information is unchangeable. By contrast, all of the files that Edward Snowden took from the National Security Agency in the United States fits on a memory stick the size of a fingernail, and it can be shared at the speed of light. More data. More.
Now, one reason why we have so much data in the world today is we are collecting things that we've always collected information on, but another reason why is we're taking things that have always been informational but have never been rendered into a data format and we are putting it into data. Think, for example, the question of location. Take, for example, Martin Luther. If we wanted to know in the 1500s where Martin Luther was, we would have to follow him at all times, maybe with a feathery quill and an inkwell, and record it, but now think about what it looks like today. You know that somewhere, probably in a telecommunications carrier's database, there is a spreadsheet or at least a database entry that records your information of where you've been at all times. If you have a cell phone, and that cell phone has GPS, but even if it doesn't have GPS, it can record your information. In this respect, location has been datafied.
Now think, for example, of the issue of posture, the way that you are all sitting right now, the way that you sit, the way that you sit, the way that you sit. It's all different, and it's a function of your leg length and your back and the contours of your back, and if I were to put sensors, maybe 100 sensors into all of your chairs right now, I could create an index that's fairly unique to you, sort of like a fingerprint, but it's not your finger.
So what could we do with this? Researchers in Tokyo are using it as a potential anti-theft device in cars. The idea is that the carjacker sits behind the wheel, tries to stream off, but the car recognizes that a non-approved driver is behind the wheel, and maybe the engine just stops, unless you type in a password into the dashboard to say, "Hey, I have authorization to drive." Great.
What if every single car in Europe had this technology in it? What could we do then? Maybe, if we aggregated the data, maybe we could identify telltale signs that best predict that a car accident is going to take place in the next five seconds. And then what we will have datafied is driver fatigue, and the service would be when the car senses that the person slumps into that position, automatically knows, hey, set an internal alarm that would vibrate the steering wheel, honk inside to say, "Hey, wake up, pay more attention to the road." These are the sorts of things we can do when we datafy more aspects of our lives.
So what is the value of big data? Well, think about it. You have more information. You can do things that you couldn't do before. One of the most impressive areas where this concept is taking place is in the area of machine learning. Machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence, which itself is a branch of computer science. The general idea is that instead of instructing a computer what do do, we are going to simply throw data at the problem and tell the computer to figure it out for itself. And it will help you understand it by seeing its origins. In the 1950s, a computer scientist at IBM named Arthur Samuel liked to play checkers, so he wrote a computer program so he could play against the computer. He played. He won. He played. He won. He played. He won, because the computer only knew what a legal move was. Arthur Samuel knew something else. Arthur Samuel knew strategy. So he wrote a small sub-program alongside it operating in the background, and all it did was score the probability that a given board configuration would likely lead to a winning board versus a losing board after every move. He plays the computer. He wins. He plays the computer. He wins. He plays the computer. He wins. And then Arthur Samuel leaves the computer to play itself. It plays itself. It collects more data. It collects more data. It increases the accuracy of its prediction. And then Arthur Samuel goes back to the computer and he plays it, and he loses, and he plays it, and he loses, and he plays it, and he loses, and Arthur Samuel has created a machine that surpasses his ability in a task that he taught it.
And this idea of machine learning is going everywhere. How do you think we have self-driving cars? Are we any better off as a society enshrining all the rules of the road into software? No. Memory is cheaper. No. Algorithms are faster. No. Processors are better. No. All of those things matter, but that's not why. It's because we changed the nature of the problem. We changed the nature of the problem from one in which we tried to overtly and explicitly explain to the computer how to drive to one in which we say, "Here's a lot of data around the vehicle. You figure it out. You figure it out that that is a traffic light, that that traffic light is red and not green, that that means that you need to stop and not go forward."
Machine learning is at the basis of many of the things that we do online: search engines, Amazon's personalization algorithm, computer translation, voice recognition systems. Researchers recently have looked at the question of biopsies, cancerous biopsies, and they've asked the computer to identify by looking at the data and survival rates to determine whether cells are actually cancerous or not, and sure enough, when you throw the data at it, through a machine-learning algorithm, the machine was able to identify the 12 telltale signs that best predict that this biopsy of the breast cancer cells are indeed cancerous. The problem: The medical literature only knew nine of them. Three of the traits were ones that people didn't need to look for, but that the machine spotted.
Now, there are dark sides to big data as well. It will improve our lives, but there are problems that we need to be conscious of, and the first one is the idea that we may be punished for predictions, that the police may use big data for their purposes, a little bit like "Minority Report." Now, it's a term called predictive policing, or algorithmic criminology, and the idea is that if we take a lot of data, for example where past crimes have been, we know where to send the patrols. That makes sense, but the problem, of course, is that it's not simply going to stop on location data, it's going to go down to the level of the individual. Why don't we use data about the person's high school transcript? Maybe we should use the fact that they're unemployed or not, their credit score, their web-surfing behavior, whether they're up late at night. Their Fitbit, when it's able to identify biochemistries, will show that they have aggressive thoughts. We may have algorithms that are likely to predict what we are about to do, and we may be held accountable before we've actually acted. Privacy was the central challenge in a small data era. In the big data age, the challenge will be safeguarding free will, moral choice, human volition, human agency.
There is another problem: Big data is going to steal our jobs. Big data and algorithms are going to challenge white collar, professional knowledge work in the 21st century in the same way that factory automation and the assembly line challenged blue collar labor in the 20th century. Think about a lab technician who is looking through a microscope at a cancer biopsy and determining whether it's cancerous or not. The person went to university. The person buys property. He or she votes. He or she is a stakeholder in society. And that person's job, as well as an entire fleet of professionals like that person, is going to find that their jobs are radically changed or actually completely eliminated. Now, we like to think that technology creates jobs over a period of time after a short, temporary period of dislocation, and that is true for the frame of reference with which we all live, the Industrial Revolution, because that's precisely what happened. But we forget something in that analysis: There are some categories of jobs that simply get eliminated and never come back. The Industrial Revolution wasn't very good if you were a horse. So we're going to need to be careful and take big data and adjust it for our needs, our very human needs. We have to be the master of this technology, not its servant. We are just at the outset of the big data era, and honestly, we are not very good at handling all the data that we can now collect. It's not just a problem for the National Security Agency. Businesses collect lots of data, and they misuse it too, and we need to get better at this, and this will take time. It's a little bit like the challenge that was faced by primitive man and fire. This is a tool, but this is a tool that, unless we're careful, will burn us.
Big data is going to transform how we live, how we work and how we think. It is going to help us manage our careers and lead lives of satisfaction and hope and happiness and health, but in the past, we've often looked at information technology and our eyes have only seen the T, the technology, the hardware, because that's what was physical. We now need to recast our gaze at the I, the information, which is less apparent, but in some ways a lot more important. Humanity can finally learn from the information that it can collect, as part of our timeless quest to understand the world and our place in it, and that's why big data is a big deal.
(Applause) |
We can cut violent deaths around the world by 50 percent in the next three decades. All we have to do is drop killing by 2.3 percent a year, and we'll hit that target.
You don't believe me? Well, the leading epidemiologists and criminologists around the world seem to think we can, and so do I, but only if we focus on our cities, especially the most fragile ones.
You see, I've been thinking about this a lot. For the last 20 years, I've been working in countries and cities ripped apart by conflict, violence, terrorism, or some insidious combination of all. I've tracked gun smugglers from Russia to Somalia, I've worked with warlords in Afghanistan and the Congo, I've counted cadavers in Colombia, in Haiti, in Sri Lanka, in Papua New Guinea. You don't need to be on the front line, though, to get a sense that our planet is spinning out of control, right? There's this feeling that international instability is the new normal. But I want you to take a closer look, and I think you'll see that the geography of violence is changing, because it's not so much our nation states that are gripped by conflict and crime as our cities: Aleppo, Bamako, Caracas, Erbil, Mosul, Tripoli, Salvador. Violence is migrating to the metropole.
And maybe this is to be expected, right? After all, most people today, they live in cities, not the countryside. Just 600 cities, including 30 megacities, account for two thirds of global GDP. But when it comes to cities, the conversation is dominated by the North, that is, North America, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, where violence is actually at historic lows. As a result, city enthusiasts, they talk about the triumph of the city, of the creative classes, and the mayors that will rule the world. Now, I hope that mayors do one day rule the world, but, you know, the fact is, we don't hear any conversation, really, about what is happening in the South. And by South, I mean Latin America, Africa, Asia, where violence in some cases is accelerating, where infrastructure is overstretched, and where governance is sometimes an aspiration and not a reality.
Now, some diplomats and development experts and specialists, they talk about 40 to 50 fragile states that will shape security in the 21st century. I think it's fragile cities which will define the future of order and disorder. That's because warfare and humanitarian action are going to be concentrated in our cities, and the fight for development, whether you define that as eradicating poverty, universal healthcare, beating back climate change, will be won or lost in the shantytowns, slums and favelas of our cities. I want to talk to you about four megarisks that I think will define fragility in our time, and if we can get to grips with these, I think we can do something with that lethal violence problem.
So let me start with some good news. Fact is, we're living in the most peaceful moment in human history. Steven Pinker and others have shown how the intensity and frequency of conflict is actually at an all-time low. Now, Gaza, Syria, Sudan, Ukraine, as ghastly as these conflicts are, and they are horrific, they represent a relatively small blip upwards in a 50-year-long secular decline. What's more, we're seeing a dramatic reduction in homicide. Manuel Eisner and others have shown that for centuries, we've seen this incredible drop in murder, especially in the West. Most Northern cities today are 100 times safer than they were just 100 years ago.
These two facts -- the decline in armed conflict and the decline in murder -- are amongst the most extraordinary, if unheralded, accomplishments of human history, and we should be really excited, right? Well, yeah, we should. There's just one problem: These two scourges are still with us. You see, 525,000 people -- men, women, boys and girls -- die violently every single year. Research I've been doing with Keith Krause and others has shown that between 50,000 and 60,000 people are dying in war zones violently. The rest, almost 500,000 people, are dying outside of conflict zones. In other words, 10 times more people are dying outside of war than inside war. What's more, violence is moving south, to Latin America and the Caribbean, to parts of Central and Southern Africa, and to bits of the Middle East and Central Asia. Forty of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world are right here in Latin America, 13 in Brazil, and the most dangerous of all, it's San Pedro Sula, Honduras' second city, with a staggering homicide rate of 187 murders per 100,000 people. That's 23 times the global average.
Now, if violence is re-concentrating geographically, it's also being reconfigured to the world's new topography, because when it comes to cities, the world ain't flat, like Thomas Friedman likes to say. It's spiky. The dominance of the city as the primary mode of urban living is one of the most extraordinary demographic reversals in history, and it all happened so fast. You all know the figures, right? There's 7.3 billion people in the world today; there will be 9.6 billion by 2050. But consider this one fact: In the 1800s, one in 30 people lived in cities, today it's one in two, and tomorrow virtually everyone is going to be there. And this expansion in urbanization is going to be neither even nor equitable. The vast majority, 90 percent, will be happening in the South, in cities of the South.
So urban geographers and demographers, they tell us that it's not necessarily the size or even the density of cities that predicts violence, no. Tokyo, with 35 million people, is one of the largest, and some might say safest, urban metropolises in the world. No, it's the speed of urbanization that matters. I call this turbo-urbanization, and it's one of the key drivers of fragility.
When you think about the incredible expansion of these cities, and you think about turbo-urbanization, think about Karachi. Karachi was about 500,000 people in 1947, a hustling, bustling city. Today, it's 21 million people, and apart from accounting for three quarters of Pakistan's GDP, it's also one of the most violent cities in South Asia. Dhaka, Lagos, Kinshasa, these cities are now 40 times larger than they were in the 1950s.
Now take a look at New York. The Big Apple, it took 150 years to get to eight million people. São Paulo, Mexico City, took 15 to reach that same interval.
Now, what do these medium, large, mega-, and hypercities look like? What is their profile? Well, for one thing, they're young. What we're seeing in many of them is the rise of the youth bulge. Now, this is actually a good news story. It's a function of reductions in child mortality rates. But the youth bulge is something we've got to watch. What it basically means is the proportion of young people living in our fragile cities is much larger than those living in our healthier and wealthier ones. In some fragile cities, 75 percent of the population is under the age of 30. Think about that: Three in four people are under 30. It's like Palo Alto on steroids. Now, if you look at Mogadishu for example, in Mogadishu the mean age is 16 years old. Ditto for Dhaka, Dili and Kabul. And Tokyo? It's 46. Same for most Western European cities. Now, it's not just youth that necessarily predicts violence. That's one factor among many, but youthfulness combined with unemployment, lack of education, and -- this is the kicker -- being male, is a deadly proposition. They're statistically correlated, all those risk factors, with youth, and they tend to relate to increases in violence.
Now, for those of you who are parents of teenage sons, you know what I'm talking about, right? Just imagine your boy without any structure with those unruly friends of his, out there cavorting about. Now, take away the parents, take away the education, limit the education possibilities, sprinkle in a little bit of drugs, alcohol and guns, and sit back and watch the fireworks. The implications are disconcerting. Right here in Brazil, the life expectancy is 73.6 years. If you live in Rio, I'm sorry, shave off two right there. But if you're young, you're uneducated, you lack employment, you're black, and you're male, your life expectancy drops to less than 60 years old. There's a reason why youthfulness and violence are the number one killers in this country.
Okay, so it's not all doom and gloom in our cities. After all, cities are hubs of innovation, dynamism, prosperity, excitement, connectivity. They're where the smart people gather. And those young people I just mentioned, they're more digitally savvy and tech-aware than ever before. And this explosion, the Internet, and mobile technology, means that the digital divide separating the North and the South between countries and within them, is shrinking. But as we've heard so many times, these new technologies are dual-edged, right? Take the case of law enforcement. Police around the world are starting to use remote sensing and big data to anticipate crime. Some cops are able to predict criminal violence before it even happens. The future crime scenario, it's here today, and we've got to be careful. We have to manage the issues of the public safety against rights to individual privacy.
But it's not just the cops who are innovating. We've heard extraordinary activities of civil society groups who are engaging in local and global collective action, and this is leading to digital protest and real revolution. But most worrying of all are criminal gangs who are going online and starting to colonize cyberspace. In Ciudad Juárez in Mexico, where I've been working, groups like the Zetas and the Sinaloa cartel are hijacking social media. They're using it to recruit, to sell their products, to coerce, to intimidate and to kill. Violence is going virtual.
So this is just a partial sketch of a fast-moving and dynamic and complex situation. I mean, there are many other megarisks that are going to define fragility in our time, not least income inequality, poverty, climate change, impunity. But we're facing a stark dilemma where some cities are going to thrive and drive global growth and others are going to stumble and pull it backwards. If we're going to change course, we need to start a conversation. We can't only focus on those cities that work, the Singapores, the Kuala Lumpurs, the Dubais, the Shanghais. We've got to bring those fragile cities into the conversation.
One way to do this might be to start twinning our fragile cities with our healthier and wealthier ones, kickstarting a process of learning and collaboration and sharing of practices, of what works and what doesn't. A wonderful example of this is coming from El Salvador and Los Angeles, where the mayors in San Salvador and Los Angeles are collaborating on getting ex-gang members to work with current gang members, offering tutoring, education, and in the process are helping incubate cease-fires and truces, and we've seen homicide rates go down in San Salvador, once the world's most violent city, by 50 percent. We can also focus on hot cities, but also hot spots. Place and location matter fundamentally in shaping violence in our cities. Did you know that between one and two percent of street addresses in any fragile city can predict up to 99 percent of violent crime? Take the case of São Paulo, where I've been working. It's gone from being Brazil's most dangerous city to one of its safest, and it did this by doubling down on information collection, hot spot mapping, and police reform, and in the process, it dropped homicide by 70 percent in just over 10 years. We also got to focus on those hot people. It's tragic, but being young, unemployed, uneducated, male, increases the risks of being killed and killing. We have to break this cycle of violence and get in there early with our children, our youngest children, and valorize them, not stigmatize them. There's wonderful work that's happening that I've been involved with in Kingston, Jamaica and right here in Rio, which is putting education, employment, recreation up front for these high-risk groups, and as a result, we're seeing violence going down in their communities.
We've also got to make our cities safer, more inclusive, and livable for all. The fact is, social cohesion matters. Mobility matters in our cities. We've got to get away from this model of segregation, exclusion, and cities with walls. My favorite example of how to do this comes from Medellín. When I lived in Colombia in the late 1990s, Medellín was the murder capital of the world, but it changed course, and it did this by deliberately investing in its low-income and most violent areas and integrating them with the middle-class ones through a network of cable cars, of public transport, and first-class infrastructure, and in the process, it dropped homicide by 79 percent in just under two decades.
And finally, there's technology. Technology has enormous promise but also peril. We've seen examples here of extraordinary innovation, and much of it coming from this room, The police are engaging in predictive analytics. Citizens are engaging in new crowdsourcing solutions. Even my own group is involved in developing applications to provide more accountability over police and increase safety among citizens. But we need to be careful.
If I have one single message for you, it's this: There is nothing inevitable about lethal violence, and we can make our cities safer. Folks, we have the opportunity of a lifetime to drop homicidal violence in half within our lifetime. So I have just one question: What are we waiting for?
Thank you.
(Applause) |
So the machine I'm going to talk you about is what I call the greatest machine that never was. It was a machine that was never built, and yet, it will be built. It was a machine that was designed long before anyone thought about computers.
If you know anything about the history of computers, you will know that in the '30s and the '40s, simple computers were created that started the computer revolution we have today, and you would be correct, except for you'd have the wrong century. The first computer was really designed in the 1830s and 1840s, not the 1930s and 1940s. It was designed, and parts of it were prototyped, and the bits of it that were built are here in South Kensington.
That machine was built by this guy, Charles Babbage. Now, I have a great affinity for Charles Babbage because his hair is always completely unkempt like this in every single picture. (Laughter) He was a very wealthy man, and a sort of, part of the aristocracy of Britain, and on a Saturday night in Marylebone, were you part of the intelligentsia of that period, you would have been invited round to his house for a soiree — and he invited everybody: kings, the Duke of Wellington, many, many famous people — and he would have shown you one of his mechanical machines.
I really miss that era, you know, where you could go around for a soiree and see a mechanical computer get demonstrated to you. (Laughter) But Babbage, Babbage himself was born at the end of the 18th century, and was a fairly famous mathematician. He held the post that Newton held at Cambridge, and that was recently held by Stephen Hawking. He's less well known than either of them because he got this idea to make mechanical computing devices and never made any of them.
The reason he never made any of them, he's a classic nerd. Every time he had a good idea, he'd think, "That's brilliant, I'm going to start building that one. I'll spend a fortune on it. I've got a better idea. I'm going to work on this one. (Laughter) And I'm going to do this one." He did this until Sir Robert Peel, then Prime Minister, basically kicked him out of Number 10 Downing Street, and kicking him out, in those days, that meant saying, "I bid you good day, sir." (Laughter)
The thing he designed was this monstrosity here, the analytical engine. Now, just to give you an idea of this, this is a view from above. Every one of these circles is a cog, a stack of cogs, and this thing is as big as a steam locomotive. So as I go through this talk, I want you to imagine this gigantic machine. We heard those wonderful sounds of what this thing would have sounded like. And I'm going to take you through the architecture of the machine — that's why it's computer architecture — and tell you about this machine, which is a computer.
So let's talk about the memory. The memory is very like the memory of a computer today, except it was all made out of metal, stacks and stacks of cogs, 30 cogs high. Imagine a thing this high of cogs, hundreds and hundreds of them, and they've got numbers on them. It's a decimal machine. Everything's done in decimal. And he thought about using binary. The problem with using binary is that the machine would have been so tall, it would have been ridiculous. As it is, it's enormous. So he's got memory. The memory is this bit over here. You see it all like this.
This monstrosity over here is the CPU, the chip, if you like. Of course, it's this big. Completely mechanical. This whole machine is mechanical. This is a picture of a prototype for part of the CPU which is in the Science Museum.
The CPU could do the four fundamental functions of arithmetic -- so addition, multiplication, subtraction, division -- which already is a bit of a feat in metal, but it could also do something that a computer does and a calculator doesn't: this machine could look at its own internal memory and make a decision. It could do the "if then" for basic programmers, and that fundamentally made it into a computer. It could compute. It couldn't just calculate. It could do more.
Now, if we look at this, and we stop for a minute, and we think about chips today, we can't look inside a silicon chip. It's just so tiny. Yet if you did, you would see something very, very similar to this. There's this incredible complexity in the CPU, and this incredible regularity in the memory. If you've ever seen an electron microscope picture, you'll see this. This all looks the same, then there's this bit over here which is incredibly complicated.
All this cog wheel mechanism here is doing is what a computer does, but of course you need to program this thing, and of course, Babbage used the technology of the day and the technology that would reappear in the '50s, '60s and '70s, which is punch cards. This thing over here is one of three punch card readers in here, and this is a program in the Science Museum, just not far from here, created by Charles Babbage, that is sitting there — you can go see it — waiting for the machine to be built. And there's not just one of these, there's many of them. He prepared programs anticipating this would happen.
Now, the reason they used punch cards was that Jacquard, in France, had created the Jacquard loom, which was weaving these incredible patterns controlled by punch cards, so he was just repurposing the technology of the day, and like everything else he did, he's using the technology of his era, so 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, cogs, steam, mechanical devices. Ironically, born the same year as Charles Babbage was Michael Faraday, who would completely revolutionize everything with the dynamo, transformers, all these sorts of things. Babbage, of course, wanted to use proven technology, so steam and things.
Now, he needed accessories. Obviously, you've got a computer now. You've got punch cards, a CPU and memory. You need accessories you're going to come with. You're not just going to have that,
So, first of all, you had sound. You had a bell, so if anything went wrong — (Laughter) — or the machine needed the attendant to come to it, there was a bell it could ring. (Laughter) And there's actually an instruction on the punch card which says "Ring the bell." So you can imagine this "Ting!" You know, just stop for a moment, imagine all those noises, this thing, "Click, clack click click click," steam engine, "Ding," right? (Laughter)
You also need a printer, obviously, and everyone needs a printer. This is actually a picture of the printing mechanism for another machine of his, called the Difference Engine No. 2, which he never built, but which the Science Museum did build in the '80s and '90s. It's completely mechanical, again, a printer. It prints just numbers, because he was obsessed with numbers, but it does print onto paper, and it even does word wrapping, so if you get to the end of the line, it goes around like that.
You also need graphics, right? I mean, if you're going to do anything with graphics, so he said, "Well, I need a plotter. I've got a big piece of paper and an ink pen and I'll make it plot." So he designed a plotter as well, and, you know, at that point, I think he got pretty much a pretty good machine.
Along comes this woman, Ada Lovelace. Now, imagine these soirees, all these great and good comes along. This lady is the daughter of the mad, bad and dangerous-to-know Lord Byron, and her mother, being a bit worried that she might have inherited some of Lord Byron's madness and badness, thought, "I know the solution: Mathematics is the solution. We'll teach her mathematics. That'll calm her down." (Laughter) Because of course, there's never been a mathematician that's gone crazy, so, you know, that'll be fine. (Laughter) Everything'll be fine. So she's got this mathematical training, and she goes to one of these soirees with her mother, and Charles Babbage, you know, gets out his machine. The Duke of Wellington is there, you know, get out the machine, obviously demonstrates it, and she gets it. She's the only person in his lifetime, really, who said, "I understand what this does, and I understand the future of this machine." And we owe to her an enormous amount because we know a lot about the machine that Babbage was intending to build because of her.
Now, some people call her the first programmer. This is actually from one of -- the paper that she translated. This is a program written in a particular style. It's not, historically, totally accurate that she's the first programmer, and actually, she did something more amazing. Rather than just being a programmer, she saw something that Babbage didn't.
Babbage was totally obsessed with mathematics. He was building a machine to do mathematics, and Lovelace said, "You could do more than mathematics on this machine." And just as you do, everyone in this room already's got a computer on them right now, because they've got a phone. If you go into that phone, every single thing in that phone or computer or any other computing device is mathematics. It's all numbers at the bottom. Whether it's video or text or music or voice, it's all numbers, it's all, underlying it, mathematical functions happening, and Lovelace said, "Just because you're doing mathematical functions and symbols doesn't mean these things can't represent other things in the real world, such as music." This was a huge leap, because Babbage is there saying, "We could compute these amazing functions and print out tables of numbers and draw graphs," — (Laughter) — and Lovelace is there and she says, "Look, this thing could even compose music if you told it a representation of music numerically." So this is what I call Lovelace's Leap. When you say she's a programmer, she did do some, but the real thing is to have said the future is going to be much, much more than this.
Now, a hundred years later, this guy comes along, Alan Turing, and in 1936, and invents the computer all over again. Now, of course, Babbage's machine was entirely mechanical. Turing's machine was entirely theoretical. Both of these guys were coming from a mathematical perspective, but Turing told us something very important. He laid down the mathematical foundations for computer science, and said, "It doesn't matter how you make a computer." It doesn't matter if your computer's mechanical, like Babbage's was, or electronic, like computers are today, or perhaps in the future, cells, or, again, mechanical again, once we get into nanotechnology. We could go back to Babbage's machine and just make it tiny. All those things are computers. There is in a sense a computing essence. This is called the Church–Turing thesis.
And so suddenly, you get this link where you say this thing Babbage had built really was a computer. In fact, it was capable of doing everything we do today with computers, only really slowly. (Laughter) To give you an idea of how slowly, it had about 1k of memory. It used punch cards, which were being fed in, and it ran about 10,000 times slower the first ZX81. It did have a RAM pack. You could add on a lot of extra memory if you wanted to.
(Laughter) So, where does that bring us today? So there are plans. Over in Swindon, the Science Museum archives, there are hundreds of plans and thousands of pages of notes written by Charles Babbage about this analytical engine. One of those is a set of plans that we call Plan 28, and that is also the name of a charity that I started with Doron Swade, who was the curator of computing at the Science Museum, and also the person who drove the project to build a difference engine, and our plan is to build it. Here in South Kensington, we will build the analytical engine.
The project has a number of parts to it. One was the scanning of Babbage's archive. That's been done. The second is now the study of all of those plans to determine what to build. The third part is a computer simulation of that machine, and the last part is to physically build it at the Science Museum.
When it's built, you'll finally be able to understand how a computer works, because rather than having a tiny chip in front of you, you've got to look at this humongous thing and say, "Ah, I see the memory operating, I see the CPU operating, I hear it operating. I probably smell it operating." (Laughter) But in between that we're going to do a simulation.
Babbage himself wrote, he said, as soon as the analytical engine exists, it will surely guide the future course of science. Of course, he never built it, because he was always fiddling with new plans, but when it did get built, of course, in the 1940s, everything changed.
Now, I'll just give you a little taste of what it looks like in motion with a video which shows just one part of the CPU mechanism working. So this is just three sets of cogs, and it's going to add. This is the adding mechanism in action, so you imagine this gigantic machine.
So, give me five years. Before the 2030s happen, we'll have it.
Thank you very much. (Applause) |
Those of you who may remember me from TEDGlobal remember me asking a few questions which still preoccupy me. One of them was: Why is it necessary to spend six billion pounds speeding up the Eurostar train when, for about 10 percent of that money, you could have top supermodels, male and female, serving free Chateau Petrus to all the passengers for the entire duration of the journey? You'd still have five billion left in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down. Now, you may remember me asking the question as well, a very interesting observation, that actually those strange little signs that actually flash "35" at you, occasionally accompanying a little smiley face or a frown, according to whether you're within or outside the speed limit -- those are actually more effective at preventing road accidents than speed cameras, which come with the actual threat of real punishment.
So there seems to be a strange disproportionality at work, I think, in many areas of human problem solving, particularly those which involve human psychology, which is: The tendency of the organization or the institution is to deploy as much force as possible, as much compulsion as possible, whereas actually, the tendency of the person is to be almost influenced in absolute reverse proportion to the amount of force being applied. So there seems to be a complete disconnect here. So what I'm asking for is the creation of a new job title -- I'll come to this a little later -- and perhaps the addition of a new word into the English language. Because it does seem to me that large organizations including government, which is, of course, the largest organization of all, have actually become completely disconnected with what actually matters to people.
Let me give you one example of this. You may remember this as the AOL-Time Warner merger, okay, heralded at the time as the largest single deal of all time. It may still be, for all I know. Now, all of you in this room, in one form or other, are probably customers of one or both of those organizations that merged. Just interested, did anybody notice anything different as a result of this at all? So unless you happened to be a shareholder of one or the other organizations or one of the dealmakers or lawyers involved in the no-doubt lucrative activity, you're actually engaging in a huge piece of activity that meant absolutely bugger-all to anybody, okay? By contrast, years of marketing have taught me that if you actually want people to remember you and to appreciate what you do, the most potent things are actually very, very small. This is from Virgin Atlantic upper-class, it's the cruet salt and pepper set. Quite nice in itself, they're little, sort of, airplane things. What's really, really sweet is every single person looking at these things has exactly the same mischievous thought, which is, "I reckon I can heist these." However, you pick them up and underneath, actually engraved in the metal, are the words, "Stolen from Virgin Atlantic Airways upper-class." (Laughter) Now, years after you remember the strategic question of whether you're flying in a 777 or an Airbus, you remember those words and that experience.
Similarly, this is from a hotel in Stockholm, the Lydmar. Has anybody stayed there? It's the lift, it's a series of buttons in the lift. Nothing unusual about that at all, except that these are actually not the buttons that take you to an individual floor. It starts with garage at the bottom, I suppose, appropriately, but it doesn't go up garage, grand floor, mezzanine, one, two, three, four. It actually says garage, funk, rhythm and blues. You have a series of buttons. You actually choose your lift music. My guess is that the cost of installing this in the lift in the Lydmar Hotel in Stockholm is probably 500 to 1,000 pounds max. It's frankly more memorable than all those millions of hotels we've all stayed at that tell you that your room has actually been recently renovated at a cost of 500,000 dollars, in order to make it resemble every other hotel room you've ever stayed in in the entire course of your life.
Now, these are trivial marketing examples, I accept. But I was at a TED event recently and Esther Duflo, probably one of the leading experts in, effectively, the eradication of poverty in the developing world, actually spoke. And she came across a similar example of something that fascinated me as being something which, in a business context or a government context, would simply be so trivial a solution as to seem embarrassing. It was simply to encourage the inoculation of children by, not only making it a social event -- I think good use of behavioral economics in that, if you turn up with several other mothers to have your child inoculated, your sense of confidence is much greater than if you turn up alone. But secondly, to incentivize that inoculation by giving a kilo of lentils to everybody who participated. It's a tiny, tiny thing. If you're a senior person at UNESCO and someone says, "So what are you doing to eradicate world poverty?" you're not really confident standing up there saying, "I've got it cracked; it's the lentils," are you?
Our own sense of self-aggrandizement feels that big important problems need to have big important, and most of all, expensive solutions attached to them. And yet, what behavioral economics shows time after time after time is in human behavioral and behavioral change there's a very, very strong disproportionality at work, that actually what changes our behavior and what changes our attitude to things is not actually proportionate to the degree of expense entailed, or the degree of force that's applied. But everything about institutions makes them uncomfortable with that disproportionality. So what happens in an institution is the very person who has the power to solve the problem also has a very, very large budget. And once you have a very, very large budget, you actually look for expensive things to spend it on. What is completely lacking is a class of people who have immense amounts of power, but no money at all. (Laughter) It's those people I'd quite like to create in the world going forward.
Now, here's another thing that happens, which is what I call sometimes "Terminal 5 syndrome," which is that big, expensive things get big, highly-intelligent attention, and they're great, and Terminal 5 is absolutely magnificent, until you get down to the small detail, the usability, which is the signage, which is catastrophic. You come out of "Arrive" at the airport, and you follow a big yellow sign that says "Trains" and it's in front of you. So you walk for another hundred yards, expecting perhaps another sign, that might courteously be yellow, in front of you and saying "Trains." No, no, no, the next one is actually blue, to your left, and says "Heathrow Express." I mean, it could almost be rather like that scene from the film "Airplane." A yellow sign? That's exactly what they'll be expecting.
Actually, what happens in the world increasingly -- now, all credit to the British Airport Authority. I spoke about this before, and a brilliant person got in touch with me and said, "Okay, what can you do?" So I did come up with five suggestions, which they are actually actioning. One of them also being, although logically it's quite a good idea to have a lift with no up and down button in it, if it only serves two floors, it's actually bloody terrifying, okay? Because when the door closes and there's nothing for you to do, you've actually just stepped into a Hammer film.
(Laughter)
So these questions ... what is happening in the world is the big stuff, actually, is done magnificently well. But the small stuff, what you might call the user interface, is done spectacularly badly. But also, there seems to be a complete sort of gridlock in terms of solving these small solutions. Because the people who can actually solve them actually are too powerful and too preoccupied with something they think of as "strategy" to actually solve them. I tried this exercise recently, talking about banking. They said, "Can we do an advertising campaign? What can we do and encourage more online banking?" I said, "It's really, really easy." I said, "When people login to their online bank there are lots and lots of things they'd probably quite like to look at. The last thing in the world you ever want to see is your balance." I've got friends who actually never use their own bank cash machines because there's the risk that it might display their balance on the screen.
Why would you willingly expose yourself to bad news? Okay, you simply wouldn't. I said, "If you make, actually, 'Tell me my balance.' If you make that an option rather than the default, you'll find twice as many people log on to online banking, and they do it three times as often." Let's face it, most of us -- how many of you actually check your balance before you remove cash from a cash machine? And you're pretty rich by the standards of the world at large. Now, interesting that no single person does that, or at least can admit to being so anal as to do it. But what's interesting about that suggestion was that, to implement that suggestion wouldn't cost 10 million pounds; it wouldn't involve large amounts of expenditure; it would actually cost about 50 quid. And yet, it never happens.
Because there's a fundamental disconnect, as I said, that actually, the people with the power want to do big expensive things. And there's to some extent a big strategy myth that's prevalent in business now. And if you think about it, it's very, very important that the strategy myth is maintained. Because, if the board of directors convince everybody that the success of any organization is almost entirely dependent on the decisions made by the board of directors, it makes the disparity in salaries slightly more justifiable than if you actually acknowledge that quite a lot of the credit for a company's success might actually lie somewhere else, in small pieces of tactical activity.
But what is happening is that effectively -- and the invention of the spreadsheet hasn't helped this; lots of things haven't helped this -- business and government suffers from a kind of physics envy. It wants the world to be the kind of place where the input and the change are proportionate. It's a kind of mechanistic world that we'd all love to live in where, effectively, it sits very nicely on spreadsheets, everything is numerically expressible, and the amount you spend on something is proportionate to the scale of your success. That's the world people actually want. In truth, we do live in a world that science can understand. Unfortunately, the science is probably closer to being climatology in that in many cases, very, very small changes can have disproportionately huge effects, and equally, vast areas of activity, enormous mergers, can actually accomplish absolutely bugger-all. But it's very, very uncomfortable for us to actually acknowledge that we're living in such a world.
But what I'm saying is we could just make things a little bit better for ourselves if we looked at it in this very simple four-way approach. That is actually strategy, and I'm not denying that strategy has a role. You know, there are cases where you spend quite a lot of money and you accomplish quite a lot. And I'd be wrong to dis that completely. Moving over, we come, of course, to consultancy.
(Laughter)
I thought it was very indecent of Accenture to ditch Tiger Woods in such a sort of hurried and hasty way. I mean, Tiger surely was actually obeying the Accenture model. He developed an interesting outsourcing model for sexual services, (Laughter) no longer tied to a single monopoly provider, in many cases, sourcing things locally, and of course, the ability to have between one and three girls delivered at any time led for better load-balancing. So what Accenture suddenly found so unattractive about that, I'm not sure.
Then there are other things that don't cost much and achieve absolutely nothing. That's called trivia. But there's a fourth thing. And the fundamental problem is we don't actually have a word for this stuff. We don't know what to call it. And actually we don't spend nearly enough money looking for those things, looking for those tiny things that may or may not work, but which, if they do work, can have a success absolutely out of proportion to their expense, their efforts and the disruption they cause.
So the first thing I'd like is a competition -- to anybody watching this as a film -- is to come up with a name for that stuff on the bottom right. And the second thing, I think, is that the world needs to have people in charge of that. That's why I call for the "Chief Detail Officer." Every corporation should have one, and every government should have a Ministry of Detail. The people who actually have no money, who have no extravagant budget, but who realize that actually you might achieve greater success in uptake of a government program by actually doubling the level of benefits you pay, but you'll probably achieve exactly that same effect simply by redesigning the form and writing it in comprehensible English. And if actually we created a Ministry of Detail and business actually had Chief Detail Officers, then that fourth quadrant, which is so woefully neglected at the moment, might finally get the attention it deserves.
Thank you very much. |
So this is a picture of my dad and me at the beach in Far Rockaway, or actually Rockaway Park. I'm the one with the blond hair. My dad's the guy with the cigarette. It was the '60s. A lot of people smoked back then. In the summer of 2009, my dad was diagnosed with lung cancer. Cancer is one of those things that actually touches everybody. If you're a man in the United States of the America, you've got about a one in two chance of being diagnosed with cancer during your lifetime. If you're a woman, you've got about a one in three chance of being diagnosed with cancer. Everybody knows somebody who's been diagnosed with cancer.
Now, my dad's doing better today, and part of the reason for that is that he was able to participate in the trial of an experimental new drug that happened to be specially formulated and very good for his particular kind of cancer. There are over 200 kinds of cancer. And what I want to talk about today is how we can help more people like my dad, because we have to change the way we think about raising money to fund cancer research.
So a while after my dad was diagnosed, I was having coffee with my friend Andrew Lo. He's the head of the Laboratory for Financial Engineering at MIT, where I also have a position, and we were talking about cancer. And Andrew had been doing his own bits of research, and one of the things that he had been told and that he'd learned from studying the literature was that there's actually a big bottleneck. It's very difficult to develop new drugs, and the reason it's difficult to develop new drugs is because in the early stages of drug development, the drugs are very risky, and they're very expensive. So Andrew asked me if I'd want to maybe work with him a bit, work on some of the math and the analytics and see if we could figure out something we could do.
Now I'm not a scientist. You know, I don't know how to build a drug. And none of my coauthors, Andrew Lo or Jose Maria Fernandez or David Fagnan -- none of those guys -- are scientists either. We don't know the first thing about how to make a cancer drug. But we know a little bit about risk mitigation and a little bit about financial engineering, and so we started thinking, what could we do? What I'm going to tell you about is some work we've been doing over the last couple years that we think could fundamentally change the way research for cancer and lots of other things gets done. We want to let the research drive the funding, not the other way around.
So in order to get started, let me tell you how you get a drug financed. Imagine that you're in your lab -- you're a scientist, you're not like me -- you're a scientist, and you've developed a new compound that you think might be therapeutic for somebody with cancer. Well, what you do is, you test in animals, you test in test tubes, but there's this notion of going from the bench to the bedside, and in order to get from the bench, the lab, to the bedside, to the patients, you've got to get the drug tested. And the way the drug gets tested is through a series of, basically, experiments, through these large, they're called trials, that they do to determine whether the drug is safe and whether it works and all these things. So the FDA has a very specific protocol. In the first phase of this testing, which is called testing for toxicity, it's called Phase I. In the first phase, you give the drug to healthy people and you see if it actually makes them sick. In other words, are the side effects just so severe that no matter how much good it does, it's not going to be worth it? Does it cause heart attacks, kill people, liver failure, this kind of thing? And it turns out, that's a pretty high hurdle. About a third of all drugs drop out at that point. In the next phase, you test to see if the drug's effective, and what you do there is you give it to people with cancer and you see if it actually makes them better. And that's also a higher hurdle. People drop out. And in the third phase, you actually test it on a very large sample, and what you're trying to determine is what the right dose is, and also, is it better than what's available today? If not, then why build it? When you're done with all that, what you have is a very small percentage of drugs that start the process actually come out the other side. So those blue bottles, those blue bottles save lives, and they're also worth billions, sometimes billions a year. So now here's a question: if I were to ask you, for example, to make a one-time investment of, say, 200 million dollars to buy one of those bottles, so 200 million dollars up front, one time, to buy one of those bottles, I won't tell you which one it is, and in 10 years, I'll tell you whether you have one of the blue ones. Does that sound like a good deal for anybody? No. No, right? And of course, it's a very, very risky trial position, and that's why it's very hard to get funding, but to a first approximation, that's actually the proposal. You have to fund these things from the early stages on. It takes a long time.
So Andrew said to me, he said, "What if we stop thinking about these as drugs? What if we start thinking about them as financial assets?" They've got really weird payoff structures and all that, but let's throw everything we know about financial engineering at them. Let's see if we can use all the tricks of the trade to figure out how to make these drugs work as financial assets?
Let's create a giant fund. In finance, we know what to do with assets that are risky. You put them in a portfolio and you try to smooth out the returns. So we did some math, and it turned out you could make this work, but in order to make it work, you need about 80 to 150 drugs.
Now the good news is, there's plenty of drugs that are waiting to be tested. We've been told that there's a backlog of about 20 years of drugs that are waiting to be tested but can't be funded. In fact, that early stage of the funding process, that Phase I and pre-clinical stuff, that's actually, in the industry, called the Valley of Death because it's where drugs go to die. It's very hard to for them to get through there, and of course, if you can't get through there, you can't get to the later stages.
So we did this math, and we figured out, okay, well, you know, you need about 80 to, say, 150, or something like that, drugs. And then we did a little more math, and we said, okay, well that's a fund of about three to 15 billion dollars. So we kind of created a new problem by solving the old one. We were able to get rid of the risk, but now we need a lot of capital, and there's only one place to get that kind of capital, the capital markets. Venture capitalists don't have it. Philanthropies don't have it. But we have to figure out how we can get people in the capital markets, who traditionally don't invest in this stuff, to want to invest in this stuff. So again, financial engineering was helpful here. Imagine the megafund actually starts empty, and what it does is it issues some debt and some equity, and that generates cash flow. That cash flow is used, then, to buy that big portfolio of drugs that you need, and those drugs start working their way through that approval process, and each time they go through a next phase of approval, they gain value. And most of them don't make it, but a few of them do, and with the ones that gain value, you can sell some, and when you sell them, you have money to pay the interest on those bonds, but you also have money to fund the next round of trials. It's almost self-funding. You do that for the course of the transaction, and when you're done, you liquidate the portfolio, pay back the bonds, and you can give the equity holders a nice return.
So that was the theory, and we talked about it for a bit, we did a bunch of experiments, and then we said, let's really try to test it. We spent the next two years doing research. We talked to hundreds of experts in drug financing and venture capital. We talked to people who have developed drugs. We talked to pharmaceutical companies. We actually looked at the data for drugs, over 2,000 drugs that had been approved or denied or withdrawn, and we also ran millions of simulations. And all that actually took a lot of time. But when we were done, what we found was something that was sort of surprising. It was actually feasible to structure that fund such that when you were done structuring it, you could actually produce low-risk bonds that would be attractive to bond holders, that would give you yields of about five to eight percent, and you could produce equity that would give equity holders about a 12-percent return. Now those returns aren't going to be attractive to a venture capitalist. Venture capitalists are those guys who want to make those big bets and get those billion dollar payoffs. But it turns out, there are lots of other folks that would be interested in that. That's right in the investment sweet spot of pension funds and 401(k) plans and all this other stuff.
So we published some articles in the academic press. We published articles in medical journals. We published articles in finance journals. But it wasn't until we actually got the popular press interested in this that we began to get some traction.
We wanted to do something more than just make people aware of it, though. We wanted people to get involved. So what we did was, we actually took all of our computer code and made that available online under an open-source license to anybody that wanted it. And you guys can download it today if you want to run your own experiments to see if this would work. And that was really effective, because people that didn't believe our assumptions could try their own assumptions and see how it would work.
Now there's an obvious problem, which is, is there enough money in the world to fund this stuff? I've told you there's enough drugs, but is there enough money? There's 100 trillion dollars of capital currently invested in fixed-income securities. That's a hundred thousand billion. There's plenty of money. (Laughter)
But what we realized was that it's more than just money that's required. We had to get people motivated, people to get involved, and people had to understand this. And so we started thinking about all the different things that could go wrong. What are all the challenges to doing this that might get in the way? And we had a long list, and so what we did was we assigned a bunch of people, including ourselves, different pieces of this problem, and we said, could you start a work stream on credit risk? Could you start a work stream on the regulatory aspects? Could you start a work stream on how you would actually manage so many projects? And we had all these experts get together and do these different work streams, and then we held a conference. The conference was held over the summer, this past summer. It was an invitation-only conference. It was sponsored by the American Cancer Society and done in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. And we had experts from every field that we thought would be important, including the government, including people that run research centers and so on, and for two days they sat around and heard the reports from those five work streams, and they talked about it. It was the first time that the people who could actually make this happen sat across the table from each other and had these conversations.
Now these conferences, it's typical to have a dinner, and at that dinner, you kind of get to know each other, sort of like what we're doing here. I happened to look out the window, and hand on my heart, I looked out the window on the night of this conference -- it was the summertime -- and that's what I saw, it was a double rainbow. So I'd like to think it was a good sign.
Since the conference, we've got people working between Paris and San Francisco, lots of different folks working on this to try to see if we can really make it happen. We're not looking to start a fund, but we want somebody else to do this. Because, again, I'm not a scientist. I can't build a drug. I'm never going to have enough money to fund even one of those trials. But all of us together, with our 401(k)'s, with our 529 plans, with our pension plans, all of us together can actually fund hundreds of trials and get paid well for doing it and save millions of lives like my dad.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Our grandparents' generation created an amazing system of canals and reservoirs that made it possible for people to live in places where there wasn't a lot of water. For example, during the Great Depression, they created the Hoover Dam, which in turn, created Lake Mead and made it possible for the cities of Las Vegas and Phoenix and Los Angeles to provide water for people who lived in a really dry place.
In the 20th century, we literally spent trillions of dollars building infrastructure to get water to our cities. In terms of economic development, it was a great investment. But in the last decade, we've seen the combined effects of climate change, population growth and competition for water resources threaten these vital lifelines and water resources.
This figure shows you the change in the lake level of Lake Mead that happened in the last 15 years. You can see starting around the year 2000, the lake level started to drop. And it was dropping at such a rate that it would have left the drinking water intakes for Las Vegas high and dry. The city became so concerned about this that they recently constructed a new drinking water intake structure that they referred to as the "Third Straw" to pull water out of the greater depths of the lake.
The challenges associated with providing water to a modern city are not restricted to the American Southwest. In the year 2007, the third largest city in Australia, Brisbane, came within 6 months of running out of water. A similar drama is playing out today in São Paulo, Brazil, where the main reservoir for the city has gone from being completely full in 2010, to being nearly empty today as the city approaches the 2016 Summer Olympics.
For those of us who are fortunate enough to live in one of the world's great cities, we've never truly experienced the effects of a catastrophic drought. We like to complain about the navy showers we have to take. We like our neighbors to see our dirty cars and our brown lawns. But we've never really faced the prospect of turning on the tap and having nothing come out. And that's because when things have gotten bad in the past, it's always been possible to expand a reservoir or dig a few more groundwater wells. Well, in a time when all of the water resources are spoken for, it's not going to be possible to rely on this tried and true way of providing ourselves with water.
Some people think that we're going to solve the urban water problem by taking water from our rural neighbors. But that's an approach that's fraught with political, legal and social dangers. And even if we succeed in grabbing the water from our rural neighbors, we're just transferring the problem to someone else and there's a good chance it will come back and bite us in the form of higher food prices and damage to the aquatic ecosystems that already rely upon that water.
I think that there's a better way to solve our urban water crisis and I think that's to open up four new local sources of water that I liken to faucets. If we can make smart investments in these new sources of water in the coming years, we can solve our urban water problem and decrease the likelihood that we'll ever run across the effects of a catastrophic drought.
Now, if you told me 20 years ago that a modern city could exist without a supply of imported water, I probably would have dismissed you as an unrealistic and uninformed dreamer. But my own experiences working with some of the world's most water-starved cities in the last decades have shown me that we have the technologies and the management skills to actually transition away from imported water, and that's what I want to tell you about tonight.
The first source of local water supply that we need to develop to solve our urban water problem will flow with the rainwater that falls in our cities. One of the great tragedies of urban development is that as our cities grew, we started covering all the surfaces with concrete and asphalt. And when we did that, we had to build storm sewers to get the water that fell on the cities out before it could cause flooding, and that's a waste of a vital water resource. Let me give you an example.
This figure here shows you the volume of water that could be collected in the city of San Jose if they could harvest the stormwater that fell within the city limits. You can see from the intersection of the blue line and the black dotted line that if San Jose could just capture half of the water that fell within the city, they'd have enough water to get them through an entire year.
Now, I know what some of you are probably thinking. "The answer to our problem is to start building great big tanks and attaching them to the downspouts of our roof gutters, rainwater harvesting." Now, that's an idea that might work in some places. But if you live in a place where it mainly rains in the winter time and most of the water demand is in the summertime, it's not a very cost-effective way to solve a water problem. And if you experience the effects of a multiyear drought, like California's currently experiencing, you just can't build a rainwater tank that's big enough to solve your problem.
I think there's a lot more practical way to harvest the stormwater and the rainwater that falls in our cities, and that's to capture it and let it percolate into the ground. After all, many of our cities are sitting on top of a natural water storage system that can accommodate huge volumes of water.
For example, historically, Los Angeles has obtained about a third of its water supply from a massive aquifer that underlies the San Fernando Valley. Now, when you look at the water that comes off of your roof and runs off of your lawn and flows down the gutter, you might say to yourself, "Do I really want to drink that stuff?" Well, the answer is you don't want to drink it until it's been treated a little bit. And so the challenge that we face in urban water harvesting is to capture the water, clean the water and get it underground.
And that's exactly what the city of Los Angeles is doing with a new project that they're building in Burbank, California. This figure here shows the stormwater park that they're building by hooking a series of stormwater collection systems, or storm sewers, and routing that water into an abandoned gravel quarry. The water that's captured in the quarry is slowly passed through a man-made wetland, and then it goes into that ball field there and percolates into the ground, recharging the drinking water aquifer of the city.
And in the process of passing through the wetland and percolating through the ground, the water encounters microbes that live on the surfaces of the plants and the surfaces of the soil, and that purifies the water. And if the water's still not clean enough to drink after it's been through this natural treatment process, the city can treat it again when they pump if back out of the groundwater aquifers before they deliver it to people to drink.
The second tap that we need to open up to solve our urban water problem will flow with the wastewater that comes out of our sewage treatment plants. Now, many of you are probably familiar with the concept of recycled water. You've probably seen signs like this that tell you that the shrubbery and the highway median and the local golf course is being watered with water that used to be in a sewage treatment plant. We've been doing this for a couple of decades now. But what we're learning from our experience is that this approach is much more expensive that we expected it to be. Because once we build the first few water recycling systems close to the sewage treatment plant, we have to build longer and longer pipe networks to get that water to where it needs to go. And that becomes prohibitive in terms of cost.
What we're finding is that a much more cost-effective and practical way of recycling wastewater is to turn treated wastewater into drinking water through a two-step process. In the first step in this process we pressurize the water and pass it through a reverse osmosis membrane: a thin, permeable plastic membrane that allows water molecules to pass through but traps and retains the salts, the viruses and the organic chemicals that might be present in the wastewater.
In the second step in the process, we add a small amount of hydrogen peroxide and shine ultraviolet light on the water. The ultraviolet light cleaves the hydrogen peroxide into two parts that are called hydroxyl radicals, and these hydroxyl radicals are very potent forms of oxygen that break down most organic chemicals.
After the water's been through this two-stage process, it's safe to drink. I know, I've been studying recycled water using every measurement technique known to modern science for the past 15 years. We've detected some chemicals that can make it through the first step in the process, but by the time we get to the second step, the advanced oxidation process, we rarely see any chemicals present. And that's in stark contrast to the taken-for-granted water supplies that we regularly drink all the time.
There's another way we can recycle water. This is an engineered treatment wetland that we recently built on the Santa Ana River in Southern California. The treatment wetland receives water from a part of the Santa Ana River that in the summertime consists almost entirely of wastewater effluent from cities like Riverside and San Bernardino. The water comes into our treatment wetland, it's exposed to sunlight and algae and those break down the organic chemicals, remove the nutrients and inactivate the waterborne pathogens. The water gets put back in the Santa Ana River, it flows down to Anaheim, gets taken out at Anaheim and percolated into the ground, and becomes the drinking water of the city of Anaheim, completing the trip from the sewers of Riverside County to the drinking water supply of Orange County.
Now, you might think that this idea of drinking wastewater is some sort of futuristic fantasy or not commonly done. Well, in California, we already recycle about 40 billion gallons a year of wastewater through the two-stage advanced treatment process I was telling you about. That's enough water to be the supply of about a million people if it were their sole water supply.
The third tap that we need to open up will not be a tap at all, it will be a kind of virtual tap, it will be the water conservation that we manage to do. And the place where we need to think about water conservation is outdoors because in California and other modern American cities, about half of our water use happens outdoors.
In the current drought, we've seen that it's possible to have our lawns survive and our plants survive with about half as much water. So there's no need to start painting concrete green and putting in Astroturf and buying cactuses. We can have California-friendly landscaping with soil moisture detectors and smart irrigation controllers and have beautiful green landscapes in our cities.
The fourth and final water tap that we need to open up to solve our urban water problem will flow with desalinated seawater. Now, I know what you probably heard people say about seawater desalination. "It's a great thing to do if you have lots of oil, not a lot of water and you don't care about climate change." Seawater desalination is energy-intensive no matter how you slice it. But that characterization of seawater desalination as being a nonstarter is hopelessly out of date. We've made tremendous progress in seawater desalination in the past two decades.
This picture shows you the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western hemisphere that's currently being built north of San Diego. Compared to the seawater desalination plant that was built in Santa Barbara 25 years ago, this treatment plant will use about half the energy to produce a gallon of water.
But just because seawater desalination has become less energy-intensive, doesn't mean we should start building desalination plants everywhere. Among the different choices we have, it's probably the most energy-intensive and potentially environmentally damaging of the options to create a local water supply.
So there it is. With these four sources of water, we can move away from our reliance on imported water. Through reform in the way we landscape our surfaces and our properties, we can reduce outdoor water use by about 50 percent, thereby increasing the water supply by 25 percent. We can recycle the water that makes it into the sewer, thereby increasing our water supply by 40 percent. And we can make up the difference through a combination of stormwater harvesting and seawater desalination.
So, let's create a water supply that will be able to withstand any of the challenges that climate change throws at us in the coming years. Let's create a water supply that uses local sources and leaves more water in the environment for fish and for food. Let's create a water system that's consistent with out environmental values. And let's do it for our children and our grandchildren and let's tell them this is the system that they have to take care of in the future because it's our last chance to create a new kind of water system.
Thank you very much for your attention.
(Applause) |
In this talk today, I want to present a different idea for why investing in early childhood education makes sense as a public investment. It's a different idea, because usually, when people talk about early childhood programs, they talk about all the wonderful benefits for participants in terms of former participants, in preschool, they have better K-12 test scores, better adult earnings. Now that's all very important, but what I want to talk about is what preschool does for state economies and for promoting state economic development.
And that's actually crucial because if we're going to get increased investment in early childhood programs, we need to interest state governments in this. The federal government has a lot on its plate, and state governments are going to have to step up. So we have to appeal to them, the legislators in the state government, and turn to something they understand, that they have to promote the economic development of their state economy. Now, by promoting economic development, I don't mean anything magical. All I mean is, is that early childhood education can bring more and better jobs to a state and can thereby promote higher per capita earnings for the state's residents.
Now, I think it's fair to say that when people think about state and local economic development, they don't generally think first about what they're doing about childcare and early childhood programs. I know this. I've spent most of my career researching these programs. I've talked to a lot of directors of state economic development agencies about these issues, a lot of legislators about these issues. When legislators and others think about economic development, what they first of all think about are business tax incentives, property tax abatements, job creation tax credits, you know, there are a million of these programs all over the place. So for example, states compete very vigorously to attract new auto plants or expanded auto plants. They hand out all kinds of business tax breaks. Now, those programs can make sense if they in fact induce new location decisions, and the way they can make sense is, by creating more and better jobs, they raise employment rates, raise per capita earnings of state residents. So there is a benefit to state residents that corresponds to the costs that they're paying by paying for these business tax breaks.
My argument is essentially that early childhood programs can do exactly the same thing, create more and better jobs, but in a different way. It's a somewhat more indirect way. These programs can promote more and better jobs by, you build it, you invest in high-quality preschool, it develops the skills of your local workforce if enough of them stick around, and, in turn, that higher-quality local workforce will be a key driver of creating jobs and creating higher earnings per capita in the local community.
Now, let me turn to some numbers on this. Okay. If you look at the research evidence -- that's extensive -- on how much early childhood programs affect the educational attainment, wages and skills of former participants in preschool as adults, you take those known effects, you take how many of those folks will be expected to stick around the state or local economy and not move out, and you take research on how much skills drive job creation, you will conclude, from these three separate lines of research, that for every dollar invested in early childhood programs, the per capita earnings of state residents go up by two dollars and 78 cents, so that's a three-to-one return. Now you can get much higher returns, of up to 16-to-one, if you include anti-crime benefits, if you include benefits to former preschool participants who move to some other state, but there's a good reason for focusing on these three dollars because this is salient and important to state legislators and state policy makers, and it's the states that are going to have to act. So there is this key benefit that is relevant to state policy makers in terms of economic development.
Now, one objection you often hear, or maybe you don't hear it because people are too polite to say it, is, why should I pay more taxes to invest in other people's children? What's in it for me? And the trouble with that objection, it reflects a total misunderstanding of how much local economies involve everyone being interdependent. Specifically, the interdependency here is, is that there are huge spillovers of skills -- that when other people's children get more skills, that actually increases the prosperity of everyone, including people whose skills don't change. So for example, numerous research studies have shown if you look at what really drives the growth rate of metropolitan areas, it's not so much low taxes, low cost, low wages; it's the skills of the area. Particularly, the proxy for skills that people use is percentage of college graduates in the area. So when you look, for example, at metropolitan areas such as the Boston area, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Silicon Valley, these areas are not doing well economically because they're low-cost. I don't know if you ever tried to buy a house in Silicon Valley. It's not exactly a low-cost proposition. They are growing because they have high levels of skills. So when we invest in other people's children, and build up those skills, we increase the overall job growth of a metro area. As another example, if we look at what determines an individual's wages, and we do statistical exploration of that, what determines wages, we know that the individual's wages will depend, in part, on that individual's education, for example whether or not they have a college degree. One of the very interesting facts is that, in addition, we find that even once we hold constant, statistically, the effect of your own education, the education of everyone else in your metropolitan area also affects your wages. So specifically, if you hold constant your education, you stick in percentage of college graduates in your metro area, you will find that has a significant positive effect on your wages without changing your education at all. In fact, this effect is so strong that when someone gets a college degree, the spillover effects of this on the wages of others in the metropolitan area are actually greater than the direct effects. So if someone gets a college degree, their lifetime earnings go up by a huge amount, over 700,000 dollars. There's an effect on everyone else in the metro area of driving up the percentage of college graduates in the metro area, and if you add that up -- it's a small effect for each person, but if you add that up across all the people in the metro area, you actually get that the increase in wages for everyone else in the metropolitan area adds up to almost a million dollars. That's actually greater than the direct benefits of the person choosing to get education.
Now, what's going on here? What can explain these huge spillover effects of education? Well, let's think about it this way. I can be the most skilled person in the world, but if everyone else at my firm lacks skills, my employer is going to find it more difficult to introduce new technology, new production techniques. So as a result, my employer is going to be less productive. They will not be able to afford to pay me as good wages. Even if everyone at my firm has good skills, if the workers at the suppliers to my firm do not have good skills, my firm is going to be less competitive competing in national and international markets. And again, the firm that's less competitive will not be able to pay as good wages, and then, particularly in high-tech businesses, they're constantly stealing ideas and workers from other businesses. So clearly the productivity of firms in Silicon Valley has a lot to do with the skills not only of the workers at their firm, but the workers at all the other firms in the metro area. So as a result, if we can invest in other people's children through preschool and other early childhood programs that are high-quality, we not only help those children, we help everyone in the metropolitan area gain in wages and we'll have the metropolitan area gain in job growth.
Another objection used sometimes here to invest in early childhood programs is concern about people moving out. So, you know, maybe Ohio's thinking about investing in more preschool education for children in Columbus, Ohio, but they're worried that these little Buckeyes will, for some strange reason, decide to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, and become Wolverines. And maybe Michigan will be thinking about investing in preschool in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and be worried these little Wolverines will end up moving to Ohio and becoming Buckeyes. And so they'll both underinvest because everyone's going to move out. Well, the reality is, if you look at the data, Americans aren't as hyper-mobile as people sometimes assume. The data is that over 60 percent of Americans spend most of their working careers in the state they were born in, over 60 percent. That percentage does not vary much from state to state. It doesn't vary much with the state's economy, whether it's depressed or booming, it doesn't vary much over time. So the reality is, if you invest in kids, they will stay. Or at least, enough of them will stay that it will pay off for your state economy.
Okay, so to sum up, there is a lot of research evidence that early childhood programs, if run in a high-quality way, pay off in higher adult skills. There's a lot of research evidence that those folks will stick around the state economy, and there's a lot of evidence that having more workers with higher skills in your local economy pays off in higher wages and job growth for your local economy, and if you calculate the numbers for each dollar, we get about three dollars back in benefits for the state economy. So in my opinion, the research evidence is compelling and the logic of this is compelling. So what are the barriers to getting it done?
Well, one obvious barrier is cost. So if you look at what it would cost if every state government invested in universal preschool at age four, full-day preschool at age four, the total annual national cost would be roughly 30 billion dollars. So, 30 billion dollars is a lot of money. On the other hand, if you reflect on that the U.S.'s population is over 300 million, we're talking about an amount of money that amounts to 100 dollars per capita. Okay? A hundred dollars per capita, per person, is something that any state government can afford to do. It's just a simple matter of political will to do it. And, of course, as I mentioned, this cost has corresponding benefits. I mentioned there's a multiplier of about three, 2.78, for the state economy, in terms of over 80 billion in extra earnings. And if we want to translate that from just billions of dollars to something that might mean something, what we're talking about is that, for the average low-income kid, that would increase earnings by about 10 percent over their whole career, just doing the preschool, not improving K-12 or anything else after that, not doing anything with college tuition or access, just directly improving preschool, and we would get five percent higher earnings for middle-class kids. So this is an investment that pays off in very concrete terms for a broad range of income groups in the state's population and produces large and tangible benefits.
Now, that's one barrier. I actually think the more profound barrier is the long-term nature of the benefits from early childhood programs. So the argument I'm making is, is that we're increasing the quality of our local workforce, and thereby increasing economic development. Obviously if we have a preschool with four-year-olds, we're not sending these kids out at age five to work in the sweatshops, right? At least I hope not. So we're talking about an investment that in terms of impacts on the state economy is not going to really pay off for 15 or 20 years, and of course America is notorious for being a short term-oriented society. Now one response you can make to this, and I sometimes have done this in talks, is people can talk about, there are benefits for these programs in reducing special ed and remedial education costs, there are benefits, parents care about preschool, maybe we'll get some migration effects from parents seeking good preschool, and I think those are true, but in some sense they're missing the point.
Ultimately, this is something we're investing in now for the future. And so what I want to leave you with is what I think is the ultimate question. I mean, I'm an economist, but this is ultimately not an economic question, it's a moral question: Are we willing, as Americans, are we as a society still capable of making the political choice to sacrifice now by paying more taxes in order to improve the long-term future of not only our kids, but our community? Are we still capable of that as a country? And that's something that each and every citizen and voter needs to ask themselves. Is that something that you are still invested in, that you still believe in the notion of investment? That is the notion of investment. You sacrifice now for a return later.
So I think the research evidence on the benefits of early childhood programs for the local economy is extremely strong. However, the moral and political choice is still up to us, as citizens and as voters.
Thank you very much. (Applause) |
A fact came out of MIT, couple of years ago. Ken Hale, who's a linguist, said that of the 6,000 languages spoken on Earth right now, 3,000 aren't spoken by the children. So that in one generation, we're going to halve our cultural diversity. He went on to say that every two weeks, an elder goes to the grave carrying the last spoken word of that culture. So an entire philosophy, a body of knowledge about the natural world that had been empirically gleaned over centuries, goes away. And this happens every two weeks.
So for the last 20 years, since my dental experience, I have been traveling the world and coming back with stories about some of these people. What I'd like to do right now is share some of those stories with you. This is Tamdin. She is a 69-year-old nun. She was thrown in prison in Tibet for two years for putting up a little tiny placard protesting the occupation of her country. And when I met her, she had just taken a walk over the Himalayas from Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, into Nepal, across to India -- 30 days -- to meet her leader, the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama lives in Dharamsala, India. So I took this picture three days after she arrived, and she had this beat-up pair of tennis shoes on, with her toes sticking out. And she crossed in March, and there's a lot of snow at 18,500 feet in March.
This is Paldin. Paldin is a 62-year-old monk. And he spent 33 years in prison. His whole monastery was thrown into prison at the time of the uprising, when the Dalai Lama had to leave Tibet. And he was beaten, starved, tortured -- lost all his teeth while in prison. And when I met him, he was a kind gentle old man. And it really impressed me -- I met him two weeks after he got out of prison -- that he went through that experience, and ended up with the demeanor that he had.
So I was in Dharamsala meeting these people, and I'd spent about five weeks there, and I was hearing these similar stories of these refugees that had poured out of Tibet into Dharamsala. And it just so happened, on the fifth week, there was a public teaching by the Dalai Lama. And I was watching this crowd of monks and nuns, many of which I had just interviewed, and heard their stories, and I watched their faces, and they gave us a little FM radio, and we could listen to the translation of his teachings. And what he said was: treat your enemies as if they were precious jewels, because it's your enemies that build your tolerance and patience on the road to your enlightenment. That hit me so hard, telling these people that had been through this experience.
So, two months later, I went into Tibet, and I started interviewing the people there, taking my photographs. That's what I do. I interview and do portraits. And this is a little girl. I took her portrait up on top of the Jokhang Temple. And I'd snuck in -- because it's totally illegal to have a picture of the Dalai Lama in Tibet -- it's the quickest way you can get arrested. So I snuck in a bunch of little wallet-sized pictures of the Dalai Lama, and I would hand them out. And when I gave them to the people, they'd either hold them to their heart, or they'd hold them up to their head and just stay there. And this is -- well, at the time -- I did this 10 years ago -- that was 36 years after the Dalai Lama had left.
So I was going in, interviewing these people and doing their portraits. This is Jigme and her sister, Sonam. And they live up on the Chang Tang, the Tibetan Plateau, way in the western part of the country. This is at 17,000 feet. And they had just come down from the high pastures, at 18,000 feet. Same thing: gave her a picture, she held it up to her forehead. And I usually hand out Polaroids when I do these, because I'm setting up lights, and checking my lights, and when I showed her her Polaroid, she screamed and ran into her tent.
This is Tenzin Gyatso; he was found to be the Buddha of Compassion at the age of two, out in a peasant's house, way out in the middle of nowhere. At the age of four, he was installed as the 14th Dalai Lama. As a teenager, he faced the invasion of his country, and had to deal with it -- he was the leader of the country. Eight years later, when they discovered there was a plot to kill him, they dressed him up like a beggar and snuck him out of the country on horseback, and took the same trip that Tamdin did. And he's never been back to his country since. And if you think about this man, 46 years later, still sticking to this non-violent response to a severe political and human rights issue. And the young people, young Tibetans, are starting to say, listen, this doesn't work. You know, violence as a political tool is all the rage right now. And he still is holding this line. So this is our icon to non-violence in our world -- one of our living icons.
This is another leader of his people. This is Moi. This is in the Ecuadorian Amazon. And Moi is 35 years old. And this area of the Ecuadorian Amazon -- oil was discovered in 1972. And in this period of time -- since that time -- as much oil, or twice as much oil as was spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident, was spilled in this little area of the Amazon, and the tribes in this area have constantly had to move. And Moi belongs to the Huaorani tribe, and they're known as very fierce, they're known as "auca." And they've managed to keep out the seismologists and the oil workers with spears and blowguns. And we spent -- I was with a team -- two weeks with these guys out in the jungle watching them hunt. This was on a monkey hunt, hunting with curare-tipped darts. And the knowledge that these people have about the natural environment is incredible. They could hear things, smell things, see things I couldn't see. And I couldn't even see the monkeys that they were getting with these darts.
This is Yadira, and Yadira is five years old. She's in a tribe that's neighboring the Huaorani. And her tribe has had to move three times in the last 10 years because of the oil spills. And we never hear about that. And the latest infraction against these people is, as part of Plan Colombia, we're spraying Paraquat or Round Up, whatever it is -- we're defoliating thousands of acres of the Ecuadorian Amazon in our war on drugs. And these people are the people who take the brunt of it.
This is Mengatoue. He's the shaman of the Huaorani, and he said to us, you know, I'm an older man now; I'm getting tired, you know; I'm tired of spearing these oil workers. I wish they would just go away. And I was -- I usually travel alone when I do my work, but I did this -- I hosted a program for Discovery, and when I went down with the team, I was quite concerned about going in with a whole bunch of people, especially into the Huaorani, deep into the Huaorani tribe. And as it turned out, these guys really taught me a thing or two about blending in with the locals. (Laughter)
One of the things I did just before 9/11 -- August of 2001 -- I took my son, Dax, who was 16 at the time, and I took him to Pakistan. Because at first I wanted -- you know, I've taken him on a couple of trips, but I wanted him to see people that live on a dollar a day or less. I wanted him to get an experience in the Islamic world and I also wanted him to -- I was going there to work with a group, do a story on a group called the Kalash, that are a group of animists, 3,000 animists, that live -- very small area -- surrounded by Islam -- there's 3,000 of these Kalash left; they're incredible people. So it was a great experience for him. He stayed up all night with them, drumming and dancing. And he brought a soccer ball, and we had soccer every night in this little village.
And then we went up and met their shaman. By the way, Mengatoue was the shaman of his tribe as well. And this is John Doolikahn, who's the shaman of the Kalash. And he's up in the mountains, right on the border with Afghanistan. In fact, on that other side is the area, Tora Bora, the area where Osama bin Laden's supposed to be. This is the tribal area. And we watched and stayed with John Doolikahn. And the shaman -- I did a whole series on shamanism, which is an interesting phenomenon. But around the world, they go into trance in different ways, and in Pakistan, the way they do it is they burn juniper leaves and they sacrifice an animal, pour the blood of the animal on the leaves and then inhale the smoke. And they're all praying to the mountain gods as they go into trance.
You know, getting kids used to different realities, I think, is so important. What Dan Dennett said the other day -- having a curriculum where they study different religions, just to make a mental flexibility, give them a mental flexibility in different belief systems -- I think this is so necessary in our world today as you see these clash of beliefs taking place. And all the security issues they cause us. So, one thing we did five years ago: we started a program that links kids in indigenous communities with kids in the United States. So we first hooked up a spot in the Navajo Nation with a classroom in Seattle. We now have 15 sites. We have one in Kathmandu, Nepal; Dharamsala, India; Takaungu, Kenya -- Takaungu is one-third Christian, one-third Muslim and one-third animist, the community is -- Ollantaytambo, Peru, and Arctic Village, Alaska.
This is Daniel; he's one of our students in Arctic Village, Alaska. He lives in this log cabin -- no running water, no heat other than -- no windows and high-speed Internet connection. And this is -- I see this rolling out all over -- this is our site in Ollantaytambo, Peru, four years ago, where they first saw their first computers; now they have computers in their classrooms. And the way we've done this -- we teach digital storytelling to these kids. And we have them tell stories about issues in their community in their community that they care about. And this is in Peru, where the kids told the story about a river that they cleaned up. And the way we do it is, we do it in workshops, and we bring people who want to learn digital workflow and storytelling, and have them work with the kids. And just this last year we've taken a group of teenagers in, and this has worked the best. So our dream is to bring teenagers together, so they'll have a community service experience as well as a cross-cultural experience, as they teach kids in these areas and help them build their communication infrastructure.
This is teaching Photoshop in the Tibetan children's village in Dharamsala. We have the website, where the kids all get their homepage. This is all their movies. We've got about 60 movies that these kids have made, and they're quite incredible. The one I want to show you -- after we get them to make the movies, we have a night where we show the movies to the community. And this is in Takaungu -- we've got a generator and a digital projector, and we're projecting it up against a barn, and showing one of the movies that they made. And if you get a chance, you can go to our website, and you'll see the incredible work these kids do.
The other thing: I wanted to give indigenous people a voice. That was one of the big motivating factors. But the other motivating factor is the insular nature of our country. National Geographic just did a Roper Study of 18 to 26 year olds in our country and in nine other industrialized countries. It was a two million dollar study. United States came in second to last in geographic knowledge. 70 percent of the kids couldn't find Afghanistan or Iraq on a map; 60 percent couldn't find India; 30 percent couldn't find the Pacific Ocean. And this is a study that was just done a couple of years ago.
So what I'd like to show you now, in the couple of minutes I have left, is a film that a student made in Guatemala. We just had a workshop in Guatemala. A week before we got to the workshop, a massive landslide, caused by Hurricane Stan, last October, came in and buried 600 people alive in their village. And this kid lived in the village -- he wasn't there at the time -- and this is the little movie he put together about that. And he hadn't seen a computer before we did this movie. We taught him Photoshop and -- yeah, we can play it.
This is an old Mayan funeral chant that he got from his grandfather.
Thank you very much. (Applause) |
Good morning. I'm here today to talk about autonomous, flying beach balls. No, agile aerial robots like this one. I'd like to tell you a little bit about the challenges in building these and some of the terrific opportunities for applying this technology. So these robots are related to unmanned aerial vehicles. However, the vehicles you see here are big. They weigh thousands of pounds, are not by any means agile. They're not even autonomous. In fact, many of these vehicles are operated by flight crews that can include multiple pilots, operators of sensors and mission coordinators.
What we're interested in is developing robots like this -- and here are two other pictures -- of robots that you can buy off the shelf. So these are helicopters with four rotors and they're roughly a meter or so in scale and weigh several pounds. And so we retrofit these with sensors and processors, and these robots can fly indoors without GPS.
The robot I'm holding in my hand is this one, and it's been created by two students, Alex and Daniel. So this weighs a little more than a tenth of a pound. It consumes about 15 watts of power. And as you can see, it's about eight inches in diameter. So let me give you just a very quick tutorial on how these robots work.
So it has four rotors. If you spin these rotors at the same speed, the robot hovers. If you increase the speed of each of these rotors, then the robot flies up, it accelerates up. Of course, if the robot were tilted, inclined to the horizontal, then it would accelerate in this direction. So to get it to tilt, there's one of two ways of doing it. So in this picture you see that rotor four is spinning faster and rotor two is spinning slower. And when that happens there's moment that causes this robot to roll. And the other way around, if you increase the speed of rotor three and decrease the speed of rotor one, then the robot pitches forward.
And then finally, if you spin opposite pairs of rotors faster than the other pair, then the robot yaws about the vertical axis. So an on-board processor essentially looks at what motions need to be executed and combines these motions and figures out what commands to send to the motors 600 times a second. That's basically how this thing operates.
So one of the advantages of this design is, when you scale things down, the robot naturally becomes agile. So here R is the characteristic length of the robot. It's actually half the diameter. And there are lots of physical parameters that change as you reduce R. The one that's the most important is the inertia or the resistance to motion. So it turns out, the inertia, which governs angular motion, scales as a fifth power of R. So the smaller you make R, the more dramatically the inertia reduces. So as a result, the angular acceleration, denoted by Greek letter alpha here, goes as one over R. It's inversely proportional to R. The smaller you make it the more quickly you can turn.
So this should be clear in these videos. At the bottom right you see a robot performing a 360 degree flip in less than half a second. Multiple flips, a little more time. So here the processes on board are getting feedback from accelerometers and gyros on board and calculating, like I said before, commands at 600 times a second to stabilize this robot. So on the left, you see Daniel throwing this robot up into the air. And it shows you how robust the control is. No matter how you throw it, the robot recovers and comes back to him.
So why build robots like this? Well robots like this have many applications. You can send them inside buildings like this as first responders to look for intruders, maybe look for biochemical leaks, gaseous leaks. You can also use them for applications like construction. So here are robots carrying beams, columns and assembling cube-like structures. I'll tell you a little bit more about this. The robots can be used for transporting cargo. So one of the problems with these small robots is their payload carrying capacity. So you might want to have multiple robots carry payloads. This is a picture of a recent experiment we did -- actually not so recent anymore -- in Sendai shortly after the earthquake. So robots like this could be sent into collapsed buildings to assess the damage after natural disasters, or sent into reactor buildings to map radiation levels.
So one fundamental problem that the robots have to solve if they're to be autonomous is essentially figuring out how to get from point A to point B. So this gets a little challenging because the dynamics of this robot are quite complicated. In fact, they live in a 12-dimensional space. So we use a little trick. We take this curved 12-dimensional space and transform it into a flat four-dimensional space. And that four-dimensional space consists of X, Y, Z and then the yaw angle.
And so what the robot does is it plans what we call a minimum snap trajectory. So to remind you of physics, you have position, derivative, velocity, then acceleration, and then comes jerk and then comes snap. So this robot minimizes snap. So what that effectively does is produces a smooth and graceful motion. And it does that avoiding obstacles. So these minimum snap trajectories in this flat space are then transformed back into this complicated 12-dimensional space, which the robot must do for control and then execution.
So let me show you some examples of what these minimum snap trajectories look like. And in the first video, you'll see the robot going from point A to point B through an intermediate point. So the robot is obviously capable of executing any curve trajectory. So these are circular trajectories where the robot pulls about two G's. Here you have overhead motion capture cameras on the top that tell the robot where it is 100 times a second. It also tells the robot where these obstacles are. And the obstacles can be moving. And here you'll see Daniel throw this hoop into the air, while the robot is calculating the position of the hoop and trying to figure out how to best go through the hoop. So as an academic, we're always trained to be able to jump through hoops to raise funding for our labs, and we get our robots to do that.
(Applause)
So another thing the robot can do is it remembers pieces of trajectory that it learns or is pre-programmed. So here you see the robot combining a motion that builds up momentum and then changes its orientation and then recovers. So it has to do this because this gap in the window is only slightly larger than the width of the robot. So just like a diver stands on a springboard and then jumps off it to gain momentum, and then does this pirouette, this two and a half somersault through and then gracefully recovers, this robot is basically doing that. So it knows how to combine little bits and pieces of trajectories to do these fairly difficult tasks.
So I want change gears. So one of the disadvantages of these small robots is its size. And I told you earlier that we may want to employ lots and lots of robots to overcome the limitations of size. So one difficulty is how do you coordinate lots of these robots? And so here we looked to nature. So I want to show you a clip of Aphaenogaster desert ants in Professor Stephen Pratt's lab carrying an object. So this is actually a piece of fig. Actually you take any object coated with fig juice and the ants will carry them back to the nest. So these ants don't have any central coordinator. They sense their neighbors. There's no explicit communication. But because they sense the neighbors and because they sense the object, they have implicit coordination across the group.
So this is the kind of coordination we want our robots to have. So when we have a robot which is surrounded by neighbors -- and let's look at robot I and robot J -- what we want the robots to do is to monitor the separation between them as they fly in formation. And then you want to make sure that this separation is within acceptable levels. So again the robots monitor this error and calculate the control commands 100 times a second, which then translates to the motor commands 600 times a second. So this also has to be done in a decentralized way. Again, if you have lots and lots of robots, it's impossible to coordinate all this information centrally fast enough in order for the robots to accomplish the task. Plus the robots have to base their actions only on local information, what they sense from their neighbors. And then finally, we insist that the robots be agnostic to who their neighbors are. So this is what we call anonymity.
So what I want to show you next is a video of 20 of these little robots flying in formation. They're monitoring their neighbors' position. They're maintaining formation. The formations can change. They can be planar formations, they can be three-dimensional formations. As you can see here, they collapse from a three-dimensional formation into planar formation. And to fly through obstacles they can adapt the formations on the fly. So again, these robots come really close together. As you can see in this figure-eight flight, they come within inches of each other. And despite the aerodynamic interactions of these propeller blades, they're able to maintain stable flight.
(Applause)
So once you know how to fly in formation, you can actually pick up objects cooperatively. So this just shows that we can double, triple, quadruple the robot strength by just getting them to team with neighbors, as you can see here. One of the disadvantages of doing that is, as you scale things up -- so if you have lots of robots carrying the same thing, you're essentially effectively increasing the inertia, and therefore you pay a price; they're not as agile. But you do gain in terms of payload carrying capacity.
Another application I want to show you -- again, this is in our lab. This is work done by Quentin Lindsey who's a graduate student. So his algorithm essentially tells these robots how to autonomously build cubic structures from truss-like elements. So his algorithm tells the robot what part to pick up, when and where to place it. So in this video you see -- and it's sped up 10, 14 times -- you see three different structures being built by these robots. And again, everything is autonomous, and all Quentin has to do is to get them a blueprint of the design that he wants to build.
So all these experiments you've seen thus far, all these demonstrations, have been done with the help of motion capture systems. So what happens when you leave your lab and you go outside into the real world? And what if there's no GPS? So this robot is actually equipped with a camera and a laser rangefinder, laser scanner. And it uses these sensors to build a map of the environment. What that map consists of are features -- like doorways, windows, people, furniture -- and it then figures out where its position is with respect to the features. So there is no global coordinate system. The coordinate system is defined based on the robot, where it is and what it's looking at. And it navigates with respect to those features.
So I want to show you a clip of algorithms developed by Frank Shen and Professor Nathan Michael that shows this robot entering a building for the very first time and creating this map on the fly. So the robot then figures out what the features are. It builds the map. It figures out where it is with respect to the features and then estimates its position 100 times a second allowing us to use the control algorithms that I described to you earlier. So this robot is actually being commanded remotely by Frank. But the robot can also figure out where to go on its own. So suppose I were to send this into a building and I had no idea what this building looked like, I can ask this robot to go in, create a map and then come back and tell me what the building looks like. So here, the robot is not only solving the problem, how to go from point A to point B in this map, but it's figuring out what the best point B is at every time. So essentially it knows where to go to look for places that have the least information. And that's how it populates this map.
So I want to leave you with one last application. And there are many applications of this technology. I'm a professor, and we're passionate about education. Robots like this can really change the way we do K through 12 education. But we're in Southern California, close to Los Angeles, so I have to conclude with something focused on entertainment. I want to conclude with a music video. I want to introduce the creators, Alex and Daniel, who created this video.
(Applause)
So before I play this video, I want to tell you that they created it in the last three days after getting a call from Chris. And the robots that play the video are completely autonomous. You will see nine robots play six different instruments. And of course, it's made exclusively for TED 2012. Let's watch.
(Music)
(Applause) |
How would you like to be better than you are? Suppose I said that, with just a few changes in your genes, you could get a better memory -- more precise, more accurate and quicker. Or maybe you'd like to be more fit, stronger, with more stamina. Would you like to be more attractive and self-confident? How about living longer with good health? Or perhaps you're one of those who's always yearned for more creativity. Which one would you like the most? Which would you like, if you could have just one? (Audience Member: Creativity.) Creativity. How many people would choose creativity? Raise your hands. Let me see. A few. Probably about as many as there are creative people here. (Laughter) That's very good. How many would opt for memory? Quite a few more. How about fitness? A few less. What about longevity? Ah, the majority. That makes me feel very good as a doctor. If you could have any one of these, it would be a very different world. Is it just imaginary? Or, is it, perhaps, possible?
Evolution has been a perennial topic here at the TED Conference, but I want to give you today one doctor's take on the subject. The great 20th-century geneticist, T.G. Dobzhansky, who was also a communicant in the Russian Orthodox Church, once wrote an essay that he titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Now if you are one of those who does not accept the evidence for biological evolution, this would be a very good time to turn off your hearing aid, take out your personal communications device -- I give you permission -- and perhaps take another look at Kathryn Schultz's book on being wrong, because nothing in the rest of this talk is going to make any sense whatsoever to you. (Laughter) But if you do accept biological evolution, consider this: is it just about the past, or is it about the future? Does it apply to others, or does it apply to us?
This is another look at the tree of life. In this picture, I've put a bush with a center branching out in all directions, because if you look at the edges of the tree of life, every existing species at the tips of those branches has succeeded in evolutionary terms: it has survived; it has demonstrated a fitness to its environment. The human part of this branch, way out on one end, is, of course, the one that we are most interested in. We branch off of a common ancestor to modern chimpanzees about six or eight million years ago. In the interval, there have been perhaps 20 or 25 different species of hominids. Some have come and gone. We have been here for about 130,000 years. It may seem like we're quite remote from other parts of this tree of life, but actually, for the most part, the basic machinery of our cells is pretty much the same.
Do you realize that we can take advantage and commandeer the machinery of a common bacterium to produce the protein of human insulin used to treat diabetics? This is not like human insulin; this is the same protein that is chemically indistinguishable from what comes out of your pancreas. And speaking of bacteria, do you realize that each of us carries in our gut more bacteria than there are cells in the rest of our body? Maybe 10 times more. I mean think of it, when Antonio Damasio asks about your self-image, do you think about the bacteria? Our gut is a wonderfully hospitable environment for those bacteria. It's warm, it's dark, it's moist, it's very cozy. And you're going to provide all the nutrition that they could possibly want with no effort on their part. It's really like an Easy Street for bacteria, with the occasional interruption of the unintended forced rush to the exit. But otherwise, you are a wonderful environment for those bacteria, just as they are essential to your life. They help in the digestion of essential nutrients, and they protect you against certain diseases.
But what will come in the future? Are we at some kind of evolutionary equipoise as a species? Or, are we destined to become something different -- something, perhaps, even better adapted to the environment? Now let's take a step back in time to the Big Bang, 14 billion years ago -- the Earth, the solar system, about four and a half billion years -- the first signs of proto-life, maybe three to four billion years ago on Earth -- the first multi-celled organisms, perhaps as much as 800 or a billion years ago -- and then the human species, finally emerging in the last 130,000 years. In this vast unfinished symphony of the universe, life on Earth is like a brief measure; the animal kingdom, like a single measure; and human life, a small grace note. That was us. That also constitutes the entertainment portion of this talk, so I hope you enjoyed it.
(Laughter)
Now when I was a freshman in college, I took my first biology class. I was fascinated by the elegance and beauty of biology. I became enamored of the power of evolution, and I realized something very fundamental: in most of the existence of life in single-celled organisms, each cell simply divides, and all of the genetic energy of that cell is carried on in both daughter cells. But at the time multi-celled organisms come online, things start to change. Sexual reproduction enters the picture. And very importantly, with the introduction of sexual reproduction that passes on the genome, the rest of the body becomes expendable. In fact, you could say that the inevitability of the death of our bodies enters in evolutionary time at the same moment as sexual reproduction.
Now I have to confess, when I was a college undergraduate, I thought, okay, sex/death, sex/death, death for sex -- it seemed pretty reasonable at the time, but with each passing year, I've come to have increasing doubts. I've come to understand the sentiments of George Burns, who was performing still in Las Vegas well into his 90s. And one night, there's a knock at his hotel room door. He answers the door. Standing before him is a gorgeous, scantily clad showgirl. She looks at him and says, "I'm here for super sex." "That's fine," says George, "I'll take the soup."
(Laughter)
I came to realize, as a physician, that I was working toward a goal which was different from the goal of evolution -- not necessarily contradictory, just different. I was trying to preserve the body. I wanted to keep us healthy. I wanted to restore health from disease. I wanted us to live long and healthy lives. Evolution is all about passing on the genome to the next generation, adapting and surviving through generation after generation. From an evolutionary point of view, you and I are like the booster rockets designed to send the genetic payload into the next level of orbit and then drop off into the sea. I think we would all understand the sentiment that Woody Allen expressed when he said, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying."
(Laughter)
Evolution does not necessarily favor the longest-lived. It doesn't necessarily favor the biggest or the strongest or the fastest, and not even the smartest. Evolution favors those creatures best adapted to their environment. That is the sole test of survival and success. At the bottom of the ocean, bacteria that are thermophilic and can survive at the steam vent heat that would otherwise produce, if fish were there, sous-vide cooked fish, nevertheless, have managed to make that a hospitable environment for them.
So what does this mean, as we look back at what has happened in evolution, and as we think about the place again of humans in evolution, and particularly as we look ahead to the next phase, I would say that there are a number of possibilities. The first is that we will not evolve. We have reached a kind of equipoise. And the reasoning behind that would be, first, we have, through medicine, managed to preserve a lot of genes that would otherwise be selected out and be removed from the population. And secondly, we as a species have so configured our environment that we have managed to make it adapt to us as well as we adapt to it. And by the way, we immigrate and circulate and intermix so much that you can't any longer have the isolation that is necessary for evolution to take place.
A second possibility is that there will be evolution of the traditional kind, natural, imposed by the forces of nature. And the argument here would be that the wheels of evolution grind slowly, but they are inexorable. And as far as isolation goes, when we as a species do colonize distant planets, there will be the isolation and the environmental changes that could produce evolution in the natural way.
But there's a third possibility, an enticing, intriguing and frightening possibility. I call it neo-evolution -- the new evolution that is not simply natural, but guided and chosen by us as individuals in the choices that we will make. Now how could this come about? How could it be possible that we would do this? Consider, first, the reality that people today, in some cultures, are making choices about their offspring. They're, in some cultures, choosing to have more males than females. It's not necessarily good for the society, but it's what the individual and the family are choosing.
Think also, if it were possible ever for you to choose, not simply to choose the sex of your child, but for you in your body to make the genetic adjustments that would cure or prevent diseases. What if you could make the genetic changes to eliminate diabetes or Alzheimer's or reduce the risk of cancer or eliminate stroke? Wouldn't you want to make those changes in your genes? If we look ahead, these kind of changes are going to be increasingly possible.
The Human Genome Project started in 1990, and it took 13 years. It cost 2.7 billion dollars. The year after it was finished in 2004, you could do the same job for 20 million dollars in three to four months. Today, you can have a complete sequence of the three billion base pairs in the human genome at a cost of about 20,000 dollars and in the space of about a week. It won't be very long before the reality will be the 1,000-dollar human genome, and it will be increasingly available for everyone. Just a week ago, the National Academy of Engineering awarded its Draper Prize to Francis Arnold and Willem Stemmer, two scientists who independently developed techniques to encourage the natural process of evolution to work faster and to lead to desirable proteins in a more efficient way -- what Frances Arnold calls "directed evolution." A couple of years ago, the Lasker Prize was awarded to the scientist Shinya Yamanaka for his research in which he took an adult skin cell, a fibroblast, and by manipulating just four genes, he induced that cell to revert to a pluripotential stem cell -- a cell potentially capable of becoming any cell in your body.
These changes are coming. The same technology that has produced the human insulin in bacteria can make viruses that will not only protect you against themselves, but induce immunity against other viruses. Believe it or not, there's an experimental trial going on with vaccine against influenza that has been grown in the cells of a tobacco plant. Can you imagine something good coming out of tobacco?
These are all reality today, and [in] the future, will be evermore possible. Imagine then just two other little changes. You can change the cells in your body, but what if you could change the cells in your offspring? What if you could change the sperm and the ova, or change the newly fertilized egg, and give your offspring a better chance at a healthier life -- eliminate the diabetes, eliminate the hemophilia, reduce the risk of cancer? Who doesn't want healthier children? And then, that same analytic technology, that same engine of science that can produce the changes to prevent disease, will also enable us to adopt super-attributes, hyper-capacities -- that better memory. Why not have the quick wit of a Ken Jennings, especially if you can augment it with the next generation of the Watson machine? Why not have the quick twitch muscle that will enable you to run faster and longer? Why not live longer? These will be irresistible.
And when we are at a position where we can pass it on to the next generation, and we can adopt the attributes we want, we will have converted old-style evolution into neo-evolution. We'll take a process that normally might require 100,000 years, and we can compress it down to a thousand years -- and maybe even in the next 100 years. These are choices that your grandchildren, or their grandchildren, are going to have before them. Will we use these choices to make a society that is better, that is more successful, that is kinder? Or, will we selectively choose different attributes that we want for some of us and not for others of us? Will we make a society that is more boring and more uniform, or more robust and more versatile? These are the kinds of questions that we will have to face.
And most profoundly of all, will we ever be able to develop the wisdom, and to inherit the wisdom, that we'll need to make these choices wisely? For better or worse, and sooner than you may think, these choices will be up to us.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Mountain biking in Israel is something that I do with great passion and commitment. And when I'm on my bike, I feel that I connect with the profound beauty of Israel, and I feel that I'm united with this country's history and biblical law. And also, for me, biking is a matter of empowerment. When I reach the summit of a steep mountain in the middle of nowhere, I feel young, invincible, eternal. It's as if I'm connecting with some legacy or with some energy far greater than myself. You can see my fellow riders at the end of the picture, looking at me with some concern. And here is another picture of them. Unfortunately, I cannot show their faces, neither can I disclose their true names, and that's because my fellow riders are juvenile inmates, offenders spending time in a correction facility about 20 minutes' ride from here -- well, like everything in Israel. And I've been riding with these kids once a week, every Tuesday, rain or shine, for the last four years and by now, they've become a very big part of my life.
This story began four years ago. The correction facility where they are locked up happens to be right in the middle of one of my usual trips, and it's surrounded by barbed wires and electric gates and armed guards. So on one of these rides, I talked my way into the compound and went to see the warden. I told the warden that I wanted to start a mountain biking club in this place and that basically I wanted to take the kids from here to there. And I told him, "Let's find a way in which I'll be able to take out 10 kids once a week to ride with in the summer in the country." And the warden was quite amused, and he told me he thought that I was a nut and he told me, "This place is a correction facility. These guys are serious offenders. They are supposed to be locked up. They aren't supposed to be out at large." And yet, we began to talk about it, and one thing led to another. And I can't see myself going into a state prison in New Jersey and making such a proposition, but this being Israel, the warden somehow made it happen. And so two months later, we found ourselves "at large" -- myself, 10 juvenile inmates and a wonderful fellow named Russ, who became a very good friend of mine and my partner in this project.
And in the next few weeks, I had the tremendous pleasure of introducing these kids to the world of total freedom, a world consisting of magnificent vistas like these -- everything you see here is obviously in Israel -- as well as close encounters with all sorts of small creatures coming in all sorts of sizes, colors, shapes, forms and so on. In spite of all this splendor, the beginning was extremely frustrating. Every small obstacle, every slight uphill, would cause these fellows to stop in their tracks and give up. So we had a lot of this going on. I found out that they had a very hard time dealing with frustration and difficulties -- not because they were physically unfit. But that's one reason why they ended up where they were. And I became increasingly more and more agitated, because I was there not only to be with them, but also to ride and create a team and I didn't know what to do.
Now, let me give you an example. We're going downhill in some rocky terrain, and the front tire of Alex gets caught in one of these crevasses here. So he crashes down, and he gets slightly injured, but this does not prevent him from jumping up and then starting to jump up and down on his bike and curse violently. Then he throws his helmet in the air. His backpack goes ballistic in some other direction. And then he runs to the nearest tree and starts to break branches and throw rocks and curse like I've never heard. And I'm just standing there, watching this scene with a complete disbelief, not knowing what to do. I'm used to algorithms and data structures and super motivated students, and nothing in my background prepared me to deal with a raging, violent adolescent in the middle of nowhere. And you have to realize that these incidents did not happen in convenient locations. They happened in places like this, in the Judean Desert, 20 kilometers away from the nearest road. And what you don't see in this picture is that somewhere between these riders there, there's a teenager sitting on a rock, saying, "I'm not moving from here. Forget it. I've had it." Well, that's a problem because one way or another, you have to get this guy moving because it's getting dark soon and dangerous.
It took me several such incidents to figure out what I was supposed to do. At the beginning, it was a disaster. I tried harsh words and threats and they took me nowhere. That's what they had all their lives. And at some point I found out, when a kid like this gets into a fit, the best thing that you can possibly do is stay as close as possible to this kid, which is difficult, because what you really want to do is go away. But that's what he had all his life, people walking away from him. So what you have to do is stay close and try to reach in and pet his shoulder or give him a piece of chocolate. So I would say, "Alex, I know that it's terribly difficult. Why don't you rest for a few minutes and then we'll go on." "Go away you maniac-psychopath. Why would you bring us to this goddamn place?" And I would say, "Relax, Alex. Here's a piece of chocolate." And Alex would go, "Arrrrggg!" Because you have to understand that on these rides we are constantly hungry -- and after the rides also.
And who is this guy, Alex, to begin with? He's a 17-year-old. When he was eight, someone put him on a boat in Odessa and sent him, shipped him to Israel on his own. And he ended up in south Tel Aviv and did not have the good luck to be picked up by a [unclear] and roamed the streets and became a prominent gang member. And he spent the last 10 years of his life in two places only, the slums and the state prison, where he spent the last two years before he ended up sitting on this rock there. And so this kid was probably abused, abandoned, ignored, betrayed by almost every adult along the way. So, for such a kid, when an adult that he learns to respect stays close to him and doesn't walk away from him in any situation, irrespective of how he behaves, it's a tremendous healing experience. It's an act of unconditional acceptance, something that he never had.
I want to say a few words about vision. When I started this program four years ago, I had this original plan of creating a team of winning underdogs. I had an image of Lance Armstrong in my mind. And it took me exactly two months of complete frustration to realize that this vision was misplaced, and that there was another vision supremely more important and more readily available. It all of a sudden dawned on me, in this project, that the purpose of these rides should actually be to expose the kids to one thing only: love. Love to the country, to the uphill and the downhill, to all the incredible creatures that surround us -- the animals, the plants, the insects -- love and respect to other fellow members in your team, in your biking team, and most importantly, love and respect to yourself, which is something that they badly miss.
Together with the kids, I also went through a remarkable transformation. Now, I come from a cutthroat world of science and high technology. I used to think that reason and logic and relentless drive were the only ways to make things happen. And before I worked with the kids, anything that I did with them, or anything that I did with myself, was supposed to be perfect, ideal, optimal, but after working with them for some time, I discovered the great virtues of empathy and flexibility and being able to start with some vision, and if the vision doesn't work, well nothing happened. All you have to do is play with it, change it a little bit, and come up with something that does help, that does work. So right now, I feel more like these are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
And one of these principles is focus. Before each ride we sit together with the kids, and we give them one word to think about during the ride. You have to focus their attention on something because so many things happen. So these are words like "teamwork" or "endurance" or even complicated concepts like "resource allocation" or "perspective," a word that they don't understand. You know, perspective is one of these critically important life-coping strategies that mountain biking can really teach you. I tell kids when they struggle through some uphill and feel like they cannot take it anymore, it really helps to ignore the immediate obstacles and raise your head and look around and see how the vista around you grows. It literally propels you upwards. That's what perspective is all about. Or you can also look back in time and realize that you've already conquered steeper mountains before. And that's how they develop self-esteem.
Now, let me give you an example of how it works. You stand with your bike at the beginning of February. It's very cold, and you're standing in one of these rainy days, and it's drizzling and cold and chilly, and you're standing in, let's say, Yokneam. And you look up at the sky through a hole in the clouds you see the monastery at the top of the Muhraka -- that's where you're supposed to climb now -- and you say, "There's no way that I could possibly get there." And yet, two hours later you find yourself standing on the roof of this monastery, smeared with mud, blood and sweat. And you look down at Yokneam; everything is so small and tiny. And you say, "Hey, Alex. Look at this parking lot where we started. It's that big. I can't believe that I did it." And that's the point when you start loving yourself.
And so we talked about these special words that we teach them. And at the end of each ride, we sit together and share moments in which those special words of the day popped up and made a difference, and these discussions can be extremely inspiring. In one of them, one of the kids once said, "When we were riding on this ridge overlooking the Dead Sea -- and he's talking about this spot here -- "I was reminded of the day when I left my village in Ethiopia and went away together with my brother. We walked 120 kilometers until we reached Sudan. This was the first place where we got some water and supplies." And he goes on saying, and everyone looks at him like a hero, probably for the first time in his life. And he says -- because I also have volunteers riding with me, adults, who are sitting there listening to him -- and he says, "And this was just the beginning of our ordeal until we ended up in Israel. And only now," he says, "I'm beginning to understand where I am, and I actually like it." Now I remember, when he said it, I felt goosebumps on my body, because he said it overlooking the Moab Mountains here in the background. That's where Joshua descended and crossed the Jordan and led the people of Israel into the land of Canaan 3,000 years ago in this final leg of the journey from Africa.
And so, perspective and context and history play key roles in the way I plan my rides with the kids. We visit Kibbutzim that were established by Holocaust survivors. We explore ruins of Palestinian villages, and we discuss how they became ruins. And we go through numerous remnants of Jewish settlements, Nabatic settlements, Canaanite settlements -- three-, four, five-thousand years old. And through this tapestry, which is the history of this country, the kids acquire what is probably the most important value in education, and that is the understanding that life is complex, and there's no black and white. And by appreciating complexity, they become more tolerant, and tolerance leads to hope.
I ride with these kids once a week, every Tuesday. Here's a picture I took last Tuesday -- less than a week ago -- and I ride with them tomorrow also. In every one of these rides I always end up standing in one of these incredible locations, taking in this incredible landscape around me, and I feel blessed and fortunate that I'm alive, and that I sense every fiber in my aching body. And I feel blessed and fortunate that 15 years ago I had the courage to resign my tenured position at NYU and return to my home country where I can do these incredible rides with this group of troubled kids coming from Ethiopia and Morocco and Russia. And I feel blessed and fortunate that every week, every Tuesday -- and actually every Friday also -- I can once again celebrate in the marrow of my bones the very essence of living in Israel on the edge.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Alright. I'm going to show you a couple of images from a very diverting paper in The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that it is the most diverting paper ever published in The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. The title is "Observations of In-Utero Masturbation."
(Laughter)
Okay. Now on the left you can see the hand -- that's the big arrow -- and the penis on the right. The hand hovering. And over here we have, in the words of radiologist Israel Meisner, "The hand grasping the penis in a fashion resembling masturbation movements." Bear in mind this was an ultrasound, so it would have been moving images.
Orgasm is a reflex of the autonomic nervous system. Now, this is the part of the nervous system that deals with the things that we don't consciously control, like digestion, heart rate and sexual arousal. And the orgasm reflex can be triggered by a surprisingly broad range of input. Genital stimulation. Duh. But also, Kinsey interviewed a woman who could be brought to orgasm by having someone stroke her eyebrow. People with spinal cord injuries, like paraplegias, quadriplegias, will often develop a very, very sensitive area right above the level of their injury, wherever that is. There is such a thing as a knee orgasm in the literature.
I think the most curious one that I came across was a case report of a woman who had an orgasm every time she brushed her teeth.
(Laughter)
Something in the complex sensory-motor action of brushing her teeth was triggering orgasm. And she went to a neurologist, who was fascinated. He checked to see if it was something in the toothpaste, but no -- it happened with any brand. They stimulated her gums with a toothpick, to see if that was doing it. No. It was the whole, you know, motion. And the amazing thing to me is that you would think this woman would have excellent oral hygiene.
(Laughter)
Sadly -- this is what it said in the journal paper -- "She believed that she was possessed by demons and switched to mouthwash for her oral care." It's so sad.
(Laughter)
When I was working on the book, I interviewed a woman who can think herself to orgasm. She was part of a study at Rutgers University. You've got to love that. Rutgers. So I interviewed her in Oakland, in a sushi restaurant. And I said, "So, could you do it right here?" And she said, "Yeah, but you know I'd rather finish my meal if you don't mind."
(Laughter)
But afterwards, she was kind enough to demonstrate on a bench outside. It was remarkable. It took about one minute. And I said to her, "Are you just doing this all the time?"
(Laughter)
She said, "No. Honestly, when I get home, I'm usually too tired."
(Laughter)
She said that the last time she had done it was on the Disneyland tram.
(Laughter)
The headquarters for orgasm, along the spinal nerve, is something called the sacral nerve root, which is back here. And if you trigger, if you stimulate with an electrode, the precise spot, you will trigger an orgasm. And it is a fact that you can trigger spinal reflexes in dead people -- a certain kind of dead person, a beating-heart cadaver. Now this is somebody who is brain-dead, legally dead, definitely checked out, but is being kept alive on a respirator, so that their organs will be oxygenated for transplantation. Now in one of these brain-dead people, if you trigger the right spot, you will see something every now and then. There is a reflex called the Lazarus reflex. And this is -- I'll demonstrate as best I can, not being dead. It's like this. You trigger the spot. The dead guy, or gal, goes... like that. Very unsettling for people working in pathology labs.
(Laughter)
Now, if you can trigger the Lazarus reflex in a dead person, why not the orgasm reflex? I asked this question to a brain death expert, Stephanie Mann, who was foolish enough to return my emails.
(Laughter)
I said, "So, could you conceivably trigger an orgasm in a dead person?" She said, "Yes, if the sacral nerve is being oxygenated, you conceivably could." Obviously it wouldn't be as much fun for the person. But it would be an orgasm --
(Laughter)
nonetheless.
There is a researcher at the University of Alabama who does orgasm research. I said to her, "You should do an experiment. You know? You can get cadavers if you work at a university." I said, "You should actually do this." She said, "You get the human subjects review board approval for this one."
(Laughter)
According to 1930s marriage manual author, Theodoor van De Velde, a slight seminal odor can be detected on the breath of a woman within about an hour after sexual intercourse. Theodoor van De Velde was something of a semen connoisseur.
(Laughter)
This is a guy writing a book, "Ideal Marriage," you know. Very heavy hetero guy. But he wrote in this book, "Ideal Marriage" -- he said that he could differentiate between the semen of a young man, which he said had a fresh, exhilarating smell, and the semen of mature men, whose semen smelled, quote, "Remarkably like that of the flowers of the Spanish chestnut. Sometimes quite freshly floral, and then again sometimes extremely pungent."
(Laughter)
Okay. In 1999, in the state of Israel, a man began hiccupping. And this was one of those cases that went on and on. He tried everything his friends suggested. Nothing seemed to help. Days went by. At a certain point, the man, still hiccupping, had sex with his wife. And lo and behold, the hiccups went away. He told his doctor, who published a case report in a Canadian medical journal under the title, "Sexual Intercourse as a Potential Treatment for Intractable Hiccups." I love this article because at a certain point they suggested that unattached hiccuppers could try masturbation.
(Laughter)
I love that because there is like a whole demographic: unattached hiccuppers.
(Laughter)
Married, single, unattached hiccupper. In the 1900s, early 1900s, a lot of gynecologists believed that when a woman has an orgasm, the contractions serve to suck the semen up through the cervix and sort of deliver it really quickly to the egg, thereby upping the odds of conception. It was called the "upsuck" theory.
(Laughter)
If you go all the way back to Hippocrates, physicians believed that orgasm in women was not just helpful for conception, but necessary. Doctors back then were routinely telling men the importance of pleasuring their wives. Marriage-manual author and semen-sniffer Theodoor van De Velde --
(Laughter)
has a line in his book. I loved this guy. I got a lot of mileage out of Theodoor van De Velde. He had this line in his book that supposedly comes from the Habsburg Monarchy, where there was an empress Maria Theresa, who was having trouble conceiving. And apparently the royal court physician said to her, "I am of the opinion that the vulva of your most sacred majesty be titillated for some time prior to intercourse."
(Laughter)
It's apparently, I don't know, on the record somewhere.
Masters and Johnson: now we're moving forward to the 1950s. Masters and Johnson were upsuck skeptics, which is also really fun to say. They didn't buy it. And they decided, being Masters and Johnson, that they would get to the bottom of it. They brought women into the lab -- I think it was five women -- and outfitted them with cervical caps containing artificial semen. And in the artificial semen was a radio-opaque substance, such that it would show up on an X-ray. This is the 1950s. Anyway, these women sat in front of an X-ray device. And they masturbated. And Masters and Johnson looked to see if the semen was being sucked up. Did not find any evidence of upsuck. You may be wondering, "How do you make artificial semen?"
(Laughter)
I have an answer for you. I have two answers. You can use flour and water, or cornstarch and water. I actually found three separate recipes in the literature.
(Laughter)
My favorite being the one that says -- you know, they have the ingredients listed, and then in a recipe it will say, for example, "Yield: two dozen cupcakes." This one said, "Yield: one ejaculate."
(Laughter)
There's another way that orgasm might boost fertility. This one involves men. Sperm that sit around in the body for a week or more start to develop abnormalities that make them less effective at head-banging their way into the egg. British sexologist Roy Levin has speculated that this is perhaps why men evolved to be such enthusiastic and frequent masturbators. He said, "If I keep tossing myself off I get fresh sperm being made." Which I thought was an interesting idea, theory. So now you have an evolutionary excuse.
(Laughter)
Okay.
(Laughter)
All righty. There is considerable evidence for upsuck in the animal kingdom -- pigs, for instance. In Denmark, the Danish National Committee for Pig Production found out that if you sexually stimulate a sow while you artificially inseminate her, you will see a six-percent increase in the farrowing rate, which is the number of piglets produced. So they came up with this five-point stimulation plan for the sows. There is posters they put in the barn, and they have a DVD. And I got a copy of this DVD.
(Laughter)
This is my unveiling, because I am going to show you a clip.
(Laughter)
So, okay. Now, here we go, la la la, off to work. It all looks very innocent. He's going to be doing things with his hands that the boar would use his snout, lacking hands. Okay.
(Laughter)
This is it. The boar has a very odd courtship repertoire.
(Laughter)
This is to mimic the weight of the boar.
(Laughter)
You should know, the clitoris of the pig is inside the vagina. So this may be sort of titillating for her. Here we go.
(Laughter)
And the happy result.
(Applause)
I love this video. There is a point in this video, towards the beginning, where they zoom in for a close up of his hand with his wedding ring, as if to say, "It's okay, it's just his job. He really does like women."
(Laughter)
Okay. When I was in Denmark, my host was named Anne Marie. And I said, "So why don't you just stimulate the clitoris of the pig? Why don't you have the farmers do that? That's not one of your five steps." I have to read you what she said, because I love it. She said, "It was a big hurdle just to get farmers to touch underneath the vulva. So we thought, let's not mention the clitoris right now."
(Laughter)
Shy but ambitious pig farmers, however, can purchase a -- this is true -- a sow vibrator, that hangs on the sperm feeder tube to vibrate. Because, as I mentioned, the clitoris is inside the vagina. So possibly, you know, a little more arousing than it looks. And I also said to her, "Now, these sows. I mean, you may have noticed there. The sow doesn't look to be in the throes of ecstasy." And she said, you can't make that conclusion, because animals don't register pain or pleasure on their faces in the same way that we do. Pigs, for example, are more like dogs. They use the upper half of the face; the ears are very expressive. So you're not really sure what's going on with the pig.
Primates, on the other hand, we use our mouths more. This is the ejaculation face of the stump-tailed macaque.
(Laughter)
And, interestingly, this has been observed in female macaques, but only when mounting another female.
(Laughter)
Masters and Johnson. In the 1950s, they decided, okay, we're going to figure out the entire human sexual response cycle, from arousal, all the way through orgasm, in men and women -- everything that happens in the human body. Okay, with women, a lot of this is happening inside. This did not stop Masters and Johnson. They developed an artificial coition machine. This is basically a penis camera on a motor. There is a phallus, clear acrylic phallus, with a camera and a light source, attached to a motor that is kind of going like this. And the woman would have sex with it. That is what they would do. Pretty amazing. Sadly, this device has been dismantled. This just kills me, not because I wanted to use it -- I wanted to see it.
(Laughter)
One fine day, Alfred Kinsey decided to calculate the average distance traveled by ejaculated semen. This was not idle curiosity. Doctor Kinsey had heard -- and there was a theory going around at the time, this being the 1940s -- that the force with which semen is thrown against the cervix was a factor in fertility. Kinsey thought it was bunk, so he got to work. He got together in his lab 300 men, a measuring tape, and a movie camera.
(Laughter)
And in fact, he found that in three quarters of the men the stuff just kind of slopped out. It wasn't spurted or thrown or ejected under great force. However, the record holder landed just shy of the eight-foot mark, which is impressive.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
Yes. Exactly.
(Laughter)
Sadly, he's anonymous. His name is not mentioned.
(Laughter)
In his write-up of this experiment in his book, Kinsey wrote, "Two sheets were laid down to protect the oriental carpets."
(Laughter)
Which is my second favorite line in the entire oeuvre of Alfred Kinsey. My favorite being, "Cheese crumbs spread before a pair of copulating rats will distract the female, but not the male."
(Laughter)
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Thanks! |
Seventy-thousand years ago, our ancestors were insignificant animals. The most important thing to know about prehistoric humans is that they were unimportant. Their impact on the world was not much greater than that of jellyfish or fireflies or woodpeckers. Today, in contrast, we control this planet. And the question is: How did we come from there to here? How did we turn ourselves from insignificant apes, minding their own business in a corner of Africa, into the rulers of planet Earth?
Usually, we look for the difference between us and all the other animals on the individual level. We want to believe -- I want to believe -- that there is something special about me, about my body, about my brain, that makes me so superior to a dog or a pig, or a chimpanzee. But the truth is that, on the individual level, I'm embarrassingly similar to a chimpanzee. And if you take me and a chimpanzee and put us together on some lonely island, and we had to struggle for survival to see who survives better, I would definitely place my bet on the chimpanzee, not on myself. And this is not something wrong with me personally. I guess if they took almost any one of you, and placed you alone with a chimpanzee on some island, the chimpanzee would do much better.
The real difference between humans and all other animals is not on the individual level; it's on the collective level. Humans control the planet because they are the only animals that can cooperate both flexibly and in very large numbers. Now, there are other animals -- like the social insects, the bees, the ants -- that can cooperate in large numbers, but they don't do so flexibly. Their cooperation is very rigid. There is basically just one way in which a beehive can function. And if there's a new opportunity or a new danger, the bees cannot reinvent the social system overnight. They cannot, for example, execute the queen and establish a republic of bees, or a communist dictatorship of worker bees.
Other animals, like the social mammals -- the wolves, the elephants, the dolphins, the chimpanzees -- they can cooperate much more flexibly, but they do so only in small numbers, because cooperation among chimpanzees is based on intimate knowledge, one of the other. I'm a chimpanzee and you're a chimpanzee, and I want to cooperate with you. I need to know you personally. What kind of chimpanzee are you? Are you a nice chimpanzee? Are you an evil chimpanzee? Are you trustworthy? If I don't know you, how can I cooperate with you?
The only animal that can combine the two abilities together and cooperate both flexibly and still do so in very large numbers is us, Homo sapiens. One versus one, or even 10 versus 10, chimpanzees might be better than us. But, if you pit 1,000 humans against 1,000 chimpanzees, the humans will win easily, for the simple reason that a thousand chimpanzees cannot cooperate at all. And if you now try to cram 100,000 chimpanzees into Oxford Street, or into Wembley Stadium, or Tienanmen Square or the Vatican, you will get chaos, complete chaos. Just imagine Wembley Stadium with 100,000 chimpanzees. Complete madness.
In contrast, humans normally gather there in tens of thousands, and what we get is not chaos, usually. What we get is extremely sophisticated and effective networks of cooperation. All the huge achievements of humankind throughout history, whether it's building the pyramids or flying to the moon, have been based not on individual abilities, but on this ability to cooperate flexibly in large numbers.
Think even about this very talk that I'm giving now: I'm standing here in front of an audience of about 300 or 400 people, most of you are complete strangers to me. Similarly, I don't really know all the people who have organized and worked on this event. I don't know the pilot and the crew members of the plane that brought me over here, yesterday, to London. I don't know the people who invented and manufactured this microphone and these cameras, which are recording what I'm saying. I don't know the people who wrote all the books and articles that I read in preparation for this talk. And I certainly don't know all the people who might be watching this talk over the Internet, somewhere in Buenos Aires or in New Delhi.
Nevertheless, even though we don't know each other, we can work together to create this global exchange of ideas. This is something chimpanzees cannot do. They communicate, of course, but you will never catch a chimpanzee traveling to some distant chimpanzee band to give them a talk about bananas or about elephants, or anything else that might interest chimpanzees. Now cooperation is, of course, not always nice; all the horrible things humans have been doing throughout history -- and we have been doing some very horrible things -- all those things are also based on large-scale cooperation. Prisons are a system of cooperation; slaughterhouses are a system of cooperation; concentration camps are a system of cooperation. Chimpanzees don't have slaughterhouses and prisons and concentration camps.
Now suppose I've managed to convince you perhaps that yes, we control the world because we can cooperate flexibly in large numbers. The next question that immediately arises in the mind of an inquisitive listener is: How, exactly, do we do it? What enables us alone, of all the animals, to cooperate in such a way? The answer is our imagination. We can cooperate flexibly with countless numbers of strangers, because we alone, of all the animals on the planet, can create and believe fictions, fictional stories. And as long as everybody believes in the same fiction, everybody obeys and follows the same rules, the same norms, the same values.
All other animals use their communication system only to describe reality. A chimpanzee may say, "Look! There's a lion, let's run away!" Or, "Look! There's a banana tree over there! Let's go and get bananas!" Humans, in contrast, use their language not merely to describe reality, but also to create new realities, fictional realities. A human can say, "Look, there is a god above the clouds! And if you don't do what I tell you to do, when you die, God will punish you and send you to hell." And if you all believe this story that I've invented, then you will follow the same norms and laws and values, and you can cooperate. This is something only humans can do. You can never convince a chimpanzee to give you a banana by promising him, "... after you die, you'll go to chimpanzee heaven ..." (Laughter) "... and you'll receive lots and lots of bananas for your good deeds. So now give me this banana." No chimpanzee will ever believe such a story. Only humans believe such stories, which is why we control the world, whereas the chimpanzees are locked up in zoos and research laboratories.
Now you may find it acceptable that yes, in the religious field, humans cooperate by believing in the same fictions. Millions of people come together to build a cathedral or a mosque or fight in a crusade or a jihad, because they all believe in the same stories about God and heaven and hell. But what I want to emphasize is that exactly the same mechanism underlies all other forms of mass-scale human cooperation, not only in the religious field.
Take, for example, the legal field. Most legal systems today in the world are based on a belief in human rights. But what are human rights? Human rights, just like God and heaven, are just a story that we've invented. They are not an objective reality; they are not some biological effect about homo sapiens. Take a human being, cut him open, look inside, you will find the heart, the kidneys, neurons, hormones, DNA, but you won't find any rights. The only place you find rights are in the stories that we have invented and spread around over the last few centuries. They may be very positive stories, very good stories, but they're still just fictional stories that we've invented.
The same is true of the political field. The most important factors in modern politics are states and nations. But what are states and nations? They are not an objective reality. A mountain is an objective reality. You can see it, you can touch it, you can ever smell it. But a nation or a state, like Israel or Iran or France or Germany, this is just a story that we've invented and became extremely attached to.
The same is true of the economic field. The most important actors today in the global economy are companies and corporations. Many of you today, perhaps, work for a corporation, like Google or Toyota or McDonald's. What exactly are these things? They are what lawyers call legal fictions. They are stories invented and maintained by the powerful wizards we call lawyers. (Laughter) And what do corporations do all day? Mostly, they try to make money. Yet, what is money? Again, money is not an objective reality; it has no objective value. Take this green piece of paper, the dollar bill. Look at it -- it has no value. You cannot eat it, you cannot drink it, you cannot wear it. But then came along these master storytellers -- the big bankers, the finance ministers, the prime ministers -- and they tell us a very convincing story: "Look, you see this green piece of paper? It is actually worth 10 bananas." And if I believe it, and you believe it, and everybody believes it, it actually works. I can take this worthless piece of paper, go to the supermarket, give it to a complete stranger whom I've never met before, and get, in exchange, real bananas which I can actually eat. This is something amazing. You could never do it with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees trade, of course: "Yes, you give me a coconut, I'll give you a banana." That can work. But, you give me a worthless piece of paper and you except me to give you a banana? No way! What do you think I am, a human? (Laughter)
Money, in fact, is the most successful story ever invented and told by humans, because it is the only story everybody believes. Not everybody believes in God, not everybody believes in human rights, not everybody believes in nationalism, but everybody believes in money, and in the dollar bill. Take, even, Osama Bin Laden. He hated American politics and American religion and American culture, but he had no objection to American dollars. He was quite fond of them, actually. (Laughter)
To conclude, then: We humans control the world because we live in a dual reality. All other animals live in an objective reality. Their reality consists of objective entities, like rivers and trees and lions and elephants. We humans, we also live in an objective reality. In our world, too, there are rivers and trees and lions and elephants. But over the centuries, we have constructed on top of this objective reality a second layer of fictional reality, a reality made of fictional entities, like nations, like gods, like money, like corporations. And what is amazing is that as history unfolded, this fictional reality became more and more powerful so that today, the most powerful forces in the world are these fictional entities. Today, the very survival of rivers and trees and lions and elephants depends on the decisions and wishes of fictional entities, like the United States, like Google, like the World Bank -- entities that exist only in our own imagination.
Thank you. (Applause)
Bruno Giussani: Yuval, you have a new book out. After Sapiens, you wrote another one, and it's out in Hebrew, but not yet translated into ...
Yuval Noah Harari: I'm working on the translation as we speak.
BG: In the book, if I understand it correctly, you argue that the amazing breakthroughs that we are experiencing right now not only will potentially make our lives better, but they will create -- and I quote you -- "... new classes and new class struggles, just as the industrial revolution did." Can you elaborate for us?
YNH: Yes. In the industrial revolution, we saw the creation of a new class of the urban proletariat. And much of the political and social history of the last 200 years involved what to do with this class, and the new problems and opportunities. Now, we see the creation of a new massive class of useless people. (Laughter) As computers become better and better in more and more fields, there is a distinct possibility that computers will out-perform us in most tasks and will make humans redundant. And then the big political and economic question of the 21st century will be, "What do we need humans for?", or at least, "What do we need so many humans for?"
BG: Do you have an answer in the book?
YNH: At present, the best guess we have is to keep them happy with drugs and computer games ... (Laughter) but this doesn't sound like a very appealing future.
BG: Ok, so you're basically saying in the book and now, that for all the discussion about the growing evidence of significant economic inequality, we are just kind of at the beginning of the process?
YNH: Again, it's not a prophecy; it's seeing all kinds of possibilities before us. One possibility is this creation of a new massive class of useless people. Another possibility is the division of humankind into different biological castes, with the rich being upgraded into virtual gods, and the poor being degraded to this level of useless people.
BG: I feel there is another TED talk coming up in a year or two. Thank you, Yuval, for making the trip.
YNH: Thanks! (Applause) |
Democracy is in trouble, no question about that, and it comes in part from a deep dilemma in which it is embedded. It's increasingly irrelevant to the kinds of decisions we face that have to do with global pandemics, a cross-border problem; with HIV, a transnational problem; with markets and immigration, something that goes beyond national borders; with terrorism, with war, all now cross-border problems.
In fact, we live in a 21st-century world of interdependence, and brutal interdependent problems, and when we look for solutions in politics and in democracy, we are faced with political institutions designed 400 years ago, autonomous, sovereign nation-states with jurisdictions and territories separate from one another, each claiming to be able to solve the problem of its own people. Twenty-first-century, transnational world of problems and challenges, 17th-century world of political institutions. In that dilemma lies the central problem of democracy. And like many others, I've been thinking about what can one do about this, this asymmetry between 21st-century challenges and archaic and increasingly dysfunctional political institutions like nation-states.
And my suggestion is that we change the subject, that we stop talking about nations, about bordered states, and we start talking about cities. Because I think you will find, when we talk about cities, we are talking about the political institutions in which civilization and culture were born. We are talking about the cradle of democracy.
We are talking about the venues in which those public spaces where we come together to create democracy, and at the same time protest those who would take our freedom, take place. Think of some great names: the Place de la Bastille, Zuccotti Park, Tahrir Square, Taksim Square in today's headlines in Istanbul, or, yes, Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
(Applause)
Those are the public spaces where we announce ourselves as citizens, as participants, as people with the right to write our own narratives. Cities are not only the oldest of institutions, they're the most enduring. If you think about it, Constantinople, Istanbul, much older than Turkey. Alexandria, much older than Egypt. Rome, far older than Italy. Cities endure the ages. They are the places where we are born, grow up, are educated, work, marry, pray, play, get old, and in time, die. They are home. Very different than nation-states, which are abstractions. We pay taxes, we vote occasionally, we watch the men and women we choose rule rule more or less without us. Not so in those homes known as our towns and cities where we live. Moreover, today, more than half of the world's population live in cities. In the developed world, it's about 78 percent. More than three out of four people live in urban institutions, urban places, in cities today. So cities are where the action is. Cities are us. Aristotle said in the ancient world, man is a political animal. I say we are an urban animal. We are an urban species, at home in our cities. So to come back to the dilemma, if the dilemma is we have old-fashioned political nation-states unable to govern the world, respond to the global challenges that we face like climate change, then maybe it's time for mayors to rule the world, for mayors and the citizens and the peoples they represent to engage in global governance.
When I say if mayors ruled the world, when I first came up with that phrase, it occurred to me that actually, they already do. There are scores of international, inter-city, cross-border institutions, networks of cities in which cities are already, quite quietly, below the horizon, working together to deal with climate change, to deal with security, to deal with immigration, to deal with all of those tough, interdependent problems that we face. They have strange names: UCLG, United Cities and Local Governments; ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Issues. And the list goes on: Citynet in Asia; City Protocol, a new organization out of Barcelona that is using the web to share best practices among countries. And then all the things we know a little better, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Mexican Conference of Mayors, the European Conference of Mayors. Mayors are where this is happening.
And so the question is, how can we create a world in which mayors and the citizens they represent play a more prominent role? Well, to understand that, we need to understand why cities are special, why mayors are so different than prime ministers and presidents, because my premise is that a mayor and a prime minister are at the opposite ends of a political spectrum. To be a prime minister or a president, you have to have an ideology, you have to have a meta-narrative, you have to have a theory of how things work, you have to belong to a party. Independents, on the whole, don't get elected to office. But mayors are just the opposite. Mayors are pragmatists, they're problem-solvers. Their job is to get things done, and if they don't, they're out of a job. Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia said, we could never get away here in Philadelphia with the stuff that goes on in Washington, the paralysis, the non-action, the inaction. Why? Because potholes have to get filled, because the trains have to run, because kids have to be able to get to school. And that's what we have to do, and to do that is about pragmatism in that deep, American sense, reaching outcomes. Washington, Beijing, Paris, as world capitals, are anything but pragmatic, but real city mayors have to be pragmatists. They have to get things done, they have to put ideology and religion and ethnicity aside and draw their cities together. We saw this a couple of decades ago when Teddy Kollek, the great mayor of Jerusalem in the '80s and the '90s, was besieged one day in his office by religious leaders from all of the backgrounds, Christian prelates, rabbis, imams. They were arguing with one another about access to the holy sites. And the squabble went on and on, and Kollek listened and listened, and he finally said, "Gentlemen, spare me your sermons, and I will fix your sewers."
(Laughter)
That's what mayors do. They fix sewers, they get the trains running. There isn't a left or a right way of doing. Boris Johnson in London calls himself an anarcho-Tory. Strange term, but in some ways, he is. He's a libertarian. He's an anarchist. He rides to work on a bike, but at the same time, he's in some ways a conservative. Bloomberg in New York was a Democrat, then he was a Republican, and finally he was an Independent, and said the party label just gets in the way. Luzhkov, 20 years mayor in Moscow, though he helped found a party, United Party with Putin, in fact refused to be defined by the party and finally, in fact, lost his job not under Brezhnev, not under Gorbachev, but under Putin, who wanted a more faithful party follower. So mayors are pragmatists and problem-solvers. They get things done.
But the second thing about mayors is they are also what I like to call homeboys, or to include the women mayors, homies. They're from the neighborhood. They're part of the neighborhood. They're known. Ed Koch used to wander around New York City saying, "How am I doing?" Imagine David Cameron wandering around the United Kingdom asking, "How am I doing?" He wouldn't like the answer. Or Putin. Or any national leader. He could ask that because he knew New Yorkers and they knew him. Mayors are usually from the places they govern. It's pretty hard to be a carpetbagger and be a mayor. You can run for the Senate out of a different state, but it's hard to do that as a mayor.
And as a result, mayors and city councillors and local authorities have a much higher trust level, and this is the third feature about mayors, than national governing officials. In the United States, we know the pathetic figures: 18 percent of Americans approve of Congress and what they do. And even with a relatively popular president like Obama, the figures for the Presidency run about 40, 45, sometimes 50 percent at best. The Supreme Court has fallen way down from what it used to be. But when you ask, "Do you trust your city councillor, do you trust your mayor?" the rates shoot up to 70, 75, even 80 percent, because they're from the neighborhood, because the people they work with are their neighbors, because, like Mayor Booker in Newark, a mayor is likely to get out of his car on the way to work and go in and pull people out of a burning building -- that happened to Mayor Booker -- or intervene in a mugging in the street as he goes to work because he sees it. No head of state would be permitted by their security details to do it, nor be in a position to do it.
That's the difference, and the difference has to do with the character of cities themselves, because cities are profoundly multicultural, open, participatory, democratic, able to work with one another.
When states face each other, China and the U.S., they face each other like this. When cities interact, they interact like this. China and the U.S., despite the recent meta-meeting in California, are locked in all kinds of anger, resentment, and rivalry for number one. We heard more about who will be number one. Cities don't worry about number one. They have to work together, and they do work together. They work together in climate change, for example. Organizations like the C40, like ICLEI, which I mentioned, have been working together many, many years before Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, four or five years ago, 184 nations came together to explain to one another why their sovereignty didn't permit them to deal with the grave, grave crisis of climate change, but the mayor of Copenhagen had invited 200 mayors to attend. They came, they stayed, and they found ways and are still finding ways to work together, city-to-city, and through inter-city organizations. Eighty percent of carbon emissions come from cities, which means cities are in a position to solve the carbon problem, or most of it, whether or not the states of which they are a part make agreements with one another. And they are doing it. Los Angeles cleaned up its port, which was 40 percent of carbon emissions, and as a result got rid of about 20 percent of carbon. New York has a program to upgrade its old buildings, make them better insulated in the winter, to not leak energy in the summer, not leak air conditioning. That's having an impact. Bogota, where Mayor Mockus, when he was mayor, he introduced a transportation system that saved energy, that allowed surface buses to run in effect like subways, express buses with corridors. It helped unemployment, because people could get across town, and it had a profound impact on climate as well as many other things there. Singapore, as it developed its high-rises and its remarkable public housing, also developed an island of parks, and if you go there, you'll see how much of it is green land and park land. Cities are doing this, but not just one by one. They are doing it together. They are sharing what they do, and they are making a difference by shared best practices. Bike shares, many of you have heard of it, started 20 or 30 years ago in Latin America. Now it's in hundreds of cities around the world. Pedestrian zones, congestion fees, emission limits in cities like California cities have, there's lots and lots that cities can do even when opaque, stubborn nations refuse to act.
So what's the bottom line here? The bottom line is, we still live politically in a world of borders, a world of boundaries, a world of walls, a world where states refuse to act together. Yet we know that the reality we experience day to day is a world without borders, a world of diseases without borders and doctors without borders, maladies sans frontières, Médecins Sans Frontières, of economics and technology without borders, of education without borders, of terrorism and war without borders. That is the real world, and unless we find a way to globalize democracy or democratize globalization, we will increasingly not only risk the failure to address all of these transnational problems, but we will risk losing democracy itself, locked up in the old nation-state box, unable to address global problems democratically.
So where does that leave us? I'll tell you. The road to global democracy doesn't run through states. It runs through cities. Democracy was born in the ancient polis. I believe it can be reborn in the global cosmopolis. In that journey from polis to cosmopolis, we can rediscover the power of democracy on a global level. We can create not a League of Nations, which failed, but a League of Cities, not a United or a dis-United Nations, but United Cities of the World. We can create a global parliament of mayors. That's an idea. It's in my conception of the coming world, but it's also on the table in City Halls in Seoul, Korea, in Amsterdam, in Hamburg, and in New York. Mayors are considering that idea of how you can actually constitute a global parliament of mayors, and I love that idea, because a parliament of mayors is a parliament of citizens and a parliament of citizens is a parliament of us, of you and of me.
If ever there were citizens without borders, I think it's the citizens of TED who show the promise to be those citizens without borders. I am ready to reach out and embrace a new global democracy, to take back our democracy. And the only question is, are you?
Thank you so much, my fellow citizens.
(Applause)
Thank you. (Applause) |
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Art Benjamin, and I am a "mathemagician." What that means is, I combine my loves of math and magic to do something I call "mathemagics."
But before I get started, I have a quick question for the audience. By any chance, did anyone happen to bring with them this morning a calculator? Seriously, if you have a calculator with you, raise your hand. Raise your hand. Did your hand go up? Now bring it out, bring it out. Anybody else? I see, I see one way in the back. You sir, that's three. And anybody on this side here? OK, over there on the aisle. Would the four of you please bring out your calculators, then join me up on stage. Let's give them a nice round of applause.
(Applause)
That's right. Now, since I haven't had the chance to work with these calculators, I need to make sure that they are all working properly. Would somebody get us started by giving us a two-digit number, please? How about a two-digit number?
Audience: 22.
AB: 22. And another two-digit number, sir?
Audience: 47.
AB: Multiply 22 times 47, make sure you get 1,034, or the calculators are not working. Do all of you get 1,034? 1,034?
Volunteer: No.
AB: 594. Let's give three of them a nice round of applause there.
(Applause)
Would you like to try a more standard calculator, just in case? OK, great. What I'm going to try and do then -- I notice it took some of you a little bit of time to get your answer. That's OK. I'll give you a shortcut for multiplying even faster on the calculator. There is something called the square of a number, which most of you know is taking a number and multiplying it by itself. For instance, five squared would be?
Audience: 25.
AB: 25. The way we can square on most calculators -- let me demonstrate with this one -- is by taking the number, such as five, hitting "times" and then "equals," and on most calculators that will give you the square. On some of these ancient RPN calculators, you've got an "x squared" button on it, will allow you to do the calculation even faster. What I'm going to try and do now is to square, in my head, four two-digit numbers faster than they can do on their calculators, even using the shortcut method. What I'll use is the second row this time, and I'll get four of you to each yell out a two-digit number, and if you would square the first number, and if you would square the second, the third and the fourth, I will try and race you to the answer. OK? So quickly, a two-digit number please.
Audience: 37.
Arthur Benjamin: 37 squared, OK.
Audience: 23.
AB: 23 squared, OK.
Audience: 59.
AB: 59 squared, OK, and finally?
Audience: 93.
AB: 93 squared. Would you call out your answers, please?
Volunteer: 1369. AB: 1369.
Volunteer: 529. AB: 529.
Volunteer: 3481. AB: 3481.
Volunteer: 8649.
AB: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Let me try to take this one step further. I'm going to try to square some three-digit numbers this time. I won't even write these down -- I'll just call them out as they're called out to me. Anyone I point to, call out a three-digit number. Anyone on our panel, verify the answer. Just give some indication if it's right. A three-digit number, sir, yes?
Audience: 987.
AB: 987 squared is 974,169.
(Laughter)
AB: Yes? Good. Another three-digit --
(Applause) -- another three-digit number, sir?
Audience: 457.
AB: 457 squared is 205,849. 205,849? AB: Yes? OK, another, another three-digit number, sir?
Audience: 321.
AB: 321 is 103,041. 103,041. Yes? One more three-digit number please.
Audience: Oh, 722.
AB: 722 is 500, that's a harder one. Is that 513,284?
Volunteer: Yes.
AB: Yes? Oh, one more, one more three-digit number please.
Audience: 162. 162 squared is 26,244.
Volunteer: Yes.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
(Applause ends)
Let me try to take this one step further.
(Laughter)
I'm going to try to square a four-digit number this time. You can all take your time on this; I will not beat you to the answer on this one, but I will try to get the answer right. To make this a little bit more random, let's take the fourth row this time, let's say, one, two, three, four. If each of you would call out a single digit between zero and nine, that will be the four-digit number that I'll square.
Nine.
Seven.
Five.
Eight. 9,758, this will take me a little bit of time, so bear with me. 95 million --
(Sighs) 218,564?
Volunteer: Yes!
AB: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
(Applause ends)
Now, I would attempt to square a five-digit number -- and I can -- but unfortunately, most calculators cannot.
(Laughter)
Eight-digit capacity -- don't you hate that? So, since we've reached the limits of our calculators -- what's that? Does yours go higher?
Volunteer: I don't know.
AB: Oh, yours does?
Volunteer: I can probably do it. AB: I'll talk to you later. In the meanwhile, let me conclude the first part of my show by doing something a little trickier. Let's take the largest number on the board here, 8649. Would you each enter that on your calculator? And instead of squaring it this time, I want you to take that number and multiply it by any three-digit number that you want, but don't tell me what you're multiplying by -- just multiply it by any random three-digit number. So you should have as an answer either a six-digit or probably a seven-digit number. How many digits do you have, six or seven?
Seven, and yours?
Seven? Seven? And, uncertain.
Seven. Is there any possible way that I could know what seven-digit numbers you have? Say "No."
(Laughter)
Good, then I shall attempt the impossible -- or at least the improbable. What I'd like each of you to do is to call out for me any six of your seven digits, any six of them, in any order you'd like.
(Laughter)
One digit at a time, I shall try and determine the digit you've left out. Starting with your seven-digit number, call out any six of them please.
Volunteer: 1, 9, 7, 0, 4, 2.
AB: Did you leave out the number 6?
Good, OK, that's one. You have a seven-digit number, call out any six of them please.
Volunteer: 4, 4, 8, 7, 5.
I think I only heard five numbers. I -- wait -- 44875 -- did you leave out the number 6?
Same as she did, OK. You've got a seven-digit number -- call out any six of them loud and clear.
Volunteer: 0, 7, 9, 0, 4, 4.
I think you left out the number 3?
AB: That's three. The odds of me getting all four of these right by random guessing would be one in 10,000: 10 to the fourth power. OK, any six of them.
(Laughter)
Really scramble them up this time, please.
Volunteer: 2, 6, 3, 9, 7, 2.
Did you leave out the number 7? And let's give all four of these people a nice round of applause. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
(Applause ends) For my next number --
(Laughter)
while I mentally recharge my batteries, I have one more question for the audience. By any chance, does anybody here happen to know the day of the week that they were born on? If you think you know your birth day, raise your hand. Let's see, starting with -- let's start with a gentleman first. What year was it, first of all? That's why I pick a gentleman first.
Audience: 1953.
1953, and the month? November what? 23rd -- was that a Monday?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Somebody else? I haven't seen any women's hands up. OK, how about you, what year? 1949, and the month? October what? Fifth -- was that a Wednesday? Yes! I'll go way to the back right now, how about you? Yell it out, what year?
Audience: 1959.
1959, OK -- and the month?
Audience: February. February what?
Sixth -- was that a Friday? Audience: Yes.
Good, how about the person behind her? Call out, what year was it?
Audience: 1947. AB: 1947, and the month?
Audience: May. AB: May what?
Seventh -- would that be a Wednesday?
Audience: Yes. AB: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Anybody here who'd like to know the day of the week they were born? We can do it that way. Of course, I could just make up an answer and you wouldn't know, so I come prepared for that. I brought with me a book of calendars. It goes as far back into the past as 1800, because you never know.
(Laughter)
I didn't mean to look at you, sir -- you were just sitting there.
(Laughter)
Anyway, Chris, you can help me out here, if you wouldn't mind. This is a book of calendars. Who wanted to know their birth day? What year was it, first of all?
Audience: 1966.
66 -- turn to the calendar with 1966. And what month?
Audience: April. AB: April what?
Audience: 17th.
I believe that was a Sunday. Can you confirm, Chris?
Chris Anderson: Yes.
AB: I'll tell you what, Chris: as long as you have that book in front of you, do me a favor, turn to a year outside of the 1900s, either into the 1800s or way into the 2000s -- that'll be a much greater challenge for me. AB: What year would you like? CA: 1824.
AB: 1824, OK. AB: And what month?
CA: June.
AB: June what? CA: Sixth.
AB: Was that a Sunday?
CA: It was. AB: And it was cloudy.
(Laughter)
Good, thank you very much.
(Applause)
(Applause ends)
But I'd like to wrap things up now by alluding to something from earlier in the presentation. There was a gentleman up here who had a 10-digit calculator. Where is he, would you stand up, 10-digit guy? OK, stand up for me just for a second, so I can see where you are. You have a 10-digit calculator, sir, as well? OK, what I'm going to try and do, is to square in my head a five-digit number requiring a 10-digit calculator. But to make my job more interesting for you, as well as for me, I'm going to do this problem thinking out loud. So you can actually, honestly hear what's going on in my mind while I do a calculation of this size.
Now, I have to apologize to our magician friend Lennart Green. I know as a magician we're not supposed to reveal our secrets, but I'm not too afraid that people are going to start doing my show next week, so -- I think we're OK.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
So, let's see, let's take a different row of people, starting with you. I'll get five digits: one, two, three, four. Oh, I did this row already. Let's do the row before you, starting with you: one, two, three, four, five. Call out a single digit -- that will be the five-digit number that I will try to square, go ahead.
Five.
Seven.
Six.
Eight.
Three. 57,683 -- squared. Yuck.
Let me explain to you how I'm going to attempt this problem. I'm going to break the problem down into three parts. I'll do 57,000 squared, plus 683 squared, plus 57,000 times 683 times two. Add all those numbers together, and with any luck, arrive at the answer. Now, let me recap.
(Laughter)
Thank you.
(Laughter)
While I explain something else --
(Laughter)
-- I know, that you can use, right?
(Laughter)
While I do these calculations, you might hear certain words, as opposed to numbers, creep into the calculation. Let me explain what that is. This is a phonetic code, a mnemonic device that I use, that allows me to convert numbers into words. I store them as words, and later on retrieve them as numbers. I know it sounds complicated; it's not. I don't want you to think you're seeing something out of "Rain Man."
(Laughter)
There's definitely a method to my madness -- definitely, definitely. Sorry.
(Laughter)
If you want to talk to me about ADHD afterwards, you can talk to me then. By the way, one last instruction, for my judges with the calculators -- you know who you are -- there is at least a 50 percent chance that I will make a mistake here. If I do, don't tell me what the mistake is; just say, "you're close," or something like that, and I'll try and figure out the answer -- which could be pretty entertaining in itself. If, however, I am right, whatever you do, don't keep it to yourself, OK?
(Laughter)
Make sure everybody knows that I got the answer right, because this is my big finish, OK. So, without any more stalling, here we go. I'll start the problem in the middle, with 57 times 683. 57 times 68 is 3,400, plus 476 is 3876, that's 38,760 plus 171, 38,760 plus 171 is 38,931. 38,931; double that to get 77,862. 77,862 becomes cookie fission, cookie fission is 77,822. That seems right, I'll go on. Cookie fission, OK. Next, I do 57 squared, which is 3,249, so I can say, three billion. Take the 249, add that to cookie, 249, oops, but I see a carry coming -- 249 -- add that to cookie, 250 plus 77, is 327 million -- fission, fission, OK, finally, we do 683 squared, that's 700 times 666, plus 17 squared is 466,489, rev up if I need it, rev up, take the 466, add that to fission, to get, oh gee -- 328,489.
Audience: Yeah! AB: Good.
Thank you very much.
(Applause) I hope you enjoyed mathemagics.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Good morning. I'm here today to talk about autonomous flying beach balls.
(Laughter)
No, agile aerial robots like this one. I'd like to tell you a little bit about the challenges in building these, and some of the terrific opportunities for applying this technology. So these robots are related to unmanned aerial vehicles. However, the vehicles you see here are big. They weigh thousands of pounds, are not by any means agile. They're not even autonomous. In fact, many of these vehicles are operated by flight crews that can include multiple pilots, operators of sensors, and mission coordinators.
What we're interested in is developing robots like this -- and here are two other pictures -- of robots that you can buy off the shelf. So these are helicopters with four rotors, and they're roughly a meter or so in scale, and weigh several pounds. And so we retrofit these with sensors and processors, and these robots can fly indoors. Without GPS.
The robot I'm holding in my hand is this one, and it's been created by two students, Alex and Daniel. So this weighs a little more than a tenth of a pound. It consumes about 15 watts of power. And as you can see, it's about eight inches in diameter. So let me give you just a very quick tutorial on how these robots work.
So it has four rotors. If you spin these rotors at the same speed, the robot hovers. If you increase the speed of each of these rotors, then the robot flies up, it accelerates up. Of course, if the robot were tilted, inclined to the horizontal, then it would accelerate in this direction. So to get it to tilt, there's one of two ways of doing it. So in this picture, you see that rotor four is spinning faster and rotor two is spinning slower. And when that happens, there's a moment that causes this robot to roll. And the other way around, if you increase the speed of rotor three and decrease the speed of rotor one, then the robot pitches forward.
And then finally, if you spin opposite pairs of rotors faster than the other pair, then the robot yaws about the vertical axis. So an on-board processor essentially looks at what motions need to be executed and combines these motions, and figures out what commands to send to the motors -- 600 times a second. That's basically how this thing operates.
So one of the advantages of this design is when you scale things down, the robot naturally becomes agile. So here, R is the characteristic length of the robot. It's actually half the diameter. And there are lots of physical parameters that change as you reduce R. The one that's most important is the inertia, or the resistance to motion. So it turns out the inertia, which governs angular motion, scales as a fifth power of R. So the smaller you make R, the more dramatically the inertia reduces. So as a result, the angular acceleration, denoted by the Greek letter alpha here, goes as 1 over R. It's inversely proportional to R. The smaller you make it, the more quickly you can turn.
So this should be clear in these videos. On the bottom right, you see a robot performing a 360-degree flip in less than half a second. Multiple flips, a little more time. So here the processes on board are getting feedback from accelerometers and gyros on board, and calculating, like I said before, commands at 600 times a second, to stabilize this robot. So on the left, you see Daniel throwing this robot up into the air, and it shows you how robust the control is. No matter how you throw it, the robot recovers and comes back to him.
So why build robots like this? Well, robots like this have many applications. You can send them inside buildings like this, as first responders to look for intruders, maybe look for biochemical leaks, gaseous leaks. You can also use them for applications like construction. So here are robots carrying beams, columns and assembling cube-like structures. I'll tell you a little bit more about this. The robots can be used for transporting cargo. So one of the problems with these small robots is their payload-carrying capacity. So you might want to have multiple robots carry payloads. This is a picture of a recent experiment we did -- actually not so recent anymore -- in Sendai, shortly after the earthquake. So robots like this could be sent into collapsed buildings, to assess the damage after natural disasters, or sent into reactor buildings, to map radiation levels.
So one fundamental problem that the robots have to solve if they are to be autonomous, is essentially figuring out how to get from point A to point B. So this gets a little challenging, because the dynamics of this robot are quite complicated. In fact, they live in a 12-dimensional space. So we use a little trick. We take this curved 12-dimensional space, and transform it into a flat, four-dimensional space. And that four-dimensional space consists of X, Y, Z, and then the yaw angle.
And so what the robot does, is it plans what we call a minimum-snap trajectory. So to remind you of physics: You have position, derivative, velocity; then acceleration; and then comes jerk, and then comes snap. So this robot minimizes snap. So what that effectively does, is produce a smooth and graceful motion. And it does that avoiding obstacles. So these minimum-snap trajectories in this flat space are then transformed back into this complicated 12-dimensional space, which the robot must do for control and then execution.
So let me show you some examples of what these minimum-snap trajectories look like. And in the first video, you'll see the robot going from point A to point B, through an intermediate point.
(Whirring noise)
So the robot is obviously capable of executing any curve trajectory. So these are circular trajectories, where the robot pulls about two G's. Here you have overhead motion capture cameras on the top that tell the robot where it is 100 times a second. It also tells the robot where these obstacles are. And the obstacles can be moving. And here, you'll see Daniel throw this hoop into the air, while the robot is calculating the position of the hoop, and trying to figure out how to best go through the hoop. So as an academic, we're always trained to be able to jump through hoops to raise funding for our labs, and we get our robots to do that.
(Applause)
So another thing the robot can do is it remembers pieces of trajectory that it learns or is pre-programmed. So here, you see the robot combining a motion that builds up momentum, and then changes its orientation and then recovers. So it has to do this because this gap in the window is only slightly larger than the width of the robot. So just like a diver stands on a springboard and then jumps off it to gain momentum, and then does this pirouette, this two and a half somersault through and then gracefully recovers, this robot is basically doing that. So it knows how to combine little bits and pieces of trajectories to do these fairly difficult tasks.
So I want change gears. So one of the disadvantages of these small robots is its size. And I told you earlier that we may want to employ lots and lots of robots to overcome the limitations of size. So one difficulty is: How do you coordinate lots of these robots? And so here, we looked to nature. So I want to show you a clip of Aphaenogaster desert ants, in Professor Stephen Pratt's lab, carrying an object. So this is actually a piece of fig. Actually you take any object coated with fig juice, and the ants will carry it back to the nest. So these ants don't have any central coordinator. They sense their neighbors. There's no explicit communication. But because they sense the neighbors and because they sense the object, they have implicit coordination across the group.
So this is the kind of coordination we want our robots to have. So when we have a robot which is surrounded by neighbors -- and let's look at robot I and robot J -- what we want the robots to do, is to monitor the separation between them, as they fly in formation. And then you want to make sure that this separation is within acceptable levels. So again, the robots monitor this error and calculate the control commands 100 times a second, which then translates into motor commands, 600 times a second. So this also has to be done in a decentralized way. Again, if you have lots and lots of robots, it's impossible to coordinate all this information centrally fast enough in order for the robots to accomplish the task. Plus, the robots have to base their actions only on local information -- what they sense from their neighbors. And then finally, we insist that the robots be agnostic to who their neighbors are. So this is what we call anonymity.
So what I want to show you next is a video of 20 of these little robots, flying in formation. They're monitoring their neighbors' positions. They're maintaining formation. The formations can change. They can be planar formations, they can be three-dimensional formations. As you can see here, they collapse from a three-dimensional formation into planar formation. And to fly through obstacles, they can adapt the formations on the fly. So again, these robots come really close together. As you can see in this figure-eight flight, they come within inches of each other. And despite the aerodynamic interactions with these propeller blades, they're able to maintain stable flight.
(Applause)
So once you know how to fly in formation, you can actually pick up objects cooperatively. So this just shows that we can double, triple, quadruple the robots' strength, by just getting them to team with neighbors, as you can see here. One of the disadvantages of doing that is, as you scale things up -- so if you have lots of robots carrying the same thing, you're essentially increasing the inertia, and therefore you pay a price; they're not as agile. But you do gain in terms of payload-carrying capacity.
Another application I want to show you -- again, this is in our lab. This is work done by Quentin Lindsey, who's a graduate student. So his algorithm essentially tells these robots how to autonomously build cubic structures from truss-like elements. So his algorithm tells the robot what part to pick up, when, and where to place it. So in this video you see -- and it's sped up 10, 14 times -- you see three different structures being built by these robots. And again, everything is autonomous, and all Quentin has to do is to give them a blueprint of the design that he wants to build.
So all these experiments you've seen thus far, all these demonstrations, have been done with the help of motion-capture systems. So what happens when you leave your lab, and you go outside into the real world? And what if there's no GPS? So this robot is actually equipped with a camera, and a laser rangefinder, laser scanner. And it uses these sensors to build a map of the environment. What that map consists of are features -- like doorways, windows, people, furniture -- and it then figures out where its position is, with respect to the features. So there is no global coordinate system. The coordinate system is defined based on the robot, where it is and what it's looking at. And it navigates with respect to those features.
So I want to show you a clip of algorithms developed by Frank Shen and Professor Nathan Michael, that shows this robot entering a building for the very first time, and creating this map on the fly. So the robot then figures out what the features are, it builds the map, it figures out where it is with respect to the features, and then estimates its position 100 times a second, allowing us to use the control algorithms that I described to you earlier. So this robot is actually being commanded remotely by Frank, but the robot can also figure out where to go on its own. So suppose I were to send this into a building, and I had no idea what this building looked like. I can ask this robot to go in, create a map, and then come back and tell me what the building looks like. So here, the robot is not only solving the problem of how to go from point A to point B in this map, but it's figuring out what the best point B is at every time. So essentially it knows where to go to look for places that have the least information, and that's how it populates this map.
So I want to leave you with one last application. And there are many applications of this technology. I'm a professor, and we're passionate about education. Robots like this can really change the way we do K-12 education. But we're in Southern California, close to Los Angeles, so I have to conclude with something focused on entertainment. I want to conclude with a music video. I want to introduce the creators, Alex and Daniel, who created this video.
(Applause)
So before I play this video, I want to tell you that they created it in the last three days, after getting a call from Chris. And the robots that play in the video are completely autonomous. You will see nine robots play six different instruments. And of course, it's made exclusively for TED 2012. Let's watch.
(Sound of air escaping from valve)
(Music)
(Whirring sound)
(Music)
(Applause) (Cheers) |
We grew up interacting with the physical objects around us. There are an enormous number of them that we use every day. Unlike most of our computing devices, these objects are much more fun to use. When you talk about objects, one other thing automatically comes attached to that thing, and that is gestures: how we manipulate these objects, how we use these objects in everyday life. We use gestures not only to interact with these objects, but we also use them to interact with each other. A gesture of "Namaste!", maybe, to respect someone, or maybe, in India I don't need to teach a kid that this means "four runs" in cricket. It comes as a part of our everyday learning.
So, I am very interested, from the beginning, how our knowledge about everyday objects and gestures, and how we use these objects, can be leveraged to our interactions with the digital world. Rather than using a keyboard and mouse, why can I not use my computer in the same way that I interact in the physical world?
So, I started this exploration around eight years back, and it literally started with a mouse on my desk. Rather than using it for my computer, I actually opened it. Most of you might be aware that, in those days, the mouse used to come with a ball inside, and there were two rollers that actually guide the computer where the ball is moving, and, accordingly, where the mouse is moving. So, I was interested in these two rollers, and I actually wanted more, so I borrowed another mouse from a friend -- never returned to him -- and I now had four rollers. Interestingly, what I did with these rollers is, basically, I took them off of these mouses and then put them in one line. It had some strings and pulleys and some springs. What I got is basically a gesture-interface device that actually acts as a motion-sensing device made for two dollars. So, here, whatever movement I do in my physical world is actually replicated inside the digital world just using this small device that I made, around eight years back, in 2000.
Because I was interested in integrating these two worlds, I thought of sticky notes. I thought, "Why can I not connect the normal interface of a physical sticky note to the digital world?" A message written on a sticky note to my mom, on paper, can come to an SMS, or maybe a meeting reminder automatically syncs with my digital calendar -- a to-do list that automatically syncs with you. But you can also search in the digital world, or maybe you can write a query, saying, "What is Dr. Smith's address?" and this small system actually prints it out -- so it actually acts like a paper input-output system, just made out of paper.
In another exploration, I thought of making a pen that can draw in three dimensions. So, I implemented this pen that can help designers and architects not only think in three dimensions, but they can actually draw, so that it's more intuitive to use that way.
Then I thought, "Why not make a Google Map, but in the physical world?" Rather than typing a keyword to find something, I put my objects on top of it. If I put a boarding pass, it will show me where the flight gate is. A coffee cup will show where you can find more coffee, or where you can trash the cup.
So, these were some of the earlier explorations I did because the goal was to connect these two worlds seamlessly. Among all these experiments, there was one thing in common: I was trying to bring a part of the physical world to the digital world. I was taking some part of the objects, or any of the intuitiveness of real life, and bringing them to the digital world, because the goal was to make our computing interfaces more intuitive.
But then I realized that we humans are not actually interested in computing. What we are interested in is information. We want to know about things. We want to know about dynamic things going around.
So I thought, around last year -- in the beginning of the last year -- I started thinking, "Why can I not take this approach in the reverse way?" Maybe, "How about I take my digital world and paint the physical world with that digital information?" Because pixels are actually, right now, confined in these rectangular devices that fit in our pockets. Why can I not remove this confine and take that to my everyday objects, everyday life so that I don't need to learn the new language for interacting with those pixels?
So, in order to realize this dream, I actually thought of putting a big-size projector on my head. I think that's why this is called a head-mounted projector, isn't it? I took it very literally, and took my bike helmet, put a little cut over there so that the projector actually fits nicely. So now, what I can do -- I can augment the world around me with this digital information.
But later, I realized that I actually wanted to interact with those digital pixels, also. So I put a small camera over there that acts as a digital eye. Later, we moved to a much better, consumer-oriented pendant version of that, that many of you now know as the SixthSense device.
But the most interesting thing about this particular technology is that you can carry your digital world with you wherever you go. You can start using any surface, any wall around you, as an interface. The camera is actually tracking all your gestures. Whatever you're doing with your hands, it's understanding that gesture. And, actually, if you see, there are some color markers that in the beginning version we are using with it. You can start painting on any wall. You stop by a wall, and start painting on that wall. But we are not only tracking one finger, here. We are giving you the freedom of using all of both of your hands, so you can actually use both of your hands to zoom into or zoom out of a map just by pinching all present. The camera is actually doing -- just, getting all the images -- is doing the edge recognition and also the color recognition and so many other small algorithms are going on inside. So, technically, it's a little bit complex, but it gives you an output which is more intuitive to use, in some sense.
But I'm more excited that you can actually take it outside. Rather than getting your camera out of your pocket, you can just do the gesture of taking a photo, and it takes a photo for you.
(Applause)
Thank you. And later I can find a wall, anywhere, and start browsing those photos or maybe, "OK, I want to modify this photo a little bit and send it as an email to a friend." So, we are looking for an era where computing will actually merge with the physical world. And, of course, if you don't have any surface, you can start using your palm for simple operations. Here, I'm dialing a phone number just using my hand. The camera is actually not only understanding your hand movements, but, interestingly, is also able to understand what objects you are holding in your hand.
For example, in this case, the book cover is matched with so many thousands, or maybe millions of books online, and checking out which book it is. Once it has that information, it finds out more reviews about that, or maybe New York Times has a sound overview on that, so you can actually hear, on a physical book, a review as sound.
(Video) Famous talk at Harvard University --
This was Obama's visit last week to MIT.
(Video) And particularly I want to thank two outstanding MIT --
Pranav Mistry: So, I was seeing the live [video] of his talk, outside, on just a newspaper. Your newspaper will show you live weather information rather than having it updated. You have to check your computer in order to do that, right?
(Applause)
When I'm going back, I can just use my boarding pass to check how much my flight has been delayed, because at that particular time, I'm not feeling like opening my iPhone, and checking out a particular icon. And I think this technology will not only change the way --
(Laughter)
Yes. It will change the way we interact with people, also, not only the physical world. The fun part is, I'm going to the Boston metro, and playing a pong game inside the train on the ground, right?
(Laughter)
And I think the imagination is the only limit of what you can think of when this kind of technology merges with real life.
But many of you argue, actually, that all of our work is not only about physical objects. We actually do lots of accounting and paper editing and all those kinds of things; what about that? And many of you are excited about the next-generation tablet computers to come out in the market.
So, rather than waiting for that, I actually made my own, just using a piece of paper. So, what I did here is remove the camera -- All the webcam cameras have a microphone inside the camera. I removed the microphone from that, and then just pinched that -- like I just made a clip out of the microphone -- and clipped that to a piece of paper, any paper that you found around. So now the sound of the touch is getting me when exactly I'm touching the paper. But the camera is actually tracking where my fingers are moving.
You can of course watch movies.
(Video) Good afternoon. My name is Russell, and I am a Wilderness Explorer in Tribe 54."
PM: And you can of course play games.
(Car engine)
Here, the camera is actually understanding how you're holding the paper and playing a car-racing game.
(Applause)
Many of you already must have thought, OK, you can browse. Yeah. Of course you can browse to any websites or you can do all sorts of computing on a piece of paper wherever you need it. So, more interestingly, I'm interested in how we can take that in a more dynamic way. When I come back to my desk, I can just pinch that information back to my desktop so I can use my full-size computer.
(Applause)
And why only computers? We can just play with papers. Paper world is interesting to play with. Here, I'm taking a part of a document, and putting over here a second part from a second place, and I'm actually modifying the information that I have over there. Yeah. And I say, "OK, this looks nice, let me print it out, that thing." So I now have a print-out of that thing. So the workflow is more intuitive, the way we used to do it maybe 20 years back, rather than now switching between these two worlds.
So, as a last thought, I think that integrating information to everyday objects will not only help us to get rid of the digital divide, the gap between these two worlds, but will also help us, in some way, to stay human, to be more connected to our physical world. And it will actually help us not end up being machines sitting in front of other machines.
That's all. Thank you.
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: So, Pranav, first of all, you're a genius. This is incredible, really. What are you doing with this? Is there a company being planned? Or is this research forever, or what?
Pranav Mistry: So, there are lots of companies, sponsor companies of Media Lab interested in taking this ahead in one or another way. Companies like mobile-phone operators want to take this in a different way than the NGOs in India, thinking, "Why can we only have 'Sixth Sense'? We should have a 'Fifth Sense' for missing-sense people who cannot speak. This technology can be used for them to speak out in a different way maybe a speaker system."
CA: What are your own plans? Are you staying at MIT, or are you going to do something with this?
PM: I'm trying to make this more available to people so that anyone can develop their own SixthSense device, because the hardware is actually not that hard to manufacture or hard to make your own. We will provide all the open source software for them, maybe starting next month.
CA: Open source? Wow.
(Applause)
CA: Are you going to come back to India with some of this, at some point?
PM: Yeah. Yes, yes, of course.
CA: What are your plans? MIT? India? How are you going to split your time going forward?
PM: There is a lot of energy here. Lots of learning. All of this work that you have seen is all about my learning in India. And now, if you see, it's more about the cost-effectiveness: this system costs you $300 compared to the $20,000 surface tables, or anything like that. Or maybe even the $2 mouse gesture system at that time was costing around $5,000? I showed that, at a conference, to President Abdul Kalam, at that time, and then he said, "OK, we should use this in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre for some use of that." So I'm excited about how I can bring the technology to the masses rather than just keeping that technology in the lab environment.
(Applause)
CA: Based on the people we've seen at TED, I would say you're truly one of the two or three best inventors in the world right now. It's an honor to have you at TED. Thank you so much. That's fantastic.
(Applause) |
Good afternoon, everybody. I've got something to show you. (Laughter) Think about this as a pixel, a flying pixel. This is what we call, in our lab, sensible design. Let me tell you a bit about it. Now if you take this picture -- I'm Italian originally, and every boy in Italy grows up with this picture on the wall of his bedroom -- but the reason I'm showing you this is that something very interesting happened in Formula 1 racing over the past couple of decades. Now some time ago, if you wanted to win a Formula 1 race, you take a budget, and you bet your budget on a good driver and a good car. And if the car and the driver were good enough, then you'd win the race. Now today, if you want to win the race, actually you need also something like this -- something that monitors the car in real time, has a few thousand sensors collecting information from the car, transmitting this information into the system, and then processing it and using it in order to go back to the car with decisions and changing things in real time as information is collected. This is what, in engineering terms, you would call a real time control system. And basically, it's a system made of two components -- a sensing and an actuating component.
What is interesting today is that real time control systems are starting to enter into our lives. Our cities, over the past few years, just have been blanketed with networks, electronics. They're becoming like computers in open air. And, as computers in open air, they're starting to respond in a different way to be able to be sensed and to be actuated. If we fix cities, actually it's a big deal. Just as an aside, I wanted to mention, cities are only two percent of the Earth's crust, but they are 50 percent of the world's population. They are 75 percent of the energy consumption -- up to 80 percent of CO2 emissions. So if we're able to do something with cities, that's a big deal. Beyond cities, all of this sensing and actuating is entering our everyday objects.
That's from an exhibition that Paola Antonelli is organizing at MoMA later this year, during the summer. It's called "Talk to Me." Well our objects, our environment is starting to talk back to us. In a certain sense, it's almost as if every atom out there were becoming both a sensor and an actuator. And that is radically changing the interaction we have as humans with the environment out there. In a certain sense, it's almost as if the old dream of Michelangelo ... you know, when Michelangelo sculpted the Moses, at the end it said that he took the hammer, threw it at the Moses -- actually you can still see a small chip underneath -- and said, shouted, "Perché non parli? Why don't you talk?" Well today, for the first time, our environment is starting to talk back to us. And I'll show just a few examples -- again, with this idea of sensing our environment and actuating it.
Let's starting with sensing. Well, the first project I wanted to share with you is actually one of the first projects by our lab. It was four and a half years ago in Italy. And what we did there was actually use a new type of network at the time that had been deployed all across the world -- that's a cellphone network -- and use anonymous and aggregated information from that network, that's collected anyway by the operator, in order to understand how the city works. The summer was a lucky summer -- 2006. It's when Italy won the soccer World Cup. Some of you might remember, it was Italy and France playing, and then Zidane at the end, the headbutt. And anyway, Italy won at the end.
(Laughter)
Now look at what happened that day just by monitoring activity happening on the network. Here you see the city. You see the Colosseum in the middle, the river Tiber. It's morning, before the match. You see the timeline on the top. Early afternoon, people here and there, making calls and moving. The match begins -- silence. France scores. Italy scores. Halftime, people make a quick call and go to the bathroom. Second half. End of normal time. First overtime, second. Zidane, the headbutt in a moment. Italy wins. Yeah. (Laughter) (Applause) Well, that night, everybody went to celebrate in the center. You saw the big peak. The following day, again everybody went to the center to meet the winning team and the prime minister at the time. And then everybody moved down. You see the image of the place called Circo Massimo, where, since Roman times, people go to celebrate, to have a big party, and you see the peak at the end of the day. Well, that's just one example of how we can sense the city today in a way that we couldn't have done just a few years ago.
Another quick example about sensing: it's not about people, but about things we use and consume. Well today, we know everything about where our objects come from. This is a map that shows you all the chips that form a Mac computer, how they came together. But we know very little about where things go. So in this project, we actually developed some small tags to track trash as it moves through the system. So we actually started with a number of volunteers who helped us in Seattle, just over a year ago, to tag what they were throwing away -- different types of things, as you can see here -- things they would throw away anyway. Then we put a little chip, little tag, onto the trash and then started following it. Here are the results we just obtained.
(Music)
From Seattle ... after one week. With this information we realized there's a lot of inefficiencies in the system. We can actually do the same thing with much less energy. This data was not available before. But there's a lot of wasted transportation and convoluted things happening. But the other thing is that we believe that if we see every day that the cup we're throwing away, it doesn't disappear, it's still somewhere on the planet. And the plastic bottle we're throwing away every day still stays there. And if we show that to people, then we can also promote some behavioral change. So that was the reason for the project.
My colleague at MIT, Assaf Biderman, he could tell you much more about sensing and many other wonderful things we can do with sensing, but I wanted to go to the second part we discussed at the beginning, and that's actuating our environment. And the first project is something we did a couple of years ago in Zaragoza, Spain. It started with a question by the mayor of the city, who came to us saying that Spain and Southern Europe have a beautiful tradition of using water in public space, in architecture. And the question was: How could technology, new technology, be added to that? And one of the ideas that was developed at MIT in a workshop was, imagine this pipe, and you've got valves, solenoid valves, taps, opening and closing. You create like a water curtain with pixels made of water. If those pixels fall, you can write on it, you can show patterns, images, text. And even you can approach it, and it will open up to let you jump through, as you see in this image.
Well, we presented this to Mayor Belloch. He liked it very much. And we got a commission to design a building at the entrance of the expo. We called it Digital Water Pavilion. The whole building is made of water. There's no doors or windows, but when you approach it, it will open up to let you in. (Music) The roof also is covered with water. And if there's a bit of wind, if you want to minimize splashing, you can actually lower the roof. Or you could close the building, and the whole architecture will disappear, like in this case. You know, these days, you always get images during the winter, when they take the roof down, of people who have been there and said, "They demolished the building." No, they didn't demolish it, just when it goes down, the architecture almost disappears. Here's the building working. You see the person puzzled about what was going on inside. And here was myself trying not to get wet, testing the sensors that open the water.
Well, I should tell you now what happened one night when all of the sensors stopped working. But actually that night, it was even more fun. All the kids from Zaragoza came to the building, because the way of engaging with the building became something different. Not anymore a building that would open up to let you in, but a building that would still make cuts and holes through the water, and you had to jump without getting wet.
(Video) (Crowd Noise)
And that was, for us, was very interesting, because, as architects, as engineers, as designers, we always think about how people will use the things we design. But then reality's always unpredictable. And that's the beauty of doing things that are used and interact with people.
Here is an image then of the building with the physical pixels, the pixels made of water, and then projections on them. And this is what led us to think about the following project I'll show you now. That's, imagine those pixels could actually start flying. Imagine you could have small helicopters that move in the air, and then each of them with a small pixel in changing lights -- almost as a cloud that can move in space. Here is the video.
(Music)
So imagine one helicopter, like the one we saw before, moving with others, in synchrony. So you can have this cloud. You can have a kind of flexible screen or display, like this -- a regular configuration in two dimensions. Or in regular, but in three dimensions, where the thing that changes is the light, not the pixels' position. You can play with a different type. Imagine your screen could just appear in different scales or sizes, different types of resolution. But then the whole thing can be just a 3D cloud of pixels that you can approach and move through it and see from many, many directions. Here is the real Flyfire control and going down to form the regular grid as before. When you turn on the light, actually you see this. So the same as we saw before. And imagine each of them then controlled by people. You can have each pixel having an input that comes from people, from people's movement, or so and so.
I want to show you something here for the first time. We've been working with Roberto Bolle, one of today's top ballet dancers -- the étoile at Metropolitan in New York and La Scala in Milan -- and actually captured his movement in 3D in order to use it as an input for Flyfire. And here you can see Roberto dancing. You see on the left the pixels, the different resolutions being captured. It's both 3D scanning in real time and motion capture. So you can reconstruct a whole movement. You can go all the way through. But then, once we have the pixels, then you can play with them and play with color and movement and gravity and rotation. So we want to use this as one of the possible inputs for Flyfire.
I wanted to show you the last project we are working on. It's something we're working on for the London Olympics. It's called The Cloud. And the idea here is, imagine, again, we can involve people in doing something and changing our environment -- almost to impart what we call cloud raising -- like barn raising, but with a cloud. Imagine you can have everybody make a small donation for one pixel. And I think what is remarkable that has happened over the past couple of years is that, over the past couple of decades, we went from the physical world to the digital one. This has been digitizing everything, knowledge, and making that accessible through the Internet.
Now today, for the first time -- and the Obama campaign showed us this -- we can go from the digital world, from the self-organizing power of networks, to the physical one. This can be, in our case, we want to use it for designing and doing a symbol. That means something built in a city. But tomorrow it can be, in order to tackle today's pressing challenges -- think about climate change or CO2 emissions -- how we can go from the digital world to the physical one. So the idea that we can actually involve people in doing this thing together, collectively.
The cloud is a cloud, again, made of pixels, in the same way as the real cloud is a cloud made of particles. And those particles are water, where our cloud is a cloud of pixels. It's a physical structure in London, but covered with pixels. You can move inside, have different types of experiences. You can actually see from underneath, sharing the main moments for the Olympics in 2012 and beyond, and really using it as a way to connect with the community. So both the physical cloud in the sky and something you can go to the top [of], like London's new mountaintop. You can enter inside it. And a kind of new digital beacon for the night -- but most importantly, a new type of experience for anybody who will go to the top.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
I'd like to have you look at this pencil. It's a thing. It's a legal thing. And so are books you might have or the cars you own. They're all legal things. The great apes that you'll see behind me, they too are legal things.
Now, I can do that to a legal thing. I can do whatever I want to my book or my car. These great apes, you'll see. The photographs are taken by a man named James Mollison who wrote a book called "James & Other Apes." And he tells in his book how every single one them, almost every one of them, is an orphan who saw his mother and father die before his eyes. They're legal things.
So for centuries, there's been a great legal wall that separates legal things from legal persons. On one hand, legal things are invisible to judges. They don't count in law. They don't have any legal rights. They don't have the capacity for legal rights. They are the slaves. On the other side of that legal wall are the legal persons. Legal persons are very visible to judges. They count in law. They may have many rights. They have the capacity for an infinite number of rights. And they're the masters. Right now, all nonhuman animals are legal things. All human beings are legal persons.
But being human and being a legal person has never been, and is not today, synonymous with a legal person. Humans and legal persons are not synonymous. On the one side, there have been many human beings over the centuries who have been legal things. Slaves were legal things. Women, children, were sometimes legal things. Indeed, a great deal of civil rights struggle over the last centuries has been to punch a hole through that wall and begin to feed these human things through the wall and have them become legal persons.
But alas, that hole has closed up. Now, on the other side are legal persons, but they've never only been limited to human beings. There are, for example, there are many legal persons who are not even alive. In the United States, we're aware of the fact that corporations are legal persons. In pre-independence India, a court held that a Hindu idol was a legal person, that a mosque was a legal person. In 2000, the Indian Supreme Court held that the holy books of the Sikh religion was a legal person, and in 2012, just recently, there was a treaty between the indigenous peoples of New Zealand and the crown, in which it was agreed that a river was a legal person who owned its own riverbed.
Now, I read Peter Singer's book in 1980, when I had a full head of lush, brown hair, and indeed I was moved by it, because I had become a lawyer because I wanted to speak for the voiceless, defend the defenseless, and I'd never realized how voiceless and defenseless the trillions, billions of nonhuman animals are. And I began to work as an animal protection lawyer. And by 1985, I realized that I was trying to accomplish something that was literally impossible, the reason being that all of my clients, all the animals whose interests I was trying to defend, were legal things; they were invisible. It was not going to work, so I decided that the only thing that was going to work was they had, at least some of them, had to also be moved through a hole that we could open up again in that wall and begin feeding the appropriate nonhuman animals through that hole onto the other side of being legal persons.
Now, at that time, there was very little known about or spoken about truly animal rights, about the idea of having legal personhood or legal rights for a nonhuman animal, and I knew it was going to take a long time. And so, in 1985, I figured that it would take about 30 years before we'd be able to even begin a strategic litigation, long-term campaign, in order to be able to punch another hole through that wall. It turned out that I was pessimistic, that it only took 28.
So what we had to do in order to begin was not only to write law review articles and teach classes, write books, but we had to then begin to get down to the nuts and bolts of how you litigate that kind of case.
So one of the first things we needed to do was figure out what a cause of action was, a legal cause of action. And a legal cause of action is a vehicle that lawyers use to put their arguments in front of courts.
It turns out there's a very interesting case that had occurred almost 250 years ago in London called Somerset vs. Stewart, whereby a black slave had used the legal system and had moved from a legal thing to a legal person. I was so interested in it that I eventually wrote an entire book about it.
James Somerset was an eight-year-old boy when he was kidnapped from West Africa. He survived the Middle Passage, and he was sold to a Scottish businessman named Charles Stewart in Virginia. Now, 20 years later, Stewart brought James Somerset to London, and after he got there, James decided he was going to escape. And so one of the first things he did was to get himself baptized, because he wanted to get a set of godparents, because to an 18th-century slave, they knew that one of the major responsibilities of godfathers was to help you escape.
And so in the fall of 1771, James Somerset had a confrontation with Charles Stewart. We don't know exactly what happened, but then James dropped out of sight. An enraged Charles Stewart then hired slave catchers to canvass the city of London, find him, bring him not back to Charles Stewart, but to a ship, the Ann and Mary, that was floating in London Harbour, and he was chained to the deck, and the ship was to set sail for Jamaica where James was to be sold in the slave markets and be doomed to the three to five years of life that a slave had harvesting sugar cane in Jamaica. Well now James' godparents swung into action. They approached the most powerful judge, Lord Mansfield, who was chief judge of the court of King's Bench, and they demanded that he issue a common law writ of habeus corpus on behalf of James Somerset.
Now, the common law is the kind of law that English-speaking judges can make when they're not cabined in by statutes or constitutions, and a writ of habeus corpus is called the Great Writ, capital G, capital W, and it's meant to protect any of us who are detained against our will. A writ of habeus corpus is issued. The detainer is required to bring the detainee in and give a legally sufficient reason for depriving him of his bodily liberty.
Well, Lord Mansfield had to make a decision right off the bat, because if James Somerset was a legal thing, he was not eligible for a writ of habeus corpus, only if he could be a legal person. So Lord Mansfield decided that he would assume, without deciding, that James Somerset was indeed a legal person, and he issued the writ of habeus corpus, and James's body was brought in by the captain of the ship.
There were a series of hearings over the next six months. On June 22, 1772, Lord Mansfield said that slavery was so odious, and he used the word "odious," that the common law would not support it, and he ordered James free. At that moment, James Somerset underwent a legal transubstantiation. The free man who walked out of the courtroom looked exactly like the slave who had walked in, but as far as the law was concerned, they had nothing whatsoever in common.
The next thing we did is that the Nonhuman Rights Project, which I founded, then began to look at what kind of values and principles do we want to put before the judges? What values and principles did they imbibe with their mother's milk, were they taught in law school, do they use every day, do they believe with all their hearts -- and we chose liberty and equality.
Now, liberty right is the kind of right to which you're entitled because of how you're put together, and a fundamental liberty right protects a fundamental interest. And the supreme interest in the common law are the rights to autonomy and self-determination. So they are so powerful that in a common law country, if you go to a hospital and you refuse life-saving medical treatment, a judge will not order it forced upon you, because they will respect your self-determination and your autonomy.
Now, an equality right is the kind of right to which you're entitled because you resemble someone else in a relevant way, and there's the rub, relevant way. So if you are that, then because they have the right, you're like them, you're entitled to the right. Now, courts and legislatures draw lines all the time. Some are included, some are excluded. But you have to, at the bare minimum you must -- that line has to be a reasonable means to a legitimate end. The Nonhuman Rights Project argues that drawing a line in order to enslave an autonomous and self-determining being like you're seeing behind me, that that's a violation of equality.
We then searched through 80 jurisdictions, it took us seven years, to find the jurisdiction where we wanted to begin filing our first suit. We chose the state of New York. Then we decided upon who our plaintiffs are going to be. We decided upon chimpanzees, not just because Jane Goodall was on our board of directors, but because they, Jane and others, have studied chimpanzees intensively for decades. We know the extraordinary cognitive capabilities that they have, and they also resemble the kind that human beings have. And so we chose chimpanzees, and we began to then canvass the world to find the experts in chimpanzee cognition. We found them in Japan, Sweden, Germany, Scotland, England and the United States, and amongst them, they wrote 100 pages of affidavits in which they set out more than 40 ways in which their complex cognitive capability, either individually or together, all added up to autonomy and self-determination.
Now, these included, for example, that they were conscious. But they're also conscious that they're conscious. They know they have a mind. They know that others have minds. They know they're individuals, and that they can live. They understand that they lived yesterday and they will live tomorrow. They engage in mental time travel. They remember what happened yesterday. They can anticipate tomorrow, which is why it's so terrible to imprison a chimpanzee, especially alone. It's the thing that we do to our worst criminals, and we do that to chimpanzees without even thinking about it.
They have some kind of moral capacity. When they play economic games with human beings, they'll spontaneously make fair offers, even when they're not required to do so. They are numerate. They understand numbers. They can do some simple math. They can engage in language -- or to stay out of the language wars, they're involved in intentional and referential communication in which they pay attention to the attitudes of those with whom they are speaking. They have culture. They have a material culture, a social culture. They have a symbolic culture. Scientists in the Taï Forests in the Ivory Coast found chimpanzees who were using these rocks to smash open the incredibly hard hulls of nuts. It takes a long time to learn how to do that, and they excavated the area and they found that this material culture, this way of doing it, these rocks, had passed down for at least 4,300 years through 225 chimpanzee generations.
So now we needed to find our chimpanzee. Our chimpanzee, first we found two of them in the state of New York. Both of them would die before we could even get our suits filed. Then we found Tommy. Tommy is a chimpanzee. You see him behind me. Tommy was a chimpanzee. We found him in that cage. We found him in a small room that was filled with cages in a larger warehouse structure on a used trailer lot in central New York. We found Kiko, who is partially deaf. Kiko was in the back of a cement storefront in western Massachusetts. And we found Hercules and Leo. They're two young male chimpanzees who are being used for biomedical, anatomical research at Stony Brook. We found them.
And so on the last week of December 2013, the Nonhuman Rights Project filed three suits all across the state of New York using the same common law writ of habeus corpus argument that had been used with James Somerset, and we demanded that the judges issue these common law writs of habeus corpus. We wanted the chimpanzees out, and we wanted them brought to Save the Chimps, a tremendous chimpanzee sanctuary in South Florida which involves an artificial lake with 12 or 13 islands -- there are two or three acres where two dozen chimpanzees live on each of them. And these chimpanzees would then live the life of a chimpanzee, with other chimpanzees in an environment that was as close to Africa as possible.
Now, all these cases are still going on. We have not yet run into our Lord Mansfield. We shall. We shall. This is a long-term strategic litigation campaign. We shall. And to quote Winston Churchill, the way we view our cases is that they're not the end, they're not even the beginning of the end, but they are perhaps the end of the beginning.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
I have all my life wondered what "mind-boggling" meant. After two days here, I declare myself boggled, and enormously impressed, and feel that you are one of the great hopes -- not just for American achievement in science and technology, but for the whole world. I've come, however, on a special mission on behalf of my constituency, which are the 10-to-the-18th-power -- that's a million trillion -- insects and other small creatures, and to make a plea for them. If we were to wipe out insects alone, just that group alone, on this planet -- which we are trying hard to do -- the rest of life and humanity with it would mostly disappear from the land. And within a few months. Now, how did I come to this particular position of advocacy?
As a little boy, and through my teenage years, I became increasingly fascinated by the diversity of life. I had a butterfly period, a snake period, a bird period, a fish period, a cave period and finally and definitively, an ant period. By my college years, I was a devoted myrmecologist, a specialist on the biology of ants, but my attention and research continued to make journeys across the great variety of life on Earth in general -- including all that it means to us as a species, how little we understand it and how pressing a danger that our activities have created for it.
Out of that broader study has emerged a concern and an ambition, crystallized in the wish that I'm about to make to you. My choice is the culmination of a lifetime commitment that began with growing up on the Gulf Coast of Alabama, on the Florida peninsula. As far back as I can remember, I was enchanted by the natural beauty of that region and the almost tropical exuberance of the plants and animals that grow there. One day when I was only seven years old and fishing, I pulled a "pinfish," they're called, with sharp dorsal spines, up too hard and fast, and I blinded myself in one eye. I later discovered I was also hard of hearing, possibly congenitally, in the upper registers. So in planning to be a professional naturalist -- I never considered anything else in my entire life -- I found that I was lousy at bird watching and couldn't track frog calls either. So I turned to the teeming small creatures that can be held between the thumb and forefinger: the little things that compose the foundation of our ecosystems, the little things, as I like to say, who run the world. In so doing, I reached a frontier of biology so strange, so rich, that it seemed as though it exists on another planet. In fact, we live on a mostly unexplored planet. The great majority of organisms on Earth remain unknown to science.
In the last 30 years, thanks to explorations in remote parts of the world and advances in technology, biologists have, for example, added a full one-third of the known frog and other amphibian species, to bring the current total to 5,400, and more continue to pour in. Two new kinds of whales have been discovered, along with two new antelopes, dozens of monkey species and a new kind of elephant -- and even a distinct kind of gorilla. At the extreme opposite end of the size scale, the class of marine bacteria, the Prochlorococci -- that will be on the final exam -- although discovered only in 1988, are now recognized as likely the most abundant organisms on Earth, and moreover, responsible for a large part of the photosynthesis that occurs in the ocean. These bacteria were not uncovered sooner because they are also among the smallest of all Earth's organisms -- so minute that they cannot be seen with conventional optical microscopy. Yet life in the sea may depend on these tiny creatures.
These examples are just the first glimpse of our ignorance of life on this planet. Consider the fungi -- including mushrooms, rusts, molds and many disease-causing organisms. 60,000 species are known to science, but more than 1.5 million have been estimated to exist. Consider the nematode roundworm, the most abundant of all animals. Four out of five animals on Earth are nematode worms -- if all solid materials except nematode worms were to be eliminated, you could still see the ghostly outline of most of it in nematode worms. About 16,000 species of nematode worms have been discovered and diagnosed by scientists; there could be hundreds of thousands of them, even millions, still unknown. This vast domain of hidden biodiversity is increased still further by the dark matter of the biological world of bacteria, which within just the last several years still were known from only about 6,000 species of bacteria worldwide. But that number of bacteria species can be found in one gram of soil, just a little handful of soil, in the 10 billion bacteria that would be there. It's been estimated that a single ton of soil -- fertile soil -- contains approximately four million species of bacteria, all unknown.
So the question is: what are they all doing? The fact is, we don't know. We are living on a planet with a lot of activities, with reference to our living environment, done by faith and guess alone. Our lives depend upon these creatures. To take an example close to home: there are over 500 species of bacteria now known -- friendly bacteria -- living symbiotically in your mouth and throat probably necessary to your health for holding off pathogenic bacteria.
At this point I think we have a little impressionistic film that was made especially for this occasion. And I'd like to show it. Assisted in this by Billie Holiday. (Video)
And that may be just the beginning! The viruses, those quasi-organisms among which are the prophages, the gene weavers that promote the continued evolution in the lives of the bacteria, are a virtually unknown frontier of modern biology, a world unto themselves. What constitutes a viral species is still unresolved, although they're obviously of enormous importance to us. But this much we can say: the variety of genes on the planet in viruses exceeds, or is likely to exceed, that in all of the rest of life combined. Nowadays, in addressing microbial biodiversity, scientists are like explorers in a rowboat launched onto the Pacific Ocean.
But that is changing rapidly with the aid of new genomic technology. Already it is possible to sequence the entire genetic code of a bacterium in under four hours. Soon we will be in a position to go forth in the field with sequencers on our backs -- to hunt bacteria in tiny crevices of the habitat's surface in the way you go watching for birds with binoculars. What will we find as we map the living world, as, finally, we get this underway seriously? As we move past the relatively gigantic mammals, birds, frogs and plants to the more elusive insects and other small invertebrates and then beyond to the countless millions of organisms in the invisible living world enveloped and living within humanity? Already what were thought to be bacteria for generations have been found to compose, instead, two great domains of microorganisms: true bacteria and one-celled organisms the archaea, which are closer than other bacteria to the eukaryota, the group that we belong to.
Some serious biologists, and I count myself among them, have begun to wonder that among the enormous and still unknown diversity of microorganisms, one might -- just might -- find aliens among them. True aliens, stocks that arrived from outer space. They've had billions of years to do it, but especially during the earliest period of biological evolution on this planet. We do know that some bacterial species that have earthly origin are capable of almost unimaginable extremes of temperature and other harsh changes in environment, including hard radiation strong enough and maintained long enough to crack the Pyrex vessels around the growing population of bacteria. There may be a temptation to treat the biosphere holistically and the species that compose it as a great flux of entities hardly worth distinguishing one from the other. But each of these species, even the tiniest Prochlorococci, are masterpieces of evolution. Each has persisted for thousands to millions of years. Each is exquisitely adapted to the environment in which it lives, interlocked with other species to form ecosystems upon which our own lives depend in ways we have not begun even to imagine. We will destroy these ecosystems and the species composing them at the peril of our own existence -- and unfortunately we are destroying them with ingenuity and ceaseless energy.
My own epiphany as a conservationist came in 1953, while a Harvard graduate student, searching for rare ants found in the mountain forests of Cuba, ants that shine in the sunlight -- metallic green or metallic blue, according to species, and one species, I discovered, metallic gold. I found my magical ants, but only after a tough climb into the mountains where the last of the native Cuban forests hung on, and were then -- and still are -- being cut back. I realized then that these species and a large part of the other unique, marvelous animals and plants on that island -- and this is true of practically every part of the world -- which took millions of years to evolve, are in the process of disappearing forever. And so it is everywhere one looks.
The human juggernaut is permanently eroding Earth's ancient biosphere by a combination of forces that can be summarized by the acronym "HIPPO," the animal hippo. H is for habitat destruction, including climate change forced by greenhouse gases. I is for the invasive species like the fire ants, the zebra mussels, broom grasses and pathogenic bacteria and viruses that are flooding every country, and at an exponential rate -- that's the I. The P, the first one in "HIPPO," is for pollution. The second is for continued population, human population expansion. And the final letter is O, for over-harvesting -- driving species into extinction by excessive hunting and fishing. The HIPPO juggernaut we have created, if unabated, is destined -- according to the best estimates of ongoing biodiversity research -- to reduce half of Earth's still surviving animal and plant species to extinction or critical endangerment by the end of the century. Human-forced climate change alone -- again, if unabated -- could eliminate a quarter of surviving species during the next five decades. What will we and all future generations lose if much of the living environment is thus degraded? Huge potential sources of scientific information yet to be gathered, much of our environmental stability and new kinds of pharmaceuticals and new products of unimaginable strength and value -- all thrown away.
The loss will inflict a heavy price in wealth, security and yes, spirituality for all time to come, because previous cataclysms of this kind -- the last one, that ended the age of dinosaurs -- took, normally, five to 10 million years to repair. Sadly, our knowledge of biodiversity is so incomplete that we are at risk of losing a great deal of it before it is even discovered. For example, even in the United States, the 200,000 species known currently actually has been found to be only partial in coverage; it is mostly unknown to us in basic biology. Only about 15 percent of the known species have been studied well enough to evaluate their status. Of the 15 percent evaluated, 20 percent are classified as "in peril," that is, in danger of extinction. That's in the United States. We are, in short, flying blind into our environmental future. We urgently need to change this. We need to have the biosphere properly explored so that we can understand and competently manage it. We need to settle down before we wreck the planet. And we need that knowledge.
This should be a big science project equivalent to the Human Genome Project. It should be thought of as a biological moonshot with a timetable. So this brings me to my wish for TEDsters, and to anyone else around the world who hears this talk. I wish we will work together to help create the key tools that we need to inspire preservation of Earth's biodiversity. And let us call it the "Encyclopedia of Life." What is the "Encyclopedia of Life?" A concept that has already taken hold and is beginning to spread and be looked at seriously? It is an encyclopedia that lives on the Internet and is contributed to by thousands of scientists around the world. Amateurs can do it also. It has an indefinitely expandable page for each species.
It makes all key information about life on Earth accessible to anyone, on demand, anywhere in the world. I've written about this idea before, and I know there are people in this room who have expended significant effort on it in the past. But what excites me is that since I first put forward this particular idea in that form, science has advanced. Technology has moved forward. Today, the practicalities of making such an encyclopedia, regardless of the magnitude of the information put into it, are within reach. Indeed, in the past year, a group of influential scientific institutions have begun mobilizing to realize this dream. I wish you would help them. Working together, we can make this real.
The encyclopedia will quickly pay for itself in practical applications. It will address transcendent qualities in the human consciousness, and sense of human need. It will transform the science of biology in ways of obvious benefit to humanity. And most of all, it can inspire a new generation of biologists to continue the quest that started, for me personally, 60 years ago: to search for life, to understand it and finally, above all, to preserve it. That is my wish. Thank you. |
The kind of neuroscience that I do and my colleagues do is almost like the weatherman. We are always chasing storms. We want to see and measure storms -- brainstorms, that is. And we all talk about brainstorms in our daily lives, but we rarely see or listen to one. So I always like to start these talks by actually introducing you to one of them.
Actually, the first time we recorded more than one neuron -- a hundred brain cells simultaneously -- we could measure the electrical sparks of a hundred cells in the same animal, this is the first image we got, the first 10 seconds of this recording. So we got a little snippet of a thought, and we could see it in front of us.
I always tell the students that we could also call neuroscientists some sort of astronomer, because we are dealing with a system that is only comparable in terms of number of cells to the number of galaxies that we have in the universe. And here we are, out of billions of neurons, just recording, 10 years ago, a hundred. We are doing a thousand now. And we hope to understand something fundamental about our human nature. Because, if you don't know yet, everything that we use to define what human nature is comes from these storms, comes from these storms that roll over the hills and valleys of our brains and define our memories, our beliefs, our feelings, our plans for the future. Everything that we ever do, everything that every human has ever done, do or will do, requires the toil of populations of neurons producing these kinds of storms.
And the sound of a brainstorm, if you've never heard one, is somewhat like this. You can put it louder if you can. My son calls this "making popcorn while listening to a badly-tuned A.M. station." This is a brain. This is what happens when you route these electrical storms to a loudspeaker and you listen to a hundred brain cells firing, your brain will sound like this -- my brain, any brain. And what we want to do as neuroscientists in this time is to actually listen to these symphonies, these brain symphonies, and try to extract from them the messages they carry.
In particular, about 12 years ago we created a preparation that we named brain-machine interfaces. And you have a scheme here that describes how it works. The idea is, let's have some sensors that listen to these storms, this electrical firing, and see if you can, in the same time that it takes for this storm to leave the brain and reach the legs or the arms of an animal -- about half a second -- let's see if we can read these signals, extract the motor messages that are embedded in it, translate it into digital commands and send it to an artificial device that will reproduce the voluntary motor wheel of that brain in real time. And see if we can measure how well we can translate that message when we compare to the way the body does that.
And if we can actually provide feedback, sensory signals that go back from this robotic, mechanical, computational actuator that is now under the control of the brain, back to the brain, how the brain deals with that, of receiving messages from an artificial piece of machinery.
And that's exactly what we did 10 years ago. We started with a superstar monkey called Aurora that became one of the superstars of this field. And Aurora liked to play video games. As you can see here, she likes to use a joystick, like any one of us, any of our kids, to play this game. And as a good primate, she even tries to cheat before she gets the right answer. So even before a target appears that she's supposed to cross with the cursor that she's controlling with this joystick, Aurora is trying to find the target, no matter where it is. And if she's doing that, because every time she crosses that target with the little cursor, she gets a drop of Brazilian orange juice. And I can tell you, any monkey will do anything for you if you get a little drop of Brazilian orange juice. Actually any primate will do that. Think about that.
Well, while Aurora was playing this game, as you saw, and doing a thousand trials a day and getting 97 percent correct and 350 milliliters of orange juice, we are recording the brainstorms that are produced in her head and sending them to a robotic arm that was learning to reproduce the movements that Aurora was making. Because the idea was to actually turn on this brain-machine interface and have Aurora play the game just by thinking, without interference of her body. Her brainstorms would control an arm that would move the cursor and cross the target. And to our shock, that's exactly what Aurora did. She played the game without moving her body.
So every trajectory that you see of the cursor now, this is the exact first moment she got that. That's the exact first moment a brain intention was liberated from the physical domains of a body of a primate and could act outside, in that outside world, just by controlling an artificial device. And Aurora kept playing the game, kept finding the little target and getting the orange juice that she wanted to get, that she craved for.
Well, she did that because she, at that time, had acquired a new arm. The robotic arm that you see moving here 30 days later, after the first video that I showed to you, is under the control of Aurora's brain and is moving the cursor to get to the target. And Aurora now knows that she can play the game with this robotic arm, but she has not lost the ability to use her biological arms to do what she pleases. She can scratch her back, she can scratch one of us, she can play another game. By all purposes and means, Aurora's brain has incorporated that artificial device as an extension of her body. The model of the self that Aurora had in her mind has been expanded to get one more arm.
Well, we did that 10 years ago. Just fast forward 10 years. Just last year we realized that you don't even need to have a robotic device. You can just build a computational body, an avatar, a monkey avatar. And you can actually use it for our monkeys to either interact with them, or you can train them to assume in a virtual world the first-person perspective of that avatar and use her brain activity to control the movements of the avatar's arms or legs.
And what we did basically was to train the animals to learn how to control these avatars and explore objects that appear in the virtual world. And these objects are visually identical, but when the avatar crosses the surface of these objects, they send an electrical message that is proportional to the microtactile texture of the object that goes back directly to the monkey's brain, informing the brain what it is the avatar is touching. And in just four weeks, the brain learns to process this new sensation and acquires a new sensory pathway -- like a new sense. And you truly liberate the brain now because you are allowing the brain to send motor commands to move this avatar. And the feedback that comes from the avatar is being processed directly by the brain without the interference of the skin.
So what you see here is this is the design of the task. You're going to see an animal basically touching these three targets. And he has to select one because only one carries the reward, the orange juice that they want to get. And he has to select it by touch using a virtual arm, an arm that doesn't exist. And that's exactly what they do.
This is a complete liberation of the brain from the physical constraints of the body and the motor in a perceptual task. The animal is controlling the avatar to touch the targets. And he's sensing the texture by receiving an electrical message directly in the brain. And the brain is deciding what is the texture associated with the reward. The legends that you see in the movie don't appear for the monkey. And by the way, they don't read English anyway, so they are here just for you to know that the correct target is shifting position. And yet, they can find them by tactile discrimination, and they can press it and select it.
So when we look at the brains of these animals, on the top panel you see the alignment of 125 cells showing what happens with the brain activity, the electrical storms, of this sample of neurons in the brain when the animal is using a joystick. And that's a picture that every neurophysiologist knows. The basic alignment shows that these cells are coding for all possible directions. The bottom picture is what happens when the body stops moving and the animal starts controlling either a robotic device or a computational avatar. As fast as we can reset our computers, the brain activity shifts to start representing this new tool, as if this too was a part of that primate's body. The brain is assimilating that too, as fast as we can measure.
So that suggests to us that our sense of self does not end at the last layer of the epithelium of our bodies, but it ends at the last layer of electrons of the tools that we're commanding with our brains. Our violins, our cars, our bicycles, our soccer balls, our clothing -- they all become assimilated by this voracious, amazing, dynamic system called the brain.
How far can we take it? Well, in an experiment that we ran a few years ago, we took this to the limit. We had an animal running on a treadmill at Duke University on the East Coast of the United States, producing the brainstorms necessary to move. And we had a robotic device, a humanoid robot, in Kyoto, Japan at ATR Laboratories that was dreaming its entire life to be controlled by a brain, a human brain, or a primate brain.
What happens here is that the brain activity that generated the movements in the monkey was transmitted to Japan and made this robot walk while footage of this walking was sent back to Duke, so that the monkey could see the legs of this robot walking in front of her. So she could be rewarded, not by what her body was doing but for every correct step of the robot on the other side of the planet controlled by her brain activity.
Funny thing, that round trip around the globe took 20 milliseconds less than it takes for that brainstorm to leave its head, the head of the monkey, and reach its own muscle. The monkey was moving a robot that was six times bigger, across the planet. This is one of the experiments in which that robot was able to walk autonomously. This is CB1 fulfilling its dream in Japan under the control of the brain activity of a primate.
So where are we taking all this? What are we going to do with all this research, besides studying the properties of this dynamic universe that we have between our ears? Well the idea is to take all this knowledge and technology and try to restore one of the most severe neurological problems that we have in the world. Millions of people have lost the ability to translate these brainstorms into action, into movement. Although their brains continue to produce those storms and code for movements, they cannot cross a barrier that was created by a lesion on the spinal cord.
So our idea is to create a bypass, is to use these brain-machine interfaces to read these signals, larger-scale brainstorms that contain the desire to move again, bypass the lesion using computational microengineering and send it to a new body, a whole body called an exoskeleton, a whole robotic suit that will become the new body of these patients.
And you can see an image produced by this consortium. This is a nonprofit consortium called the Walk Again Project that is putting together scientists from Europe, from here in the United States, and in Brazil together to work to actually get this new body built -- a body that we believe, through the same plastic mechanisms that allow Aurora and other monkeys to use these tools through a brain-machine interface and that allows us to incorporate the tools that we produce and use in our daily life. This same mechanism, we hope, will allow these patients, not only to imagine again the movements that they want to make and translate them into movements of this new body, but for this body to be assimilated as the new body that the brain controls.
So I was told about 10 years ago that this would never happen, that this was close to impossible. And I can only tell you that as a scientist, I grew up in southern Brazil in the mid-'60s watching a few crazy guys telling [us] that they would go to the Moon. And I was five years old, and I never understood why NASA didn't hire Captain Kirk and Spock to do the job; after all, they were very proficient -- but just seeing that as a kid made me believe, as my grandmother used to tell me, that "impossible is just the possible that someone has not put in enough effort to make it come true."
So they told me that it's impossible to make someone walk. I think I'm going to follow my grandmother's advice.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Ten years ago exactly, I was in Afghanistan. I was covering the war in Afghanistan, and I witnessed, as a reporter for Al Jazeera, the amount of suffering and destruction that emerged out of a war like that. Then, two years later, I covered another war -- the war in Iraq. I was placed at the center of that war because I was covering the war from the northern part of Iraq. And the war ended with a regime change, like the one in Afghanistan. And that regime that we got rid of was actually a dictatorship, an authoritarian regime, that for decades created a great sense of paralysis within the nation, within the people themselves. However, the change that came through foreign intervention created even worse circumstances for the people and deepened the sense of paralysis and inferiority in that part of the world.
For decades, we have lived under authoritarian regimes -- in the Arab world, in the Middle East. These regimes created something within us during this period. I'm 43 years old right now. For the last 40 years, I have seen almost the same faces for kings and presidents ruling us -- old, aged, authoritarian, corrupt situations -- regimes that we have seen around us. And for a moment I was wondering, are we going to live in order to see real change happening on the ground, a change that does not come through foreign intervention, through the misery of occupation, through nations invading our land and deepening the sense of inferiority sometimes? The Iraqis: yes, they got rid of Saddam Hussein, but when they saw their land occupied by foreign forces they felt very sad, they felt that their dignity had suffered. And this is why they revolted. This is why they did not accept. And actually other regimes, they told their citizens, "Would you like to see the situation of Iraq? Would you like to see civil war, sectarian killing? Would you like to see destruction? Would you like to see foreign troops on your land?" And the people thought for themselves, "Maybe we should live with this kind of authoritarian situation that we find ourselves in, instead of having the second scenario." That was one of the worst nightmares that we have seen.
For 10 years, unfortunately we have found ourselves reporting images of destruction, images of killing, of sectarian conflicts, images of violence, emerging from a magnificent piece of land, a region that one day was the source of civilizations and art and culture for thousands of years. Now I am here to tell you that the future that we were dreaming for has eventually arrived. A new generation, well-educated, connected, inspired by universal values and a global understanding, has created a new reality for us. We have found a new way to express our feelings and to express our dreams: these young people who have restored self-confidence in our nations in that part of the world, who have given us new meaning for freedom and empowered us to go down to the streets. Nothing happened. No violence. Nothing. Just step out of your house, raise your voice and say, "We would like to see the end of the regime."
This is what happened in Tunisia. Over a few days, the Tunisian regime that invested billions of dollars in the security agencies, billions of dollars in maintaining, trying to maintain, its prisons, collapsed, disappeared, because of the voices of the public. People who were inspired to go down to the streets and to raise their voices, they tried to kill. The intelligence agencies wanted to arrest people. They found something called Facebook. They found something called Twitter. They were surprised by all of these kinds of issues. And they said, "These kids are misled." Therefore, they asked their parents to go down to the streets and collect them, bring them back home. This is what they were telling. This is their propaganda. "Bring these kids home because they are misled." But yes, these youth who have been inspired by universal values, who are idealistic enough to imagine a magnificent future and, at the same time, realistic enough to balance this kind of imagination and the process leading to it -- not using violence, not trying to create chaos -- these young people, they did not go home. Parents actually went to the streets and they supported them. And this is how the revolution was born in Tunisia.
We in Al Jazeera were banned from Tunisia for years, and the government did not allow any Al Jazeera reporter to be there. But we found that these people in the street, all of them are our reporters, feeding our newsroom with pictures, with videos and with news. And suddenly that newsroom in Doha became a center that received all this kind of input from ordinary people -- people who are connected and people who have ambition and who have liberated themselves from the feeling of inferiority. And then we took that decision: We are unrolling the news. We are going to be the voice for these voiceless people. We are going to spread the message. Yes, some of these young people are connected to the Internet, but the connectivity in the Arab world is very little, is very small, because of many problems that we are suffering from. But Al Jazeera took the voice from these people and we amplified [it]. We put it in every sitting room in the Arab world -- and internationally, globally, through our English channel.
And then people started to feel that there's something new happening. And then Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali decided to leave. And then Egypt started, and Hosni Mubarak decided to leave. And now Libya as you see it. And then you have Yemen. And you have many other countries trying to see and to rediscover that feeling of, "How do we imagine a future which is magnificent and peaceful and tolerant?" I want to tell you something, that the Internet and connectivity has created [a] new mindset. But this mindset has continued to be faithful to the soil and to the land that it emerged from. And while this was the major difference between many initiatives before to create change, before we thought, and governments told us -- and even sometimes it was true -- that change was imposed on us, and people rejected that, because they thought that it is alien to their culture. Always, we believed that change will spring from within, that change should be a reconciliation with culture, cultural diversity, with our faith in our tradition and in our history, but at the same time, open to universal values, connected with the world, tolerant to the outside. And this is the moment that is happening right now in the Arab world. This is the right moment, and this is the actual moment that we see all of these meanings meet together and then create the beginning of this magnificent era that will emerge from the region.
How did the elite deal with that -- the so-called political elite? In front of Facebook, they brought the camels in Tahrir Square. In front of Al Jazeera, they started creating tribalism. And then when they failed, they started speaking about conspiracies that emerged from Tel Aviv and Washington in order to divide the Arab world. They started telling the West, "Be aware of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is taking over our territories. These are Islamists trying to create new Imaras. Be aware of these people who [are] coming to you in order to ruin your great civilization." Fortunately, people right now cannot be deceived. Because this corrupt elite in that region has lost even the power of deception. They could not, and they cannot, imagine how they could really deal with this reality. They have lost. They have been detached from their people, from the masses, and now we are seeing them collapsing one after the other.
Al Jazeera is not a tool of revolution. We do not create revolutions. However, when something of that magnitude happens, we are at the center of the coverage. We were banned from Egypt, and our correspondents, some of them were arrested. But most of our camera people and our journalists, they went underground in Egypt -- voluntarily -- to report what happened in Tahrir Square. For 18 days, our cameras were broadcasting, live, the voices of the people in Tahrir Square. I remember one night when someone phoned me on my cellphone -- ordinary person who I don't know -- from Tahrir Square. He told me, "We appeal to you not to switch off the cameras. If you switch off the cameras tonight, there will be a genocide. You are protecting us by showing what is happening at Tahrir Square." I felt the responsibility to phone our correspondents there and to phone our newsroom and to tell them, "Make your best not to switch off the cameras at night, because the guys there really feel confident when someone is reporting their story -- and they feel protected as well."
So we have a chance to create a new future in that part of the world. We have a chance to go and to think of the future as something which is open to the world. Let us not repeat the mistake of Iran, of [the] Mosaddeq revolution. Let us free ourselves -- especially in the West -- from thinking about that part of the world based on oil interest, or based on interests of the illusion of stability and security. The stability and security of authoritarian regimes cannot create but terrorism and violence and destruction. Let us accept the choice of the people. Let us not pick and choose who we would like to rule their future. The future should be ruled by people themselves, even sometimes if they are voices that might now scare us. But the values of democracy and the freedom of choice that is sweeping the Middle East at this moment in time is the best opportunity for the world, for the West and the East, to see stability and to see security and to see friendship and to see tolerance emerging from the Arab world, rather than the images of violence and terrorism. Let us support these people. Let us stand for them. And let us give up our narrow selfishness in order to embrace change, and in order to celebrate with the people of that region a great future and hope and tolerance. The future has arrived, and the future is now. I thank you very much.
(Applause)
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: I just have a couple of questions for you. Thank you for coming here. How would you characterize the historical significance of what's happened? Is this a story-of-the-year, a story-of-the-decade or something more?
Wadah Khanfar: Actually, this may be the biggest story that we have ever covered. We have covered many wars. We have covered a lot of tragedies, a lot of problems, a lot of conflict zones, a lot of hot spots in the region, because we were centered at the middle of it. But this is a story -- it is a great story; it is beautiful. It is not something that you only cover because you have to cover a great incident. You are witnessing change in history. You are witnessing the birth of a new era. And this is what the story's all about.
CA: There are a lot of people in the West who are still skeptical, or think this may just be an intermediate stage before much more alarming chaos. You really believe that if there are democratic elections in Egypt now, that a government could emerge that espouses some of the values you've spoken about so inspiringly?
WK: And people actually, after the collapse of the Hosni Mubarak regime, the youth who have organized themselves in certain groups and councils, they are guarding the transformation and they are trying to put it on a track in order to satisfy the values of democracy, but at the same time also to make it reasonable and to make it rational, not to go out of order. In my opinion, these people are much more wiser than, not only the political elite, even the intellectual elite, even opposition leaders including political parties. At this moment in time, the youth in the Arab world are much more wiser and capable of creating the change than the old -- including the political and cultural and ideological old regimes.
(Applause)
CA: We are not to get involved politically and interfere in that way. What should people here at TED, here in the West, do if they want to connect or make a difference and they believe in what's happening here?
WK: I think we have discovered a very important issue in the Arab world -- that people care, people care about this great transformation. Mohamed Nanabhay who's sitting with us, the head of Aljazeera.net, he told me that a 2,500 percent increase of accessing our website from various parts of the world. Fifty percent of it is coming from America. Because we discovered that people care, and people would like to know -- they are receiving the stream through our Internet. Unfortunately in the United States, we are not covering but Washington D.C. at this moment in time for Al Jazeera English. But I can tell you, this is the moment to celebrate through connecting ourselves with those people in the street and expressing our support to them and expressing this kind of feeling, universal feeling, of supporting the weak and the oppressed to create a much better future for all of us.
CA: Well Wadah, a group of members of the TED community, TEDxCairo, are meeting as we speak. They've had some speakers there. I believe they've heard your talk. Thank you for inspiring them and for inspiring all of us. Thank you so much.
(Applause) |
We're here to celebrate compassion. But compassion, from my vantage point, has a problem. As essential as it is across our traditions, as real as so many of us know it to be in particular lives, the word "compassion" is hollowed out in our culture, and it is suspect in my field of journalism. It's seen as a squishy kumbaya thing, or it's seen as potentially depressing. Karen Armstrong has told what I think is an iconic story of giving a speech in Holland and, after the fact, the word "compassion" was translated as "pity."
Now compassion, when it enters the news, too often comes in the form of feel-good feature pieces or sidebars about heroic people you could never be like or happy endings or examples of self-sacrifice that would seem to be too good to be true most of the time. Our cultural imagination about compassion has been deadened by idealistic images. And so what I'd like to do this morning for the next few minutes is perform a linguistic resurrection. And I hope you'll come with me on my basic premise that words matter, that they shape the way we understand ourselves, the way we interpret the world and the way we treat others.
When this country first encountered genuine diversity in the 1960s, we adopted tolerance as the core civic virtue with which we would approach that. Now the word "tolerance," if you look at it in the dictionary, connotes "allowing," "indulging" and "enduring." In the medical context that it comes from, it is about testing the limits of thriving in an unfavorable environment. Tolerance is not really a lived virtue; it's more of a cerebral ascent. And it's too cerebral to animate guts and hearts and behavior when the going gets rough. And the going is pretty rough right now. I think that without perhaps being able to name it, we are collectively experiencing that we've come as far as we can with tolerance as our only guiding virtue.
Compassion is a worthy successor. It is organic, across our religious, spiritual and ethical traditions, and yet it transcends them. Compassion is a piece of vocabulary that could change us if we truly let it sink into the standards to which we hold ourselves and others, both in our private and in our civic spaces. So what is it, three-dimensionally? What are its kindred and component parts? What's in its universe of attendant virtues? To start simply, I want to say that compassion is kind. Now "kindness" might sound like a very mild word, and it's prone to its own abundant cliche. But kindness is an everyday byproduct of all the great virtues. And it is a most edifying form of instant gratification.
Compassion is also curious. Compassion cultivates and practices curiosity. I love a phrase that was offered me by two young women who are interfaith innovators in Los Angeles, Aziza Hasan and Malka Fenyvesi. They are working to create a new imagination about shared life among young Jews and Muslims, and as they do that, they cultivate what they call "curiosity without assumptions." Well that's going to be a breeding ground for compassion.
Compassion can be synonymous with empathy. It can be joined with the harder work of forgiveness and reconciliation, but it can also express itself in the simple act of presence. It's linked to practical virtues like generosity and hospitality and just being there, just showing up. I think that compassion also is often linked to beauty -- and by that I mean a willingness to see beauty in the other, not just what it is about them that might need helping. I love it that my Muslim conversation partners often speak of beauty as a core moral value. And in that light, for the religious, compassion also brings us into the territory of mystery -- encouraging us not just to see beauty, but perhaps also to look for the face of God in the moment of suffering, in the face of a stranger, in the face of the vibrant religious other.
I'm not sure if I can show you what tolerance looks like, but I can show you what compassion looks like -- because it is visible. When we see it, we recognize it and it changes the way we think about what is doable, what is possible. It is so important when we're communicating big ideas -- but especially a big spiritual idea like compassion -- to root it as we present it to others in space and time and flesh and blood -- the color and complexity of life.
And compassion does seek physicality. I first started to learn this most vividly from Matthew Sanford. And I don't imagine that you will realize this when you look at this photograph of him, but he's paraplegic. He's been paralyzed from the waist down since he was 13, in a car crash that killed his father and his sister. Matthew's legs don't work, and he'll never walk again, and -- and he does experience this as an "and" rather than a "but" -- and he experiences himself to be healed and whole. And as a teacher of yoga, he brings that experience to others across the spectrum of ability and disability, health, illness and aging. He says that he's just at an extreme end of the spectrum we're all on. He's doing some amazing work now with veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. And Matthew has made this remarkable observation that I'm just going to offer you and let it sit. I can't quite explain it, and he can't either. But he says that he has yet to experience someone who became more aware of their body, in all its frailty and its grace, without, at the same time, becoming more compassionate towards all of life.
Compassion also looks like this. This is Jean Vanier. Jean Vanier helped found the L'Arche communities, which you can now find all over the world, communities centered around life with people with mental disabilities -- mostly Down syndrome. The communities that Jean Vanier founded, like Jean Vanier himself, exude tenderness. "Tender" is another word I would love to spend some time resurrecting. We spend so much time in this culture being driven and aggressive, and I spend a lot of time being those things too. And compassion can also have those qualities. But again and again, lived compassion brings us back to the wisdom of tenderness. Jean Vanier says that his work, like the work of other people -- his great, beloved, late friend Mother Teresa -- is never in the first instance about changing the world; it's in the first instance about changing ourselves. He's says that what they do with L'Arche is not a solution, but a sign. Compassion is rarely a solution, but it is always a sign of a deeper reality, of deeper human possibilities.
And compassion is unleashed in wider and wider circles by signs and stories, never by statistics and strategies. We need those things too, but we're also bumping up against their limits. And at the same time that we are doing that, I think we are rediscovering the power of story -- that as human beings, we need stories to survive, to flourish, to change. Our traditions have always known this, and that is why they have always cultivated stories at their heart and carried them forward in time for us. There is, of course, a story behind the key moral longing and commandment of Judaism to repair the world -- tikkun olam.
And I'll never forget hearing that story from Dr. Rachel Naomi Remen, who told it to me as her grandfather told it to her, that in the beginning of the Creation something happened and the original light of the universe was shattered into countless pieces. It lodged as shards inside every aspect of the Creation. And that the highest human calling is to look for this light, to point at it when we see it, to gather it up, and in so doing, to repair the world. Now this might sound like a fanciful tale. Some of my fellow journalists might interpret it that way. Rachel Naomi Remen says this is an important and empowering story for our time, because this story insists that each and every one of us, frail and flawed as we may be, inadequate as we may feel, has exactly what's needed to help repair the part of the world that we can see and touch.
Stories like this, signs like this, are practical tools in a world longing to bring compassion to abundant images of suffering that can otherwise overwhelm us. Rachel Naomi Remen is actually bringing compassion back to its rightful place alongside science in her field of medicine in the training of new doctors. And this trend of what Rachel Naomi Remen is doing, how these kinds of virtues are finding a place in the vocabulary of medicine -- the work Fred Luskin is doing -- I think this is one of the most fascinating developments of the 21st century -- that science, in fact, is taking a virtue like compassion definitively out of the realm of idealism. This is going to change science, I believe, and it will change religion.
But here's a face from 20th century science that might surprise you in a discussion about compassion. We all know about the Albert Einstein who came up with E = mc2. We don't hear so much about the Einstein who invited the African American opera singer, Marian Anderson, to stay in his home when she came to sing in Princeton because the best hotel there was segregated and wouldn't have her. We don't hear about the Einstein who used his celebrity to advocate for political prisoners in Europe or the Scottsboro boys in the American South.
Einstein believed deeply that science should transcend national and ethnic divisions. But he watched physicists and chemists become the purveyors of weapons of mass destruction in the early 20th century. He once said that science in his generation had become like a razor blade in the hands of a three-year-old. And Einstein foresaw that as we grow more modern and technologically advanced, we need the virtues our traditions carry forward in time more, not less. He liked to talk about the spiritual geniuses of the ages. Some of his favorites were Moses, Jesus, Buddha, St. Francis of Assisi, Gandhi -- he adored his contemporary, Gandhi. And Einstein said -- and I think this is a quote, again, that has not been passed down in his legacy -- that "these kinds of people are geniuses in the art of living, more necessary to the dignity, security and joy of humanity than the discoverers of objective knowledge."
Now invoking Einstein might not seem the best way to bring compassion down to earth and make it seem accessible to all the rest of us, but actually it is. I want to show you the rest of this photograph, because this photograph is analogous to what we do to the word "compassion" in our culture -- we clean it up and we diminish its depths and its grounding in life, which is messy. So in this photograph you see a mind looking out a window at what might be a cathedral -- it's not. This is the full photograph, and you see a middle-aged man wearing a leather jacket, smoking a cigar. And by the look of that paunch, he hasn't been doing enough yoga. We put these two photographs side-by-side on our website, and someone said, "When I look at the first photo, I ask myself, what was he thinking? And when I look at the second, I ask, what kind of person was he? What kind of man is this?"
Well, he was complicated. He was incredibly compassionate in some of his relationships and terribly inadequate in others. And it is much harder, often, to be compassionate towards those closest to us, which is another quality in the universe of compassion, on its dark side, that also deserves our serious attention and illumination. Gandhi, too, was a real flawed human being. So was Martin Luther King, Jr. So was Dorothy Day. So was Mother Teresa. So are we all. And I want to say that it is a liberating thing to realize that that is no obstacle to compassion -- following on what Fred Luskin says -- that these flaws just make us human.
Our culture is obsessed with perfection and with hiding problems. But what a liberating thing to realize that our problems, in fact, are probably our richest sources for rising to this ultimate virtue of compassion, towards bringing compassion towards the suffering and joys of others. Rachel Naomi Remen is a better doctor because of her life-long struggle with Crohn's disease. Einstein became a humanitarian, not because of his exquisite knowledge of space and time and matter, but because he was a Jew as Germany grew fascist. And Karen Armstrong, I think you would also say that it was some of your very wounding experiences in a religious life that, with a zigzag, have led to the Charter for Compassion. Compassion can't be reduced to sainthood any more than it can be reduced to pity.
So I want to propose a final definition of compassion -- this is Einstein with Paul Robeson by the way -- and that would be for us to call compassion a spiritual technology. Now our traditions contain vast wisdom about this, and we need them to mine it for us now. But compassion is also equally at home in the secular as in the religious.
So I will paraphrase Einstein in closing and say that humanity, the future of humanity, needs this technology as much as it needs all the others that have now connected us and set before us the terrifying and wondrous possibility of actually becoming one human race.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
What was the most difficult job you ever did? Was it working in the sun? Was it working to provide food for a family or a community? Was it working days and nights trying to protect lives and property? Was it working alone or working on a project that wasn't guaranteed to succeed, but that might improve human health or save a life? Was it working to build something, create something, make a work of art? Was it work for which you were never sure you were fully understood or appreciated? The people in our communities who do these jobs deserve our attention, our love and our deepest support.
But people aren't the only ones in our communities who do these difficult jobs. These jobs are also done by the plants, the animals and the ecosystems on our planet, including the ecosystems I study: the tropical coral reefs. Coral reefs are farmers. They provide food, income and food security for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Coral reefs are security guards. The structures that they build protect our shorelines from storm surge and waves, and the biological systems that they house filter the water and make it safer for us to work and play. Coral reefs are chemists. The molecules that we're discovering on coral reefs are increasingly important in the search for new antibiotics and new cancer drugs. And coral reefs are artists. The structures that they build are some of the most beautiful things on planet Earth. And this beauty is the foundation of the tourism industry in many countries with few or little other natural resources.
So for all of these reasons, all of these ecosystem services, economists estimate the value of the world's coral reefs in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year. And yet despite all that hard work being done for us and all that wealth that we gain, we have done almost everything we possibly could to destroy that. We have taken the fish out of the oceans and we have added in fertilizer, sewage, diseases, oil, pollution, sediments. We have trampled the reefs physically with our boats, our fins, our bulldozers, and we have changed the chemistry of the entire sea, warmed the waters and made storms worse. And these would all be bad on their own, but these threats magnify each other and compound one another and make each other worse.
I'll give you an example. Where I live and work, in Curaçao, a tropical storm went by a few years ago. And on the eastern end of the island, where the reefs are intact and thriving, you could barely tell a tropical storm had passed. But in town, where corals had died from overfishing, from pollution, the tropical storm picked up the dead corals and used them as bludgeons to kill the corals that were left. This is a coral that I studied during my PhD -- I got to know it quite well. And after this storm took off half of its tissue, it became infested with algae, the algae overgrew the tissue and that coral died. This magnification of threats, this compounding of factors is what Jeremy Jackson describes as the "slippery slope to slime." It's hardly even a metaphor because many of our reefs now are literally bacteria and algae and slime.
Now, this is the part of the talk where you may expect me to launch into my plea for us to all save the coral reefs. But I have a confession to make: that phrase drives me nuts. Whether I see it in a tweet, in a news headline or the glossy pages of a conservation brochure, that phrase bothers me, because we as conservationists have been sounding the alarms about the death of coral reefs for decades. And yet, almost everyone I meet, no matter how educated, is not sure what a coral is or where they come from. How would we get someone to care about the world's coral reefs when it's an abstract thing they can barely understand? If they don't understand what a coral is or where it comes from, or how funny or interesting or beautiful it is, why would we expect them to care about saving them?
So let's change that. What is a coral and where does it come from? Corals are born in a number of different ways, but most often by mass spawning: all of the individuals of a single species on one night a year, releasing all the eggs they've made that year into the water column, packaged into bundles with sperm cells. And those bundles go to the surface of the ocean and break apart. And hopefully -- hopefully -- at the surface of the ocean, they meet the eggs and sperm from other corals. And that is why you need lots of corals on a coral reef -- so that all of their eggs can meet their match at the surface. When they're fertilized, they do what any other animal egg does: divides in half again and again and again. Taking these photos under the microscope every year is one of my favorite and most magical moments of the year. At the end of all this cell division, they turn into a swimming larva -- a little tiny blob of fat the size of a poppy seed, but with all of the sensory systems that we have. They can sense color and light, textures, chemicals, pH. They can even feel pressure waves; they can hear sound. And they use those talents to search the bottom of the reef for a place to attach and live the rest of their lives.
So imagine finding a place where you would live the rest of your life when you were just two days old. They attach in the place they find most suitable, they build a skeleton underneath themselves, they build a mouth and tentacles, and then they begin the difficult work of building the world's coral reefs. One coral polyp will divide itself again and again and again, leaving a limestone skeleton underneath itself and growing up toward the sun. Given hundreds of years and many species, what you get is a massive limestone structure that can be seen from space in many cases, covered by a thin skin of these hardworking animals. Now, there are only a few hundred species of corals on the planet, maybe 1,000. But these systems house millions and millions of other species, and that diversity is what stabilizes the systems, and it's where we're finding our new medicines. It's how we find new sources of food. I'm lucky enough to work on the island of Curaçao, where we still have reefs that look like this. But, indeed, much of the Caribbean and much of our world is much more like this.
Scientists have studied in increasing detail the loss of the world's coral reefs, and they have documented with increasing certainty the causes. But in my research, I'm not interested in looking backward. My colleagues and I in Curaçao are interested in looking forward at what might be. And we have the tiniest reason to be optimistic. Because even in some of these reefs that we probably could have written off long ago, we sometimes see baby corals arrive and survive anyway. And we're starting to think that baby corals may have the ability to adjust to some of the conditions that the adults couldn't. They may be able to adjust ever so slightly more readily to this human planet. So in the research I do with my colleagues in Curaçao, we try to figure out what a baby coral needs in that critical early stage, what it's looking for and how we can try to help it through that process. I'm going to show you three examples of the work we've done to try to answer those questions.
A few years ago we took a 3D printer and we made coral choice surveys -- different colors and different textures, and we simply asked the coral where they preferred to settle. And we found that corals, even without the biology involved, still prefer white and pink, the colors of a healthy reef. And they prefer crevices and grooves and holes, where they will be safe from being trampled or eaten by a predator. So we can use this knowledge, we can go back and say we need to restore those factors -- that pink, that white, those crevices, those hard surfaces -- in our conservation projects. We can also use that knowledge if we're going to put something underwater, like a sea wall or a pier. We can choose to use the materials and colors and textures that might bias the system back toward those corals. Now in addition to the surfaces, we also study the chemical and microbial signals that attract corals to reefs. Starting about six years ago, I began culturing bacteria from surfaces where corals had settled. And I tried those one by one by one, looking for the bacteria that would convince corals to settle and attach. And we now have many bacterial strains in our freezer that will reliably cause corals to go through that settlement and attachment process. So as we speak, my colleagues in Curaçao are testing those bacteria to see if they'll help us raise more coral settlers in the lab, and to see if those coral settlers will survive better when we put them back underwater.
Now in addition to these tools, we also try to uncover the mysteries of species that are under-studied. This is one of my favorite corals, and always has been: dendrogyra cylindrus, the pillar coral. I love it because it makes this ridiculous shape, because its tentacles are fat and look fuzzy and because it's rare. Finding one of these on a reef is a treat. In fact, it's so rare, that last year it was listed as a threatened species on the endangered species list. And this was in part because in over 30 years of research surveys, scientists had never found a baby pillar coral. We weren't even sure if they could still reproduce, or if they were still reproducing.
So four years ago, we started following these at night and watching to see if we could figure out when they spawn in Curaçao. We got some good tips from our colleagues in Florida, who had seen one in 2007, one in 2008, and eventually we figured out when they spawn in Curaçao and we caught it. Here's a female on the left with some eggs in her tissue, about to release them into the seawater. And here's a male on the right, releasing sperm. We collected this, we got it back to the lab, we got it to fertilize and we got baby pillar corals swimming in our lab. Thanks to the work of our scientific aunts and uncles, and thanks to the 10 years of practice we've had in Curaçao at raising other coral species, we got some of those larvae to go through the rest of the process and settle and attach, and turn into metamorphosed corals. So this is the first pillar coral baby that anyone ever saw.
(Applause)
And I have to say -- if you think baby pandas are cute, this is cuter.
(Laughter)
So we're starting to figure out the secrets to this process, the secrets of coral reproduction and how we might help them. And this is true all around the world; scientists are figuring out new ways to handle their embryos, to get them to settle, maybe even figuring out the methods to preserve them at low temperatures, so that we can preserve their genetic diversity and work with them more often. But this is still so low-tech. We are limited by the space on our bench, the number of hands in the lab and the number of coffees we can drink in any given hour.
Now, compare that to our other crises and our other areas of concern as a society. We have advanced medical technology, we have defense technology, we have scientific technology, we even have advanced technology for art. But our technology for conservation is behind. Think back to the most difficult job you ever did. Many of you would say it was being a parent. My mother described being a parent as something that makes your life far more amazing and far more difficult than you could've ever possibly imagined. I've been trying to help corals become parents for over 10 years now. And watching the wonder of life has certainly filled me with amazement to the core of my soul. But I've also seen how difficult it is for them to become parents. The pillar corals spawned again two weeks ago, and we collected their eggs and brought them back to the lab. And here you see one embryo dividing, alongside 14 eggs that didn't fertilize and will blow up. They'll be infected with bacteria, they will explode and those bacteria will threaten the life of this one embryo that has a chance. We don't know if it was our handling methods that went wrong and we don't know if it was just this coral on this reef, always suffering from low fertility. Whatever the cause, we have much more work to do before we can use baby corals to grow or fix or, yes, maybe save coral reefs.
So never mind that they're worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Coral reefs are hardworking animals and plants and microbes and fungi. They're providing us with art and food and medicine. And we almost took out an entire generation of corals. But a few made it anyway, despite our best efforts, and now it's time for us to thank them for the work they did and give them every chance they have to raise the coral reefs of the future, their coral babies.
Thank you so much.
(Applause) |
I'm going to talk about two stories today. One is how we need to use market-based pricing to affect demand and use wireless technologies to dramatically reduce our emissions in the transportation sector. And the other is that there is an incredible opportunity if we choose the right wireless technologies; how we can generate a new engine for economic growth and dramatically reduce C02 in the other sectors.
I'm really scared. We need to reduce C02 emissions in ten to fifteen years by 80 percent in order to avert catastrophic effects. And I am astounded that I'm standing here to tell you that. What are catastrophic effects? A three degree centigrade climate change rise that will result in 50 percent species extinction. It's not a movie. This is real life. And I'm really worried, because when people talk about cars -- which I know something about -- the press and politicians and people in this room are all thinking, "Let's use fuel-efficient cars." If we started today, 10 years from now, at the end of this window of opportunity, those fuel-efficient cars will reduce our fossil fuel needs by four percent. That is not enough.
But now I'll talk about some more pleasant things. Here are some ways that we can make some dramatic changes. So, Zipcar is a company that I founded seven years ago, but it's an example of something called car sharing. What Zipcar does is we park cars throughout dense urban areas for members to reserve, by the hour and by the day, instead of using their own car. How does it feel to be a person using a Zipcar? It means that I pay only for what I need. All those hours when a car is sitting idle, I'm not paying for it. It means that I can choose a car exactly for that particular trip. So, here's a woman that reserved MiniMia, and she had her day. I can take a BMW when I'm seeing clients. I can drive my Toyota Element when I'm going to go on that surfing trip.
And the other remarkable thing is it's, I think, the highest status of car ownership. Not only do I have a fleet of cars available to me in seven cities around the world that I can have at my beck and call, but heaven forbid I would ever maintain or deal with the repair or have anything to do with it. It's like the car that you always wanted that your mom said that you couldn't have. I get all the good stuff and none of the bad.
So, what is the social result of this? The social result is that today's Zipcar has 100,000 members driving 3,000 cars parked in 3,000 parking spaces. Instead of driving 12,000 miles a year, which is what the average city dweller does, they drive 500 miles a year. Are they happy? The company has been doubling in size ever since I founded it, or greater. People adore the company. And it's better, you know? They like it. So, how is it that people went from the 12,000 miles a year to 500 miles? It's because they said, "It's eight to 10 dollars an hour and 65 dollars a day. If I'm going to go buy some ice cream, do I really want to spend eight dollars to go buy the ice cream? Or maybe I'll do without. Maybe I would have bought the ice cream when I did some other errand." So, people really respond very quickly to it, to prices.
And the last point I want to make is Zipcar would never be possible without technology. It required that it was completely trivial: that it takes 30 seconds to reserve a car, go get it, drive it. And for me, as a service provider, I would never be able to provide you a car for an hour if the transaction cost was anything. So, without these wireless technologies, this, as a concept, could never happen.
So, here's another example. This company is GoLoco -- I'm launching it in about three weeks -- and I hope to do for ridesharing what I did for car sharing. This will apply to people across all of America. Today, 75 percent of the trips are single-occupancy vehicles, yet 12 percent of trips to work are currently carpool. And I think that we can apply social networks and online payment systems to completely change how people feel about ridesharing and make that trip much more efficient.
And so when I think about the future, people will be thinking that sharing the ride with someone is this incredibly great social event out of their day. You know, how did you get to TED? You went with other TEDsters. How fabulous. Why would you ever want to go by yourself in your own car? How did you go food shopping? You went with your neighbor, what a great social time. You know it's going to really transform how we feel about travel, and it will also, I think, enhance our freedom of mobility. Where can I go today and who can I do it with? Those are the types of things that you will look at and feel.
And the social benefits: the rate of single-occupancy vehicles is, I told you, 75 percent; I think we can get that down to 50 percent. The demand for parking, of course, is down, congestion and the CO2 emissions. One last piece about this, of course, is that it's enabled by wireless technologies. And it's the cost of driving that's making people want to be able to do this. The average American spends 19 percent of their income on their car, and there's a pressure for them to reduce that cost, yet they have no outlet today.
So, the last example of this is congestion pricing, very famously done in London. It's when you charge a premium for people to drive on congested roads. In London, the day they turned the congestion pricing on, there was a 25 percent decrease in congestion overnight, and that's persisted for the four years in which they've been doing congestion pricing. And again, do people like the outcome? Ken Livingstone was reelected. So again, we can see that price plays an enormous role in people's willingness to reduce their driving behavior. We've tripled the miles that we drive since 1970 and doubled them since 1982. There's a huge slack in that system; with the right pricing we can undo that.
Congestion pricing is being discussed in every major city around the world and is, again, wirelessly enabled. You weren't going to put tollbooths around the city of London and open and shut those gates. And what congestion pricing is is that it's a technology trial and a psychological trial for something called road pricing. And road pricing is where we're all going to have to go, because today we pay for our maintenance and wear and tear on our cars with gas taxes. And as we get our cars more fuel-efficient, that's going to be reducing the amount of revenue that you get off of those gas taxes, so we need to charge people by the mile that they drive. Whatever happens with congestion pricing and those technologies will be happening with road pricing.
Why do we travel too much? Car travel is underpriced and therefore we over-consumed. We need to put this better market feedback. And if we have it, you'll decide how many miles to drive, what mode of travel, where to live and work. And wireless technologies make this real-time loop possible.
So, I want to move now to the second part of my story, which is: when are we going to start doing this congestion pricing? Road pricing is coming. When are we going to do it? Are we going to wait 10 to 15 years for this to happen or are we going to finally have this political will to make it happen in the next two years? Because I'm going to say, that is going to be the tool that's going to turn our usage overnight.
And what kind of wireless technology are we going to use? This is my big vision. There is a tool that can help us bridge the digital divide, respond to emergencies, get traffic moving, provide a new engine for economic growth and dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in every sector. And this is a moment from "The Graduate." Do you remember this moment? You guys are going to be the handsome young guy and I'm going to be the wise businessman. "I want to say one word to you, just one word." "Yes, sir?" "Are you listening?" "Yes I am." "Ad-hoc peer-to-peer self-configuring wireless networks." (Laughter) These are also called mesh networks. And in a mesh, every device contributes to and expands the network, and I think you might have heard a little bit about it before.
I'm going to give you some examples. You'll be hearing later today from Alan Kay. These laptops, when a child opens them up, they communicate with every single child in the classroom, within that school, within that village. And what is the cost of that communication system? Zero dollars a month. Here's another example: in New Orleans, video cameras were mesh-enabled so that they could monitor crime in the downtown French Quarter. When the hurricane happened, the only communication system standing was the mesh network. Volunteers flew in, added a whole bunch of devices, and for the next 12 months, mesh networks were the only wireless that was happening in New Orleans.
Another example is in Portsmouth, U.K. They mesh-enabled 300 buses and they speak to these smart terminals. You can look at the terminal and be able to see precisely where your bus is on the street and when it's coming, and you can buy your tickets in real time. Again, all mesh-enabled. Monthly communication cost: zero. So, the beauty of mesh networks: you can have these very low-cost devices. Zero ongoing communication costs. Highly scalable; you can just keep adding them, and as in Katrina, you can keep subtracting them -- as long as there's some, we can still communicate. They're resilient; their redundancy is built into this fabulous decentralized design.
What are the incredible weaknesses? There isn't anybody in Washington lobbying to make it happen -- or in those municipalities, to build out their cities with these wireless networks -- because there's zero ongoing communications cost. So, the examples that I gave you are these islands of mesh networks, and networks are interesting only as they are big.
How do we create a big network? Are you guys ready again -- "The Graduate"? This time you will still play the handsome young thing, but I'll be the sexy woman. These are the next two lines in the movie. "Where did you do it?" "In his car." So you know, when you stick this idea ... (Laughter) where would we expect me, Robin Chase, to be thinking is imagine if we put a mesh-network device in every single car across America. We could have a coast-to-coast, free wireless communication system. I guess I just want you to think about that.
And why is this going to happen? Because we're going to do congestion pricing, we are going to do road tolls, gas taxes are going to become road pricing. These things are going to happen. What's the wireless technology we're going to use? Maybe we should use a good one. When are we going to do it? Maybe we shouldn't wait for the 10 or 15 years for this to happen. We should pull it forward.
So, I'd like us to launch the wireless Internet interstate wireless mesh system, and require that this network be accessible to everyone, with open standards. Right now in the transportation sector, we're creating these wireless devices -- I guess you guys might have Fast Pass here or Easy Lane -- that are single-purpose devices in these closed networks. What is the point? We're transferring just a few little data bits when we're doing road controlling, road pricing. We have this incredible excess capacity. So, we can provide the lowest-cost means of going wireless coast-to-coast, we can have resilient nationwide communication systems, we have a new tool for creating efficiencies in all sectors. Imagine what happens when the cost of getting information from anywhere to anywhere is close to zero. What you can do with that tool: we can create an economic engine. Information should be free, and access to information should be free, and we should be charging people for carbon.
I think this is a more powerful tool than the Interstate Highway Act, and I think this is as important and world changing to our economy as electrification. And if I had my druthers, we would have an open-source version in addition to open standards. And this open-source version means that it could be -- if we did a brilliant job of it -- it could be used around the world very quickly. So, going back to one of my earlier thoughts. Imagine if every one of these buses in Lagos was part of the mesh network. When I went this morning to Larry Brilliant's TEDTalk prize -- his fabulous networks -- imagine if there was an open-source mesh communications device that can be put into those networks, to make all that happen. And we can be doing it if we could just get over the fact that this little slice of things is going to be for free. We could make billions of dollars on top of it, but this one particular slice of communications needs to be open source.
So, let's take control of this nightmare: implement a gas tax immediately; transition across the nation to road-tolling with this wireless mesh; require that the mesh be open to all, with open standards; and, of course, use mesh networks. Thank you. (Applause) |
This summer I was back in Ohio for a family wedding, and when I was there, there was a meet and greet with Anna and Elsa from "Frozen." Not the Anna and Elsa from "Frozen," as this was not a Disney-sanctioned event. These two entrepreneurs had a business of running princess parties. Your kid is turning five? They'll come sing some songs, sprinkle some fairy dust, it's great. And they were not about to miss out on the opportunity that was the phenomenon and that was "Frozen."
So they get hired by a local toy store, kids come in on a Saturday morning, buy some Disney swag, get their picture taken with the princesses, call it a day. It's like Santa Claus without the seasonal restrictions. (Laughter)
And my three-and-a-half-year-old niece Samantha was in the thick of it. She could care less that these two women were signing posters and coloring books as Snow Queen and Princess Ana with one N to avoid copyright lawsuits. (Laughter) According to my niece and the 200-plus kids in the parking lot that day, this was the Anna and Elsa from "Frozen."
It is a blazing hot Saturday morning in August in Ohio. We get there at 10 o'clock, the scheduled start time, and we are handed number 59. By 11 o'clock they had called numbers 21 through 25; this was going to be a while, and there is no amount of free face painting or temporary tattoos that could prevent the meltdowns that were occurring outside of the store. (Laughter)
So, by 12:30 we get called: "56 to 63, please." And as we walk in, it is a scene I can only describe you as saying it looked like Norway threw up. (Laughter) There were cardboard cut-out snowflakes covering the floor, glitter on every flat surface, and icicles all over the walls.
And as we stood in line in an attempt to give my niece a better vantage point than the backside of the mother of number 58, I put her up on my shoulders, and she was instantly riveted by the sight of the princesses. And as we moved forward, her excitement only grew, and as we finally got to the front of the line, and number 58 unfurled her poster to be signed by the princesses, I could literally feel the excitement running through her body. And let's be honest, at that point, I was pretty excited too. (Laughter) I mean, the Scandinavian decadence was mesmerizing. (Laughter)
So we get to the front of the line, and the haggard clerk turns to my niece and says, "Hi, honey. You're next! Do you want to get down, or you're going to stay on your dad's shoulders for the picture?' (Laughter) And I was, for a lack of a better word, frozen. (Laughter)
It's amazing that in an unexpected instant we are faced with the question, who am I? Am I an aunt? Or am I an advocate? Millions of people have seen my video about how to have a hard conversation, and there one was, right in front of me. At the same time, there's nothing more important to me than the kids in my life, so I found myself in a situation that we so often find ourselves in, torn between two things, two impossible choices. Would I be an advocate? Would I take my niece off my shoulders and turn to the clerk and explain to her that I was in fact her aunt, not her father, and that she should be more careful and not to jump to gender conclusions based on haircuts and shoulder rides -- (Laughter) -- and while doing that, miss out on what was, to this point, the greatest moment of my niece's life. Or would I be an aunt? Would I brush off that comment, take a million pictures, and not be distracted for an instant from the pure joy of that moment, and by doing that, walk out with the shame that comes up for not standing up for myself, especially in front of my niece.
Who was I? Which one was more important? Which role was more worth it? Was I an aunt? Or was I an advocate? And I had a split second to decide.
We are taught right now that we are living in a world of constant and increasing polarity. It's so black and white, so us and them, so right and wrong. There is no middle, there is no gray, just polarity. Polarity is a state in which two ideas or opinions are completely opposite from each other; a diametrical opposition. Which side are you on? Are you unequivocally and without question antiwar, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gun regulation, proponent of open borders and pro-union? Or, are you absolutely and uncompromisingly pro-war, pro-life, pro-death penalty, a believer that the Second Amendment is absolute, anti-immigrant and pro-business? It's all or none, you're with us or against us. That is polarity.
The problem with polarity and absolutes is that it eliminates the individuality of our human experience and that makes it contradictory to our human nature. But if we are pulled in these two directions, but it's not really where we exist -- polarity is not our actual reality -- where do we go from there? What's at the other end of that spectrum?
I don't think it's an unattainable, harmonious utopia, I think the opposite of polarity is duality. Duality is a state of having two parts, but not in diametrical opposition, in simultaneous existence. Don't think it's possible? Here are the people I know: I know Catholics who are pro-choice, and feminists who wear hijabs, and veterans who are antiwar, and NRA members who think I should be able to get married. Those are the people I know, those are my friends and family, that is the majority of our society, that is you, that is me. (Applause) Duality is the ability to hold both things. But the question is: Can we own our duality? Can we have the courage to hold both things?
I work at a restaurant in town, I became really good friends with the busser. I was a server and we had a great relationship, we had a really great time together. Her Spanish was great because she was from Mexico. (Laughter) That line actually went the other way. Her English was limited, but significantly better than my Spanish. But we were united by our similarities, not separated by our differences. And we were close, even though we came from very different worlds. She was from Mexico, she left her family behind so she could come here and afford them a better life back home. She was a devout conservative Catholic, a believer in traditional family values, stereotypical roles of men and women, and I was, well, me. (Laughter)
But the things that bonded us were when she asked about my girlfriend, or she shared pictures that she had from her family back home. Those were the things that brought us together. So one day, we were in the back, scarfing down food as quickly as we could, gathered around a small table, during a very rare lull, and a new guy from the kitchen came over -- who happened to be her cousin -- and sat down with all the bravado and machismo that his 20-year-old body could hold. (Laughter) And he said to her, [in Spanish] "Does Ash have a boyfriend?" And she said, [in Spanish] "No, she has a girlfriend." And he said, [in Spanish] "A girlfriend?!?" And she set down her fork, and locked eyes with him, and said, [in Spanish] "Yes, a girlfriend. That is all." And his smug smile quickly dropped to one of maternal respect, grabbed his plate, walked off, went back to work. She never made eye contact with me. She left, did the same thing -- it was a 10-second conversation, such a short interaction.
And on paper, she had so much more in common with him: language, culture, history, family, her community was her lifeline here, but her moral compass trumped all of that. And a little bit later, they were joking around in the kitchen in Spanish, that had nothing to do with me, and that is duality. She didn't have to choose some P.C. stance on gayness over her heritage. She didn't have to choose her family over our friendship. It wasn't Jesus or Ash. (Laughter) (Applause)
Her individual morality was so strongly rooted that she had the courage to hold both things. Our moral integrity is our responsibility and we must be prepared to defend it even when it's not convenient. That's what it means to be an ally, and if you're going to be an ally, you have to be an active ally: Ask questions, act when you hear something inappropriate, actually engage.
I had a family friend who for years used to call my girlfriend my lover. Really? Lover? So overly sexual, so '70s gay porn. (Laughter) But she was trying, and she asked. She could have called her my friend, or my "friend," or my "special friend" -- (Laughter) -- or even worse, just not asked at all. Believe me, we would rather have you ask. I would rather have her say lover, than say nothing at all.
People often say to me, "Well, Ash, I don't care. I don't see race or religion or sexuality. It doesn't matter to me. I don't see it." But I think the opposite of homophobia and racism and xenophobia is not love, it's apathy. If you don't see my gayness, then you don't see me. If it doesn't matter to you who I sleep with, then you cannot imagine what it feels like when I walk down the street late at night holding her hand, and approach a group of people and have to make the decision if I should hang on to it or if I should I drop it when all I want to do is squeeze it tighter. And the small victory I feel when I make it by and don't have to let go. And the incredible cowardice and disappointment I feel when I drop it. If you do not see that struggle that is unique to my human experience because I am gay, then you don't see me. If you are going to be an ally, I need you to see me.
As individuals, as allies, as humans, we need to be able to hold both things: both the good and the bad, the easy and the hard. You don't learn how to hold two things just from the fluff, you learn it from the grit. And what if duality is just the first step? What if through compassion and empathy and human interaction we are able to learn to hold two things? And if we can hold two things, we can hold four, and if we can hold four, we can hold eight, and if we can hold eight, we can hold hundreds.
We are complex individuals, swirls of contradiction. You are all holding so many things right now. What can you do to hold just a few more?
So, back to Toledo, Ohio. I'm at the front of the line, niece on my shoulders, the frazzled clerk calls me Dad. Have you ever been mistaken for the wrong gender? Not even that. Have you ever been called something you are not? Here's what it feels like for me: I am instantly an internal storm of contrasting emotions. I break out into a sweat that is a combination of rage and humiliation, I feel like the entire store is staring at me, and I simultaneously feel invisible. I want to explode in a tirade of fury, and I want to crawl under a rock. And top all of that off with the frustration that I'm wearing an out-of-character tight-fitting purple t-shirt, so this whole store can see my boobs, to make sure this exact same thing doesn't happen. (Laughter) But, despite my best efforts to be seen as the gender I am, it still happens. And I hope with every ounce of my body that no one heard -- not my sister, not my girlfriend, and certainly not my niece. I am accustomed to this familiar hurt, but I will do whatever I need to do to protect the people I love from it.
But then I take my niece off my shoulders, and she runs to Elsa and Anna -- the thing she's been waiting so long for -- and all that stuff goes away. All that matters is the smile on her face. And as the 30 seconds we waited two and a half hours for comes to a close we gather up our things, and I lock eyes with the clerk again; and she gives me an apologetic smile and mouths, "I am so sorry!" (Laughter) And her humanity, her willingness to admit her mistake disarms me immediately, then I give her a: "It's okay, it happens. But thanks."
And I realize in that moment that I don't have to be either an aunt or an advocate, I can be both. I can live in duality, and I can hold two things. And if I can hold two things in that environment, I can hold so many more things. As my girlfriend and my niece hold hands and skip out the front of the door, I turn to my sister and say, "Was it worth it?" And she said, "Are you kidding me? Did you see the look on her face? This was the greatest day of her life!" (Laughter) "It was worth the two and a half hours in the heat, it was worth the overpriced coloring book that we already had a copy of." (Laughter) "It was even worth you getting called Dad." (Laughter) And for the first time ever in my life, it actually was.
Thank you, Boulder. Have a good night.
(Applause) |
Let me tell you a story about a little girl named Naghma. Naghma lived in a refugee camp with her parents and her eight brothers and sisters. Every morning, her father would wake up in the hopes he'd be picked for construction work, and on a good month he would earn 50 dollars. The winter was very harsh, and unfortunately, Naghma's brother died and her mother became very ill. In desperation, her father went to a neighbor to borrow 2,500 dollars. After several months of waiting, the neighbor became very impatient, and he demanded that he be paid back. Unfortunately, Naghma's father didn't have the money, and so the two men agreed to a jirga. So simply put, a jirga is a form of mediation that's used in Afghanistan's informal justice system. It's usually presided over by religious leaders and village elders, and jirgas are often used in rural countries like Afghanistan, where there's deep-seated resentment against the formal system. At the jirga, the men sat together and they decided that the best way to satisfy the debt would be if Naghma married the neighbor's 21-year-old son. She was six.
Now, stories like Naghma's unfortunately are all too common, and from the comforts of our home, we may look at these stories as another crushing blow to women's rights. And if you watched Afghanistan on the news, you may have this view that it's a failed state. However, Afghanistan does have a legal system, and while jirgas are built on long-standing tribal customs, even in jirgas, laws are supposed to be followed, and it goes without saying that giving a child to satisfy a debt is not only grossly immoral, it's illegal.
In 2008, I went to Afghanistan for a justice funded program, and I went there originally on this nine-month program to train Afghan lawyers. In that nine months, I went around the country and I talked to hundreds of people that were locked up, and I talked to many businesses that were also operating in Afghanistan. And within these conversations, I started hearing the connections between the businesses and the people, and how laws that were meant to protect them were being underused, while gross and illegal punitive measures were overused. And so this put me on a quest for justness, and what justness means to me is using laws for their intended purpose, which is to protect. The role of laws is to protect. So as a result, I decided to open up a private practice, and I became the first foreigner to litigate in Afghan courts. Throughout this time, I also studied many laws, I talked to many people, I read up on many cases, and I found that the lack of justness is not just a problem in Afghanistan, but it's a global problem. And while I originally shied away from representing human rights cases because I was really concerned about how it would affect me both professionally and personally, I decided that the need for justness was so great that I couldn't continue to ignore it. And so I started representing people like Naghma pro bono also.
Now, since I've been in Afghanistan and since I've been an attorney for over 10 years, I've represented from CEOs of Fortune 500 companies to ambassadors to little girls like Naghma, and with much success. And the reason for my success is very simple: I work the system from the inside out and use the laws in the ways that they're intended to be used.
I find that achieving justness in places like Afghanistan is difficult, and there's three reasons. The first reason is that simply put, people are very uneducated as to what their legal rights were, and I find that this is a global problem. The second issue is that even with laws on the books, it's often superseded or ignored by tribal customs, like in the first jirga that sold Naghma off. And the third problem with achieving justness is that even with good, existing laws on the books, there aren't people or lawyers that are willing to fight for those laws. And that's what I do: I use existing laws, often unused laws, and I work those to the benefits of my clients. We all need to create a global culture of human rights and be investors in a global human rights economy, and by working in this mindset, we can significantly improve justice globally.
Now let's get back to Naghma. Several people heard about this story, and so they contacted me because they wanted to pay the $2,500 debt. And it's not just that simple; you can't just throw money at this problem and think that it's going to disappear. That's not how it works in Afghanistan. So I told them I'd get involved, but in order to get involved, what needed to happen is a second jirga needed to be called, a jirga of appeals. And so in order for that to happen, we needed to get the village elders together, we needed to get the tribal leaders together, the religious leaders. Naghma's father needed to agree, the neighbor needed to agree, and also his son needed to agree. And I thought, if I'm going to get involved in this thing, then they also need to agree that I preside over it.
So, after hours of talking and tracking them down, and about 30 cups of tea, they finally agreed that we could sit down for a second jirga, and we did. And what was different about the second jirga is this time, we put the law at the center of it, and it was very important for me that they all understood that Naghma had a right to be protected. And at the end of this jirga, it was ordered by the judge that the first decision was erased, and that the $2,500 debt was satisfied, and we all signed a written order where all the men acknowledged that what they did was illegal, and if they did it again, that they would go to prison. Most — (Applause) Thanks. And most importantly, the engagement was terminated and Naghma was free. Protecting Naghma and her right to be free protects us.
Now, with my job, there's above-average amount of risks that are involved. I've been temporarily detained. I've been accused of running a brothel, accused of being a spy. I've had a grenade thrown at my office. It didn't go off, though. But I find that with my job, that the rewards far outweigh the risks, and as many risks as I take, my clients take far greater risks, because they have a lot more to lose if their cases go unheard, or worse, if they're penalized for having me as their lawyer. With every case that I take, I realize that as much as I'm standing behind my clients, that they're also standing behind me, and that's what keeps me going.
Law as a point of leverage is crucial in protecting all of us. Journalists are very vital in making sure that that information is given to the public. Too often, we receive information from journalists but we forget how that information was given. This picture is a picture of the British press corps in Afghanistan. It was taken a couple of years ago by my friend David Gill. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, since 2010, there have been thousands of journalists who have been threatened, injured, killed, detained. Too often, when we get this information, we forget who it affects or how that information is given to us. What many journalists do, both foreign and domestic, is very remarkable, especially in places like Afghanistan, and it's important that we never forget that, because what they're protecting is not only our right to receive that information but also the freedom of the press, which is vital to a democratic society.
Matt Rosenberg is a journalist in Afghanistan. He works for The New York Times, and unfortunately, a few months ago he wrote an article that displeased people in the government. As a result, he was temporarily detained and he was illegally exiled out of the country. I represent Matt, and after dealing with the government, I was able to get legal acknowledgment that in fact he was illegally exiled, and that freedom of the press does exist in Afghanistan, and there's consequences if that's not followed. And I'm happy to say that as of a few days ago, the Afghan government formally invited him back into the country and they reversed their exile order of him.
(Applause)
If you censor one journalist, then it intimidates others, and soon nations are silenced. It's important that we protect our journalists and freedom of the press, because that makes governments more accountable to us and more transparent. Protecting journalists and our right to receive information protects us.
Our world is changing. We live in a different world now, and what were once individual problems are really now global problems for all of us. Two weeks ago, Afghanistan had its first democratic transfer of power and elected president Ashraf Ghani, which is huge, and I'm very optimistic about him, and I'm hopeful that he'll give Afghanistan the changes that it needs, especially within the legal sector. We live in a different world. We live in a world where my eight-year-old daughter only knows a black president. There's a great possibility that our next president will be a woman, and as she gets older, she may question, can a white guy be president? (Laughter) (Applause)
Our world is changing, and we need to change with it, and what were once individual problems are problems for all of us. According to UNICEF, there are currently over 280 million boys and girls who are married under the age of 15. Two hundred and eighty million. Child marriages prolong the vicious cycle of poverty, poor health, lack of education.
At the age of 12, Sahar was married. She was forced into this marriage and sold by her brother. When she went to her in-laws' house, they forced her into prostitution. Because she refused, she was tortured. She was severely beaten with metal rods. They burned her body. They tied her up in a basement and starved her. They used pliers to take out her fingernails. At one point, she managed to escape from this torture chamber to a neighbor's house, and when she went there, instead of protecting her, they dragged her back to her husband's house, and she was tortured even worse.
When I met first Sahar, thankfully, Women for Afghan Women gave her a safe haven to go to. As a lawyer, I try to be very strong for all my clients, because that's very important to me, but seeing her, how broken and very weak as she was, was very difficult. It took weeks for us to really get to what happened to her when she was in that house, but finally she started opening up to me, and when she opened up, what I heard was she didn't know what her rights were, but she did know she had a certain level of protection by her government that failed her, and so we were able to talk about what her legal options were.
And so we decided to take this case to the Supreme Court. Now, this is extremely significant, because this is the first time that a victim of domestic violence in Afghanistan was being represented by a lawyer, a law that's been on the books for years and years, but until Sahar, had never been used. In addition to this, we also decided to sue for civil damages, again using a law that's never been used, but we used it for her case. So there we were at the Supreme Court arguing in front of 12 Afghan justices, me as an American female lawyer, and Sahar, a young woman who when I met her couldn't speak above a whisper. She stood up, she found her voice, and my girl told them that she wanted justice, and she got it. At the end of it all, the court unanimously agreed that her in-laws should be arrested for what they did to her, her fucking brother should also be arrested for selling her — (Applause) — and they agreed that she did have a right to civil compensation. What Sahar has shown us is that we can attack existing bad practices by using the laws in the ways that they're intended to be used, and by protecting Sahar, we are protecting ourselves.
After having worked in Afghanistan for over six years now, a lot of my family and friends think that what I do looks like this. (Laughter) But in all actuality, what I do looks like this. Now, we can all do something. I'm not saying we should all buy a plane ticket and go to Afghanistan, but we can all be contributors to a global human rights economy. We can create a culture of transparency and accountability to the laws, and make governments more accountable to us, as we are to them.
A few months ago, a South African lawyer visited me in my office and he said, "I wanted to meet you. I wanted to see what a crazy person looked like." The laws are ours, and no matter what your ethnicity, nationality, gender, race, they belong to us, and fighting for justice is not an act of insanity. Businesses also need to get with the program. A corporate investment in human rights is a capital gain on your businesses, and whether you're a business, an NGO, or a private citizen, rule of law benefits all of us. And by working together with a concerted mindset, through the people, public and private sector, we can create a global human rights economy and all become global investors in human rights. And by doing this, we can achieve justness together.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
The will to live life differently can start in some of the most unusual places. This is where I come from, Todmorden. It's a market town in the north of England, 15,000 people, between Leeds and Manchester, fairly normal market town. It used to look like this, and now it's more like this, with fruit and veg and herbs sprouting up all over the place. We call it propaganda gardening. (Laughter)
Corner row railway, station car park, front of a health center, people's front gardens, and even in front of the police station. (Laughter) We've got edible canal towpaths, and we've got sprouting cemeteries. The soil is extremely good. (Laughter)
We've even invented a new form of tourism. It's called vegetable tourism, and believe it or not, people come from all over the world to poke around in our raised beds, even when there's not much growing. (Laughter) But it starts a conversation. (Laughter)
And, you know, we're not doing it because we're bored. (Laughter) We're doing it because we want to start a revolution.
We tried to answer this simple question: Can you find a unifying language that cuts across age and income and culture that will help people themselves find a new way of living, see spaces around them differently, think about the resources they use differently, interact differently? Can we find that language? And then, can we replicate those actions? And the answer would appear to be yes, and the language would appear to be food.
So, three and a half years ago, a few of us sat around a kitchen table and we just invented the whole thing. (Laughter) (Applause) We came up with a really simple game plan that we put to a public meeting. We did not consult. We did not write a report. Enough of all that. (Laughter) And we said to that public meeting in Todmorden, look, let's imagine that our town is focused around three plates: a community plate, the way we live our everyday lives; a learning plate, what we teach our kids in school and what new skills we share amongst ourselves; and business, what we do with the pound in our pocket and which businesses we choose to support.
Now, let's imagine those plates agitated with community actions around food. If we start one of those community plates spinning, that's really great, that really starts to empower people, but if we can then spin that community plate with the learning plate, and then spin it with the business plate, we've got a real show there, we've got some action theater. We're starting to build resilience ourselves. We're starting to reinvent community ourselves, and we've done it all without a flipping strategy document. (Applause)
And here's the thing as well. We've not asked anybody's permission to do this, we're just doing it. (Laughter) And we are certainly not waiting for that check to drop through the letterbox before we start, and most importantly of all, we are not daunted by the sophisticated arguments that say, "These small actions are meaningless in the face of tomorrow's problems," because I have seen the power of small actions, and it is awesome.
So, back to the public meeting. (Laughter) We put that proposition to the meeting, two seconds, and then the room exploded. I have never, ever experienced anything like that in my life. And it's been the same in every single room, in every town that we've ever told our story. People are ready and respond to the story of food. They want positive actions they can engage in, and in their bones, they know it's time to take personal responsibility and invest in more kindness to each other and to the environment.
And since we had that meeting three and a half years ago, it's been a heck of a roller coaster. We started with a seed swap, really simple stuff, and then we took an area of land, a strip on the side of our main road, which was a dog toilet, basically, and we turned it into a really lovely herb garden. We took the corner of the car park in the station that you saw, and we made vegetable beds for everybody to share and pick from themselves. We went to the doctors. We've just had a 6-million-pound health center built in Todmorden, and for some reason that I cannot comprehend, it has been surrounded by prickly plants. (Laughter) So we went to the doctors, said, "Would you mind us taking them up?" They said, "Absolutely fine, provided you get planning permission and you do it in Latin and you do it in triplicate," so we did — (Laughter) — and now there are fruit trees and bushes and herbs and vegetables around that doctor's surgery. And there's been lots of other examples, like the corn that was in front of the police station, and the old people's home that we've planted it with food that they can pick and grow.
But it isn't just about growing, because we all are part of this jigsaw. It's about taking those artistic people in your community and doing some fabulous designs in those raised beds to explain to people what's growing there, because there's so many people that don't really recognize a vegetable unless it's in a bit of plastic with a bit of an instruction packet on the top. (Laughter) So we have some people who designed these things, "If it looks like this, please don't pick it, but if it looks like this, help yourself." This is about sharing and investing in kindness.
And for those people that don't want to do either of those things, maybe they can cook, so we pick them seasonally and then we go on the street, or in the pub, or in the church, or wherever people are living their lives. This is about us going to the people and saying, "We are all part of the local food jigsaw, we are all part of a solution."
And then, because we know we've got vegetable tourists and we love them to bits and they're absolutely fantastic, we thought, what could we do to give them an even better experience? So we invented, without asking, of course, the Incredible Edible Green Route. And this is a route of exhibition gardens, and edible towpaths, and bee-friendly sites, and the story of pollinators, and it's a route that we designed that takes people through the whole of our town, past our cafes and our small shops, through our market, not just to and fro from the supermarket, and we're hoping that, in changing people's footfall around our town, we're also changing their behavior.
And then there's the second plate, the learning plate. Well, we're in partnership with a high school. We've created a company. We are designing and building an aquaponics unit in some land that was spare at the back of the high school, like you do, and now we're going to be growing fish and vegetables in an orchard with bees, and the kids are helping us build that, and the kids are on the board, and because the community was really keen on working with the high school, the high school is now teaching agriculture, and because it's teaching agriculture, we started to think, how could we then get those kids that never had a qualification before in their lives but are really excited about growing, how can we give them some more experience?
So we got some land that was donated by a local garden center. It was really quite muddy, but in a truly incredible way, totally voluntary-led, we have turned that into a market garden training center, and that is polytunnels and raised beds and all the things you need to get the soil under your fingers and think maybe there's a job in this for me in the future. And because we were doing that, some local academics said, "You know, we could help design a commercial horticulture course for you. There's not one that we know of." So they're doing that, and we're going to launch it later this year, and it's all an experiment, and it's all voluntary.
And then there's the third plate, because if you walk through an edible landscape, and if you're learning new skills, and if you start to get interested in what's growing seasonally, you might just want to spend more of your own money in support of local producers, not just veg, but meat and cheese and beer and whatever else it might be.
But then, we're just a community group, you know. We're just all volunteers. What could we actually do? So we did some really simple things. We fundraised, we got some blackboards, we put "Incredible Edible" on the top, we gave it every market trader that was selling locally, and they scribbled on what they were selling in any one week. Really popular. People congregated around it. Sales were up.
And then, we had a chat with the farmers, and we said, "We're really serious about this," but they didn't actually believe us, so we thought, okay, what should we do? I know. If we can create a campaign around one product and show them there is local loyalty to that product, maybe they'll change their mind and see we're serious.
So we launched a campaign -- because it just amuses me -- called Every Egg Matters. (Laughter) And what we did was we put people on our egg map. It's a stylized map of Togmorden. Anybody that's selling their excess eggs at the garden gate, perfectly legally, to their neighbors, we've stuck on there. We started with four, and we've now got 64 on, and the result of that was that people were then going into shops asking for a local Todmorden egg, and the result of that was, some farmers upped the amount of flocks they got of free range birds, and then they went on to meat birds, and although these are really, really small steps, that increasing local economic confidence is starting to play out in a number of ways, and we now have farmers doing cheese and they've upped their flocks and rare breed pigs, they're doing pasties and pies and things that they would have never done before. We've got increasing market stalls selling local food, and in a survey that local students did for us, 49 percent of all food traders in that town said that their bottom line had increased because of what we were actually doing. And we're just volunteers and it's only an experiment. (Laughter)
Now, none of this is rocket science. It certainly is not clever, and it's not original. But it is joined up, and it is inclusive. This is not a movement for those people that are going to sort themselves out anyway. This is a movement for everyone. We have a motto: If you eat, you're in. (Laughter) (Applause) Across age, across income, across culture.
It's been really quite a roller coaster experience, but going back to that first question that we asked, is it replicable? Yeah. It most certainly is replicable.
More than 30 towns in England now are spinning the Incredible Edible plate. Whichever way they want to do it, of their own volition, they're trying to make their own lives differently, and worldwide, we've got communities across America and Japan -- it's incredible, isn't it? I mean, America and Japan and New Zealand. People after the earthquake in New Zealand visited us in order to incorporate some of this public spiritedness around local growing into the heart of Christchurch.
And none of this takes more money and none of this demands a bureaucracy, but it does demand that you think things differently and you are prepared to bend budgets and work programs in order to create that supportive framework that communities can bounce off.
And there's some great ideas already in our patch. Our local authority has decided to make everywhere Incredible Edible, and in support of that have decided to do two things.
First, they're going to create an asset register of spare land that they've got, put it in a food bank so that communities can use that wherever they live, and they're going to underpin that with a license.
And then they've said to every single one of their workforce, if you can, help those communities grow, and help them to maintain their spaces.
Suddenly, we're seeing actions on the ground from local government. We're seeing this mainstreamed. We are responding creatively at last to what Rio demanded of us, and there's lots more you could do. I mean, just to list a few. One, please stop putting prickly plants around public buildings. It's a waste of space. (Laughter) Secondly, please create -- please, please create edible landscapes so that our children start to walk past their food day in, day out, on our high streets, in our parks, wherever that might be. Inspire local planners to put the food sites at the heart of the town and the city plan, not relegate them to the edges of the settlements that nobody can see. Encourage all our schools to take this seriously. This isn't a second class exercise. If we want to inspire the farmers of tomorrow, then please let us say to every school, create a sense of purpose around the importance to the environment, local food and soils. Put that at the heart of your school culture, and you will create a different generation.
There are so many things you can do, but ultimately this is about something really simple. Through an organic process, through an increasing recognition of the power of small actions, we are starting, at last, to believe in ourselves again, and to believe in our capacity, each and every one of us, to build a different and a kinder future, and in my book, that's incredible. Thank you. (Applause) (Applause) Thank you very much. (Applause) |
Someone once said that politics is, of course, "showbiz for ugly people." So, on that basis, I feel like I've really arrived. The other thing to think of is what an honor it is, as a politician, to give a TED talk, particularly here in the U.K., where the reputation of politics, with the expenses scandal, has sunk so low.
There was even a story recently that scientists had thought about actually replacing rats in their experiments with politicians. And someone asked,"Why?" and they said, "Well, there's no shortage of politicians, no one really minds what happens to them and, after all, there are some things that rats just won't do." (Laughter)
Now, I know you all love data, so I'm starting with a data-rich slide. This, I think, is the most important fact to bear in mind in British politics or American politics, and that is: We have run out of money. We have vast budget deficits. This is my global public debt clock, and, as you can see, it's 32 trillion and counting.
And I think what this leads to is a very simple recognition, that there's one question in politics at the moment above all other, and it's this one: How do we make things better without spending more money? Because there isn't going to be a lot of money to improve public services, or to improve government, or to improve so many of the things that politicians talk about. So what follows from that is that if you think it's all about money -- you can only measure success in public services in health care and education and policing by spending more money, you can only measure progress by spending money -- you're going to have a pretty miserable time.
But if you think a whole lot of other things matter that lead up to well being -- things like your family relationships, friendship, community, values -- then, actually, this is an incredibly exciting time to be in politics. And the really simple argument I want to make tonight, the really straightforward argument is this: That if we combine the right political philosophy, the right political thinking, with the incredible information revolution that has taken place, and that all of you know so much more about than I do, I think there's an incredible opportunity to actually remake politics, remake government, remake public services, and achieve what's up on that slide, which is a big increase in our well-being. That's the argument I want to make tonight.
So, starting with the political philosophy. Now I'm not saying for a minute that British Conservatives have all the answers. Of course we don't. But there are two things at heart that I think drive a conservative philosophy that are really relevant to this whole debate. The first is this: We believe that if you give people more power and control over their lives, if you give people more choice, if you put them in the driving seat, then actually, you can create a stronger and better society. And if you marry this fact with the incredible abundance of information that we have in our world today, I think you can completely, as I've said, remake politics, remake government, remake your public services.
The second thing we believe is we believe in going with the grain of human nature. Politics and politicians will only succeed if they actually try and treat with people as they are, rather than as they would like them to be. Now, if you combine this very simple, very conservative thought -- go with the grain of human nature -- with all the advances in behavioral economics, some of which we were just hearing about, again, I think we can achieve a real increase in well-being, in happiness, in a stronger society without necessarily having to spend a whole lot more money.
Now, why do I think now is the moment to make this argument? Well, I'm afraid you're going to suffer a short, condensed history lesson about what I would say are the three passages of history: the pre-bureaucratic age, the bureaucratic age and what we now live in, which I think is a post-bureaucratic age. A simpler way of thinking of it is that we have gone from a world of local control, then we went to a world of central control, and now we're in a world of people control. Local power, central power, now, people power.
Now, here is King Cnut, king a thousand years ago. Thought he could turn back the waves; couldn't turn back the waves. Couldn't actually turn back very much, because if you were king a thousand years ago, while it still took hours and hours and weeks and weeks to traverse your own country, there wasn't much you were in charge of. You weren't in charge of policing, justice, education, health, welfare. You could just about go to war and that was about it. This was the pre-bureaucratic age, an age in which everything had to be local. You had to have local control because there was no nationally-available information because travel was so restricted. So this was the pre-bureaucratic age.
Next part of the cold history lesson, the lovely picture of the British Industrial Revolution. Suddenly, all sorts of transport, travel information were possible, and this gave birth to, what I like to call, the bureaucratic age. And hopefully this slide is going to morph beautifully. There we are. Suddenly, you have the big, strong, central state. It was able -- but only it was able -- to organize health care, education, policing, justice. And it was a world of, as I say, not local power, but now central power. It had sucked all that power up from the localities. It was able to do that itself.
The next great stage, which all of you are so familiar with: the massive information revolution. Just consider this one fact: One hundred years ago, sending these 10 words cost 50 dollars. Right now, here we are linked up to Long Beach and everywhere else, and all these secret locations for a fraction of that cost, and we can send and receive huge quantities of information without it costing anything. So we're now living in a post-bureaucratic age, where genuine people power is possible.
Now, what does this mean for our politics, for our public services, for our government? Well I can't, in the time I've got, give huge numbers of examples, but let me just give a few of the ways that life can change. And this is so obvious, in a way, because you think about how all of you have changed the way we shop, the way we travel, the way that business is done. That is already happened; the information and Internet revolution has actually gone all the way through our societies in so many different ways, but it hasn't, in every way, yet touched our government.
So, how could this happen? Well, I think there are three chief ways that it should make an enormous difference: in transparency, in greater choice and in accountability, in giving us that genuine people power. If we take transparency, here is one of my favorite websites, the Missouri Accountability Portal. In the old days, only the government could hold the information, and only a few elected people could try and grab that information and question it and challenge it. Now here, on one website, one state in America, every single dollar spent by that government is searchable, is analyzable, is checkable.
Think of the huge change that means: Any business that wants to bid for a government contract can see what currently is being spent. Anyone thinking, "I could do that service better, I could deliver it cheaper," it's all available there. We have only, in government and in politics, started to scratch the surface of what people are doing in the commercial world with the information revolution. So, complete transparency will make a huge difference. In this country, if we win the election, we are going to make all government spending over 25,000 pounds transparent and available online, searchable for anyone to see. We're going to make every contract -- we're announcing this today -- available on the Internet so anyone can see what the terms are, what the conditions are, driving huge value for money, but also huge increases, I believe, in well-being as well.
Choice. Now you all shop online, compare online, do everything online, and yet this revolution has hardly touched the surface of public services like education, or health care or policing, and you're going to see this change massively. We should be making this change with the information revolution in our country, with searchable health sites, so you can see what operations work out properly, what records doctors have, the cleanliness of hospitals, who does best at infection control -- all of the information that would once be locked in the Department of Health is now available for all of us to see.
And the third of these big changes: accountability. This, I think, is a huge change. It is a crime map. This is a crime map from Chicago. So, instead of having a situation where only the police have the information about which crimes are committed where, and we have to employ people in government to try and hold the police to account, suddenly, we've got this vast opportunity for people power, where we, as citizens, can see what crimes are being committed -- where, when and by whom -- and we can hold the police to account. And you can see this looks a bit like a chef's hat, but actually that's an assault, the one in blue. You can see what crime is committed where, and you have the opportunity to hold your police force to account. So those three ways -- transparency, accountability and choice -- will make a huge difference.
Now I also said the other principle that I think we should work on is understanding of people, is recognizing that going with the grain of human nature you can achieve so much more. Now, we're got a huge revolution in understanding of why people behave in the way that they do, and a great opportunity to put that knowledge and information to greater use. We're working with some of these people. We're being advised by some of these people, as was said, to try and bring all the experience to book.
Let me just give you one example that I think is incredibly simple, and I love. We want to get people to be more energy efficient. Why? It cuts fuel poverty, it cuts their bills, and it cuts carbon emissions at the same time. How do you do it? Well, we've had government information campaigns over the years when they tell you to switch off the lights when you leave the home. We even had -- one government minister once told us to brush our teeth in the dark. I don't think they lasted very long. Look at what this does. This is a simple piece of behavioral economics. The best way to get someone to cut their electricity bill is to show them their own spending, to show them what their neighbors are spending, and then show what an energy conscious neighbor is spending. That sort of behavioral economics can transform people's behavior in a way that all the bullying and all the information and all the badgering from a government cannot possibly achieve. Other examples are recycling. We all know we need to recycle more. How do we make it happen? All the proof from America is that actually, if you pay people to recycle, if you give them a carrot rather than a stick, you can transform their behavior.
So what does all this add up to? Here are my two favorite U.S. speeches of the last 50 years. Obviously, here we have JFK with that incredibly simple and powerful formulation, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," an incredibly noble sentiment. But when he made that speech, what could you do to build the stronger, better society? You could fight for your country, you could die for your country, you could serve in your country's civil service, but you didn't really have the information and the knowledge and the ability to help build the stronger society in the way that you do now.
And I think an even more wonderful speech, which I'm going to read a big chunk of, which sums up what I said at the beginning about believing there is more to life than money, and more that we should try and measure than money. And it is Robert Kennedy's beautiful description of why gross national product captures so little: It "does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."
Again, a sentiment that was so noble and beautifully put 40 years ago, and a beautiful dream 40 years ago, but now with the huge advances in information technology, with the massive changes in behavioral economics, with all that we know about how you advance well-being, that if we combine those insights of giving power to people, and using information to make that possible, and using the insight of going with the grain of human nature, while at the same time, understanding why people behave in the way they do, it is a dream more easy to realize today than it was when it was made in that beautiful speech 40 years ago.
Thank you. (Applause) |
I'll just take you to Bangladesh for a minute.
Before I tell that story, we should ask ourselves the question: Why does poverty exist? I mean, there is plenty of knowledge and scientific breakthroughs. We all live in the same planet, but there's still a great deal of poverty in the world. And I think -- so I want to throw a perspective that I have, so that we can assess this project, or any other project, for that matter, to see whether it's contributing or -- contributing to poverty or trying to alleviate it.
Rich countries have been sending aid to poor countries for the last 60 years. And by and large, this has failed. And you can see this book, written by someone who worked in the World Bank for 20 years, and he finds economic growth in this country to be elusive. By and large, it did not work. So the question is, why is that?
In my mind, there is something to learn from the history of Europe. I mean, even here, yesterday I was walking across the street, and they showed three bishops were executed 500 years ago, right across the street from here. So my point is, there's a lot of struggle has gone in Europe, where citizens were empowered by technologies. And they demanded authorities from -- to come down from their high horses. And in the end, there's better bargaining between the authorities and citizens, and democracies, capitalism -- everything else flourished. And so you can see, the real process of -- and this is backed up by this 500-page book -- that the authorities came down and citizens got up.
But if you look, if you have that perspective, then you can see what happened in the last 60 years. Aid actually did the opposite. It empowered authorities, and, as a result, marginalized citizens. The authorities did not have the reason to make economic growth happen so that they could tax people and make more money for to run their business. Because they were getting it from abroad. And in fact, if you see oil-rich countries, where citizens are not yet empowered, the same thing goes -- Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, all sorts of countries. Because the aid and oil or mineral money acts the same way. It empowers authorities, without activating the citizens -- their hands, legs, brains, what have you.
And if you agree with that, then I think the best way to improve these countries is to recognize that economic development is of the people, by the people, for the people. And that is the real network effect. If citizens can network and make themselves more organized and productive, so that their voices are heard, so then things would improve.
And to contrast that, you can see the most important institution in the world, the World Bank, is an organization of the government, by the government, for the governments. Just see the contrast. And that is the perspective I have, and then I can start my story.
Of course, how would you empower citizens? There could be all sorts of technologies. And one is cell phones. Recently "The Economist" recognized this, but I stumbled upon the idea 12 years ago, and that's what I've been working on. So 12 years ago, I was trying to be an investment banker in New York.
We had -- quite a few our colleagues were connected by a computer network. And we got more productive because we didn't have to exchange floppy disks; we could update each other more often. But one time it broke down. And it reminded me of a day in 1971. There was a war going on in my country. And my family moved out of an urban place, where we used to live, to a remote rural area where it was safer. And one time my mother asked me to get some medicine for a younger sibling. And I walked 10 miles or so, all morning, to get there, to the medicine man. And he wasn't there, so I walked all afternoon back. So I had another unproductive day.
So while I was sitting in a tall building in New York, I put those two experiences together side by side, and basically concluded that connectivity is productivity -- whether it's in a modern office or an underdeveloped village. So naturally, I -- the implication of that is that the telephone is a weapon against poverty. And if that's the case, then the question is how many telephones did we have at that time?
And it turns out, that there was one telephone in Bangladesh for every 500 people. And all those phones were in the few urban places. The vast rural areas, where 100 million people lived, there were no telephones. So just imagine how many man-months or man-years are wasted, just like I wasted a day. If you just multiply by 100 million people, let's say losing one day a month, whatever, and you see a vast amount of resource wasted. And after all, poor countries, like rich countries, one thing we've got equal, is their days are the same length: 24 hours. So if you lose that precious resource, where you are somewhat equal to the richer countries, that's a huge waste.
So I started looking for any evidence that -- does connectivity really increase productivity? And I couldn't find much, really, but I found this graph produced by the ITU, which is the International Telecommunication Union, based in Geneva. They show an interesting thing. That you see, the horizontal axis is where you place your country. So the United States or the UK would be here, outside. And so the impact of one new telephone, which is on the vertical axis, is very little.
But if you come back to a poorer country, where the GNP per capita is, let's say, 500 dollars, or 300 dollars, then the impact is huge: 6,000 dollars. Or 5,000 dollars. The question was, how much did it cost to install a new telephone in Bangladesh? It turns out: 2,000 dollars. So if you spend 2,000 dollars, and let's say the telephone lasts 10 years, and if 5,000 dollars every year -- so that's 50,000 dollars.
So obviously this was a gadget to have. And of course, if the cost of installing a telephone is going down, because there's a digital revolution going on, then it would be even more dramatic.
And I knew a little economics by then -- it says Adam Smith taught us that specialization leads to productivity. But how would you specialize? Let's say I'm a fisherman and a farmer. And Chris is a fisherman farmer. Both are generalists. So the point is that we could only -- the only way we could depend on each other, is if we can connect with each other. And if we are neighbors, I could just walk over to his house.
But then we are limiting our economic sphere to something very small area. But in order to expand that, you need a river, or you need a highway, or you need telephone lines. But in any event, it's connectivity that leads to dependability. And that leads to specialization. That leads to productivity.
So the question was, I started looking at this issue, and going back and forth between Bangladesh and New York. There were a lot of reasons people told me why we don't have enough telephones. And one of them is the lacking buying power. Poor people apparently don't have the power to buy.
But the point is, if it's a production tool, why do we have to worry about that? I mean, in America, people buy cars, and they put very little money down. They get a car, and they go to work. The work pays them a salary; the salary allows them to pay for the car over time. The car pays for itself.
So if the telephone is a production tool, then we don't quite have to worry about the purchasing power. And of course, even if that's true, then what about initial buying power? So then the question is, why can't we have some kind of shared access? In the United States, we have -- everybody needs a banking service, but very few of us are trying to buy a bank. So it's -- a bank tends to serve a whole community. So we could do that for telephones.
And also people told me that we have a lot of important primary needs to meet: food, clothing, shelter, whatever. But again, it's very paternalistic. You should be raising income and let people decide what they want to do with their money.
But the real problem is the lack of other infrastructures. See, you need some kind of infrastructure to bring a new thing. For instance, the Internet was booming in the U.S. because there were -- there were people who had computers. They had modems. They had telephone lines, so it's very easy to bring in a new idea, like the Internet. But that's what's lacking in a poor country.
So for example, we didn't have ways to have credit checks, few banks to collect bills, etc. But that's why I noticed Grameen Bank, which is a bank for poor people, and had 1,100 branches, 12,000 employees, 2.3 million borrowers. And they had these branches. I thought I could put cell towers and create a network.
And anyway, to cut the time short -- so I started -- I first went to them and said, "You know, perhaps I could connect all your branches and make you more efficient." But you know, they have, after all, evolved in a country without telephones, so they are decentralized. I mean, of course there might be other good reasons, but this was one of the reasons -- they had to be. And so they were not that interested to connect all their branches, and then to be -- and rock the boat.
So I started focusing. What is it that they really do? So what happens is that somebody borrows money from the bank. She typically buys a cow. The cow gives milk. And she sells the milk to the villagers, and pays off the loan. And this is a business for her, but it's milk for everybody else.
And suddenly I realized that a cell phone could be a cow. Because some way she could borrow 200 dollars from the bank, get a phone and have the phone for everybody. And it's a business for her.
So I wrote to the bank, and they thought for a while, and they said, "It's a little crazy, but logical. If you think it can be done, come and make it happen." So I quit my job; I went back to Bangladesh. I created a company in America called Gonofone, which in Bengali means "people's phone."
And angel investors in America put in money into that. I flew around the world. After about a million -- I mean, I got rejected from lots of places, because I was not only trying to go to a poor country, I was trying to go to the poor of the poor country.
After about a million miles, and a meaningful -- a substantial loss of hair, I eventually put together a consortium, and -- which involved the Norwegian telephone company, which provided the know-how, and the Grameen Bank provided the infrastructure to spread the service.
To make the story short, here is the coverage of the country. You can see it's pretty much covered. Even in Bangladesh, there are some empty places. But we are also investing around another 300 million dollars this year to extend that coverage.
Now, about that cow model I talked about. There are about 115,000 people who are retailing telephone services in their neighborhoods. And it's serving 52,000 villages, which represent about 80 million people.
And these phones are generating about 100 million dollars for the company. And two dollars profit per entrepreneur per day, which is like 700 dollars per year.
And of course, it's very beneficial in a lot of ways. It increases income, improves welfare, etc. And the result is, right now, this company is the largest telephone company, with 3.5 million subscribers, 115,000 of these phones I talked about -- that produces about a third of the traffic in the network. And 2004, the net profit, after taxes -- very serious taxes -- was 120 million dollars. And the company contributed about 190 million dollars to the government coffers.
And again, here are some of the lessons. "The government needs to provide economically viable services." Actually, this is an instance where private companies can provide that. "Governments need to subsidize private companies." This is what some people think. And actually, private companies help governments with taxes. "Poor people are recipients." Poor people are a resource. "Services cost too much for the poor." Their involvement reduces the cost. "The poor are uneducated and cannot do much." They are very eager learners and very capable survivors. I've been very surprised. Most of them learn how to operate a telephone within a day. "Poor countries need aid." Businesses -- this one company has raised the -- if the ideal figures are even five percent true, this one company is raising the GNP of the country much more than the aid the country receives. And as I was trying to show you, as far as I'm concerned, aid does damages because it removes the government from its citizens.
And this is a new project I have with Dean Kamen, the famous inventor in America. He has produced some power generators, which we are now doing an experiment in Bangladesh, in two villages where cow manure is producing biogas, which is running these generators. And each of these generators is selling electricity to 20 houses each. It's just an experiment. We don't know how far it will go, but it's going on.
Thank you. |
When I was 14 years old, I was interested in science -- fascinated by it, excited to learn about it. And I had a high school science teacher who would say to the class, "The girls don't have to listen to this."
Encouraging, yes.
(Laughter)
I chose not to listen -- but to that statement alone.
So let me take you to the Andes mountains in Chile, 500 kilometers, 300 miles northeast of Santiago. It's very remote, it's very dry and it's very beautiful. And there's not much there. There are condors, there are tarantulas, and at night, when the light dims, it reveals one of the darkest skies on Earth. It's kind of a magic place, the mountain. It's a wonderful combination of very remote mountaintop with exquisitely sophisticated technology.
And our ancestors, for as long as there's been recorded history, have looked at the night sky and pondered the nature of our existence. And we're no exception, our generation. The only difficulty is that the night sky now is blocked by the glare of city lights. And so astronomers go to these very remote mountaintops to view and to study the cosmos. So telescopes are our window to the cosmos.
It's no exaggeration to say that the Southern Hemisphere is going to be the future of astronomy for the 21st century. We have an array of existing telescopes already, in the Andes mountains in Chile, and that's soon to be joined by a really sensational array of new capability. There will be two international groups that are going to be building giant telescopes, sensitive to optical radiation, as our eyes are. There will be a survey telescope that will be scanning the sky every few nights. There will be radio telescopes, sensitive to long-wavelength radio radiation. And then there will be telescopes in space. There'll be a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope; it's called the James Webb Telescope, and it will be launched in 2018. There'll be a satellite called TESS that will discover planets outside of our solar system.
For the last decade, I've been leading a group -- a consortium -- international group, to build what will be, when it's finished, the largest optical telescope in existence. It's called the Giant Magellan Telescope, or GMT. This telescope is going to have mirrors that are 8.4 meters in diameter -- each of the mirrors. That's almost 27 feet. So it dwarfs this stage -- maybe out to the fourth row in this audience. Each of the seven mirrors in this telescope will be almost 27 feet in diameter. Together, the seven mirrors in this telescope will comprise 80 feet in diameter. So, essentially the size of this entire auditorium. The whole telescope will stand about 43 meters high, and again, being in Rio, some of you have been to see the statue of the giant Christ. The scale is comparable in height; in fact, it's smaller than this telescope will be. It's comparable to the size of the Statue of Liberty. And it's going to be housed in an enclosure that's 22 stories -- 60 meters high. But it's an unusual building to protect this telescope. It will have open windows to the sky, be able to point and look at the sky, and it will actually rotate on a base -- 2,000 tons of rotating building.
The Giant Magellan Telescope will have 10 times the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. It will be 20 million times more sensitive than the human eye. And it may, for the first time ever, be capable of finding life on planets outside of our solar system. It's going to allow us to look back at the first light in the universe -- literally, the dawn of the cosmos. The cosmic dawn. It's a telescope that's going to allow us to peer back, witness galaxies as they were when they were actually assembling, the first black holes in the universe, the first galaxies.
Now, for thousands of years, we have been studying the cosmos, we've been wondering about our place in the universe. The ancient Greeks told us that the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, Copernicus displaced the Earth, and put the Sun at the heart of the cosmos. And as we've learned over the centuries, since Galileo Galilei, the Italian scientist, first turned, in that time, a two-inch, very small telescope, to the sky, every time we have built larger telescopes, we have learned something about the universe; we've made discoveries, without exception. We've learned in the 20th century that the universe is expanding and that our own solar system is not at the center of that expansion. We know now that the universe is made of about 100 billion galaxies that are visible to us, and each one of those galaxies has 100 billion stars within it.
So we're looking now at the deepest image of the cosmos that's ever been taken. It was taken using the Hubble Space Telescope, and by pointing the telescope at what was previously a blank region of sky, before the launch of Hubble. And if you can imagine this tiny area, it's only one-fiftieth of the size of the full moon. So, if you can imagine the full moon. And there are now 10,000 galaxies visible within that image. And the faintness of those images and the tiny size is only a result of the fact that those galaxies are so far away, the vast distances. And each of those galaxies may contain within it a few billion or even hundreds of billions of individual stars. Telescopes are like time machines. So the farther back we look in space, the further back we see in time. And they're like light buckets -- literally, they collect light. So larger the bucket, the larger the mirror we have, the more light we can see, and the farther back we can view.
So, we've learned in the last century that there are exotic objects in the universe -- black holes. We've even learned that there's dark matter and dark energy that we can't see. So you're looking now at an actual image of dark matter.
(Laughter)
You got it. Not all audiences get that.
(Laughter)
So the way we infer the presence of dark matter -- we can't see it -- but there's an unmistakable tug, due to gravity. We now can look out, we see this sea of galaxies in a universe that's expanding.
What I do myself is to measure the expansion of the universe, and one of the projects that I carried out in the 1990s used the Hubble Space Telescope to measure how fast the universe is expanding. We can now trace back to 14 billion years. We've learned over time that stars have individual histories; that is, they have birth, they have middle ages and some of them even have dramatic deaths. So the embers from those stars actually then form the new stars that we see, most of which turn out to have planets going around them.
And one of the really surprising results in the last 20 years has been the discovery of other planets going around other stars. These are called exoplanets. And until 1995, we didn't even know the existence of any other planets, other than going around our own sun. But now, there are almost 2,000 other planets orbiting other stars that we can now detect, measure masses for. There are 500 of those that are multiple-planet systems. And there are 4,000 -- and still counting -- other candidates for planets orbiting other stars. They come in a bewildering variety of different kinds. There are Jupiter-like planets that are hot, there are other planets that are icy, there are water worlds and there are rocky planets like the Earth, so-called "super-Earths," and there have even been planets that have been speculated diamond worlds.
So we know there's at least one planet, our own Earth, in which there is life. We've even found planets that are orbiting two stars. That's no longer the province of science fiction. So around our own planet, we know there's life, we've developed a complex life, we now can question our own origins. And given all that we've discovered, the overwhelming numbers now suggest that there may be millions, perhaps -- maybe even hundreds of millions -- of other [planets] that are close enough -- just the right distance from their stars that they're orbiting -- to have the existence of liquid water and maybe could potentially support life. So we marvel now at those odds, the overwhelming odds, and the amazing thing is that within the next decade, the GMT may be able to take spectra of the atmospheres of those planets, and determine whether or not they have the potential for life.
So, what is the GMT project? It's an international project. It includes Australia, South Korea, and I'm happy to say, being here in Rio, that the newest partner in our telescope is Brazil.
(Applause)
It also includes a number of institutions across the United States, including Harvard University, the Smithsonian and the Carnegie Institutions, and the Universities of Arizona, Chicago, Texas-Austin and Texas A&M University. It also involves Chile.
So, the making of the mirrors in this telescope is also fascinating in its own right. Take chunks of glass, melt them in a furnace that is itself rotating. This happens underneath the football stadium at the University of Arizona. It's tucked away under 52,000 seats. Nobody know it's happening. And there's essentially a rotating cauldron. The mirrors are cast and they're cooled very slowly, and then they're polished to an exquisite precision. And so, if you think about the precision of these mirrors, the bumps on the mirror, over the entire 27 feet, amount to less than one-millionth of an inch. So, can you visualize that? Ow!
(Laughter)
That's one five-thousandths of the width of one of my hairs, over this entire 27 feet. It's a spectacular achievement. It's what allows us to have the precision that we will have.
So, what does that precision buy us? So the GMT, if you can imagine -- if I were to hold up a coin, which I just happen to have, and I look at the face of that coin, I can see from here the writing on the coin; I can see the face on that coin. My guess that even in the front row, you can't see that. But if we were to turn the Giant Magellan Telescope, all 80-feet diameter that we see in this auditorium, and point it 200 miles away, if I were standing in São Paulo, we could resolve the face of this coin. That's the extraordinary resolution and power of this telescope. And if we were --
(Applause)
If an astronaut went up to the Moon, a quarter of a million miles away, and lit a candle -- a single candle -- then we would be able to detect it, using the GMT. Quite extraordinary.
This is a simulated image of a cluster in a nearby galaxy. "Nearby" is astronomical, it's all relative. It's tens of millions of light-years away. This is what this cluster would look like. So look at those four bright objects, and now lets compare it with a camera on the Hubble Space Telescope. You can see faint detail that starts to come through. And now finally -- and look how dramatic this is -- this is what the GMT will see. So, keep your eyes on those bright images again. This is what we see on one of the most powerful existing telescopes on the Earth, and this, again, what the GMT will see. Extraordinary precision.
So, where are we? We have now leveled the top of the mountaintop in Chile. We blasted that off. We've tested and polished the first mirror. We've cast the second and the third mirrors. And we're about to cast the fourth mirror. We had a series of reviews this year, international panels that came in and reviewed us, and said, "You're ready to go to construction." And so we plan on building this telescope with the first four mirrors. We want to get on the air quickly, and be taking science data -- what we astronomers call "first light," in 2021. And the full telescope will be finished in the middle of the next decade, with all seven mirrors.
So we're now poised to look back at the distant universe, the cosmic dawn. We'll be able to study other planets in exquisite detail.
But for me, one of the most exciting things about building the GMT is the opportunity to actually discover something that we don't know about -- that we can't even imagine at this point, something completely new. And my hope is that with the construction of this and other facilities, that many young women and men will be inspired to reach for the stars.
Thank you very much. Obrigado.
(Applause)
Bruno Giussani: Thank you, Wendy. Stay with me, because I have a question for you. You mentioned different facilities. So the Magellan Telescope is going up, but also ALMA and others in Chile and elsewhere, including in Hawaii. Is it about cooperation and complementarity, or about competition? I know there's competition in terms of funding, but what about the science?
Wendy Freedman: In terms of the science, they're very complementary. The telescopes that are in space, the telescopes on the ground, telescopes with different wavelength capability, telescopes even that are similar, but different instruments -- they will all look at different parts of the questions that we're asking. So when we discover other planets, we'll be able to test those observations, we'll be able to measure the atmospheres, be able to look in space with very high resolution. So, they're very complementary. You're right about the funding, we compete; but scientifically, it's very complementary.
BG: Wendy, thank you very much for coming to TEDGlobal.
WF: Thank you.
(Applause) |
This strange-looking plant is called the Llareta. What looks like moss covering rocks is actually a shrub comprised of thousands of branches, each containing clusters of tiny green leaves at the end and so densely packed together that you could actually stand on top of it. This individual lives in the Atacama Desert in Chile, and it happens to be 3,000 years old. It also happens to be a relative of parsley.
For the past five years, I've been researching, working with biologists and traveling all over the world to find continuously living organisms that are 2,000 years old and older. The project is part art and part science. There's an environmental component. And I'm also trying to create a means in which to step outside our quotidian experience of time and to start to consider a deeper timescale. I selected 2,000 years as my minimum age because I wanted to start at what we consider to be year zero and work backward from there.
What you're looking at now is a tree called Jomon Sugi, living on the remote island of Yakushima. The tree was in part a catalyst for the project. I'd been traveling in Japan without an agenda other than to photograph, and then I heard about this tree that is 2,180 years old and knew that I had to go visit it. It wasn't until later, when I was actually back home in New York that I got the idea for the project. So it was the slow churn, if you will. I think it was my longstanding desire to bring together my interest in art, science and philosophy that allowed me to be ready when the proverbial light bulb went on. So I started researching, and to my surprise, this project had never been done before in the arts or the sciences. And -- perhaps naively -- I was surprised to find that there isn't even an area in the sciences that deals with this idea of global species longevity.
So what you're looking at here is the rhizocarpon geographicum, or map lichen, and this is around 3,000 years old and lives in Greenland, which is a long way to go for some lichens. Visiting Greenland was more like traveling back in time than just traveling very far north. It was very primal and more remote than anything I'd ever experienced before. And this is heightened by a couple of particular experiences. One was when I had been dropped off by boat on a remote fjord, only to find that the archeologists I was supposed to meet were nowhere to be found. And it's not like you could send them a text or shoot them an e-mail, so I was literally left to my own devices. But luckily, it worked out obviously, but it was a humbling experience to feel so disconnected. And then a few days later, we had the opportunity to go fishing in a glacial stream near our campsite, where the fish were so abundant that you could literally reach into the stream and grab out a foot-long trout with your bare hands. It was like visiting a more innocent time on the planet. And then, of course, there's the lichens. These lichens grow only one centimeter every hundred years. I think that really puts human lifespans into a different perspective.
And what you're looking at here is an aerial photo take over eastern Oregon. And if the title "Searching for Armillaria Death Rings," sounds ominous, it is. The Armillaria is actually a predatory fungus, killing certain species of trees in the forest. It's also more benignly known as the honey mushroom or the "humongous fungus" because it happens to be one of the world's largest organisms as well. So with the help of some biologists studying the fungus, I got some maps and some GPS coordinates and chartered a plane and started looking for the death rings, the circular patterns in which the fungus kills the trees. So I'm not sure if there are any in this photo, but I do know the fungus is down there. And then this back down on the ground and you can see that the fungus is actually invading this tree. So that white material that you see in between the bark and the wood is the mycelial felt of the fungus, and what it's doing -- it's actually slowly strangling the tree to death by preventing the flow of water and nutrients. So this strategy has served it pretty well -- it's 2,400 years old. And then from underground to underwater.
This is a Brain Coral living in Tobago that's around 2,000 years old. And I had to overcome my fear of deep water to find this one. This is at about 60 feet or 18 meters, depth. And you'll see, there's some damage to the surface of the coral. That was actually caused by a school of parrot fish that had started eating it, though luckily, they lost interest before killing it. Luckily still, it seems to be out of harm's way of the recent oil spill. But that being said, we just as easily could have lost one of the oldest living things on the planet, and the full impact of that disaster is still yet to be seen.
Now this is something that I think is one of the most quietly resilient things on the planet. This is clonal colony of Quaking Aspen trees, living in Utah, that is literally 80,000 years old. What looks like a forest is actually only one tree. Imagine that it's one giant root system and each tree is a stem coming up from that system. So what you have is one giant, interconnected, genetically identical individual that's been living for 80,000 years. It also happens to be male and, in theory immortal.
(Laughter)
This is a clonal tree as well. This is the spruce Gran Picea, which at 9,550 years is a mere babe in the woods. The location of this tree is actually kept secret for its own protection. I spoke to the biologist who discovered this tree, and he told me that that spindly growth you see there in the center is most likely a product of climate change. As it's gotten warmer on the top of the mountain, the vegetation zone is actually changing. So we don't even necessarily have to have direct contact with these organisms to have a very real impact on them.
This is the Fortingall Yew -- no, I'm just kidding -- this is the Fortingall Yew. (Laughter) But I put that slide in there because I'm often asked if there are any animals in the project. And aside from coral, the answer is no. Does anybody know how old the oldest tortoise is -- any guesses? (Audience: 300.) Rachel Sussman: 300? No, 175 is the oldest living tortoise, so nowhere near 2,000. And then, you might have heard of this giant clam that was discovered off the coast of northern Iceland that reached 405 years old. However, it died in the lab as they were determining its age. The most interesting discovery of late, I think is the so-called immortal jellyfish, which has actually been observed in the lab to be able to be able to revert back to the polyp state after reaching full maturity. So that being said, it's highly unlikely that any jellyfish would survive that long in the wild. And back to the yew here. So as you can see, it's in a churchyard; it's in Scotland. It's behind a protective wall. And there are actually a number or ancient yews in churchyards around the U.K., but if you do the math, you'll remember it's actually the yew trees that were there first, then the churches.
And now down to another part of the world. I had the opportunity to travel around the Limpopo Province in South Africa with an expert in Baobab trees. And we saw a number of them, and this is most likely the oldest. It's around 2,000, and it's called the Sagole Baobab. And you know, I think of all of these organisms as palimpsests. They contain thousands of years of their own histories within themselves, and they also contain records of natural and human events. And the Baobabs in particular are a great example of this. You can see that this one has names carved into its trunk, but it also records some natural events. So the Baobabs, as they get older, tend to get pulpy in their centers and hollow out. And this can create great natural shelters for animals, but they've also been appropriated for some rather dubious human uses, including a bar, a prison and even a toilet inside of a tree.
And this brings me to another favorite of mine -- I think, because it is just so unusual. This plant is called the Welwitschia, and it lives only in parts of coastal Namibia and Angola, where it's uniquely adapted to collect moisture from mist coming off the sea. And what's more, it's actually a tree. It's a primitive conifer. You'll notice that it's bearing cones down the center. And what looks like two big heaps of leaves, is actually two single leaves that get shredded up by the harsh desert conditions over time. And it actually never sheds those leaves, so it also bears the distinction of having the longest leaves in the plant kingdom. I spoke to a biologist at the Kirstenbosch Botanical Garden in Capetown to ask him where he thought this remarkable plant came from, and his thought was that if you travel around Namibia, you see that there are a number of petrified forests, and the logs are all -- the logs are all giant coniferous trees, and yet there's no sign of where they might have come from. So his thought was that flooding in the north of Africa actually brought those coniferous trees down tens of thousands of years ago, and what resulted was this remarkable adaptation to this unique desert environment.
This is what I think is the most poetic of the oldest living things. This is something called an underground forest. So, I spoke to a botanist at the Pretoria Botanical Garden, who explained that certain species of trees have adapted to this region. It's bushfelt region, which is dry and prone to a lot of fires, as so what these trees have done is, if you can imagine that this is the crown of the tree, and that this is ground level, imagine that the whole thing, that whole bulk of the tree, migrated underground, and you just have those leaves peeping up above the surface. That way, when a fire roars through, it's the equivalent of getting your eyebrows singed. The tree can easily recover. These also tend to grow clonally, the oldest of which is 13,000 years old.
Back in the U.S., there's a couple plants of similar age. This is the clonal Creosote bush, which is around 12,000 years old. If you've been in the American West, you know the Creosote bush is pretty ubiquitous, but that being said, you see that this has this unique, circular form. And what's happening is it's expanding slowly outwards from that original shape. And it's one -- again, that interconnected root system, making it one genetically identical individual. It also has a friend nearby -- well, I think they're friends. This is the clonal Mojave yucca, it's about a mile away, and it's a little bit older than 12,000 years. And you see it has that similar circular form. And there's some younger clones dotting the landscape behind it. And both of these, the yucca and the Creosote bush, live on Bureau of Land Management land, and that's very different from being protected in a national park. In fact, this land is designated for recreational all-terrain vehicle use.
So, now I want to show what very well might be the oldest living thing on the planet. This is Siberian Actinobacteria, which is between 400,000 and 600,000 years old. This bacteria was discovered several years ago by a team of planetary biologists hoping to find clues to life on other planets by looking at one of the harshest conditions on ours. And what they found, by doing research into the permafrost, was this bacteria. But what's unique about it is that it's doing DNA repair below freezing. And what that means is that it's not dormant -- it's actually been living and growing for half a million years. It's also probably one the most vulnerable of the oldest living things, because if the permafrost melts, it won't survive.
This is a map that I've put together of the oldest living things, so you can get a sense of where they are; you see they're all over the world. The blue flags represent things that I've already photographed, and the reds are places that I'm still trying to get to. You'll see also, there's a flag on Antarctica. I'm trying to travel there to find 5,000 year-old moss, which lives on the Antarctic Peninsula.
So, I probably have about two more years left on this project -- on this phase of the project, but after five years, I really feel like I know what's at the heart of this work. The oldest living things in the world are a record and celebration of our past, a call to action in the present and a barometer of our future. They've survived for millennia in desert, in the permafrost, at the tops of mountains and at the bottom of the ocean. They've withstood untold natural perils and human encroachments, but now some of them are in jeopardy, and they can't just get up and get out of the way. It's my hope that, by going to find these organisms, that I can help draw attention to their remarkable resilience and help play a part in insuring their continued longevity into the foreseeable future.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Hi. So I'd like to talk a little bit about the people who make the things we use every day: our shoes, our handbags, our computers and cell phones. Now, this is a conversation that often calls up a lot of guilt. Imagine the teenage farm girl who makes less than a dollar an hour stitching your running shoes, or the young Chinese man who jumps off a rooftop after working overtime assembling your iPad. We, the beneficiaries of globalization, seem to exploit these victims with every purchase we make, and the injustice feels embedded in the products themselves. After all, what's wrong with a world in which a worker on an iPhone assembly line can't even afford to buy one? It's taken for granted that Chinese factories are oppressive, and that it's our desire for cheap goods that makes them so.
So, this simple narrative equating Western demand and Chinese suffering is appealing, especially at a time when many of us already feel guilty about our impact on the world, but it's also inaccurate and disrespectful. We must be peculiarly self-obsessed to imagine that we have the power to drive tens of millions of people on the other side of the world to migrate and suffer in such terrible ways. In fact, China makes goods for markets all over the world, including its own, thanks to a combination of factors: its low costs, its large and educated workforce, and a flexible manufacturing system that responds quickly to market demands. By focusing so much on ourselves and our gadgets, we have rendered the individuals on the other end into invisibility, as tiny and interchangeable as the parts of a mobile phone.
Chinese workers are not forced into factories because of our insatiable desire for iPods. They choose to leave their homes in order to earn money, to learn new skills, and to see the world. In the ongoing debate about globalization, what's been missing is the voices of the workers themselves.
Here are a few.
Bao Yongxiu: "My mother tells me to come home and get married, but if I marry now, before I have fully developed myself, I can only marry an ordinary worker, so I'm not in a rush."
Chen Ying: "When I went home for the new year, everyone said I had changed. They asked me, what did you do that you have changed so much? I told them that I studied and worked hard. If you tell them more, they won't understand anyway."
Wu Chunming: "Even if I make a lot of money, it won't satisfy me. Just to make money is not enough meaning in life."
Xiao Jin: "Now, after I get off work, I study English, because in the future, our customers won't be only Chinese, so we must learn more languages."
All of these speakers, by the way, are young women, 18 or 19 years old.
So I spent two years getting to know assembly line workers like these in the south China factory city called Dongguan. Certain subjects came up over and over: how much money they made, what kind of husband they hoped to marry, whether they should jump to another factory or stay where they were. Other subjects came up almost never, including living conditions that to me looked close to prison life: 10 or 15 workers in one room, 50 people sharing a single bathroom, days and nights ruled by the factory clock. Everyone they knew lived in similar circumstances, and it was still better than the dormitories and homes of rural China.
The workers rarely spoke about the products they made, and they often had great difficulty explaining what exactly they did. When I asked Lu Qingmin, the young woman I got to know best, what exactly she did on the factory floor, she said something to me in Chinese that sounded like "qiu xi." Only much later did I realize that she had been saying "QC," or quality control. She couldn't even tell me what she did on the factory floor. All she could do was parrot a garbled abbreviation in a language she didn't even understand.
Karl Marx saw this as the tragedy of capitalism, the alienation of the worker from the product of his labor. Unlike, say, a traditional maker of shoes or cabinets, the worker in an industrial factory has no control, no pleasure, and no true satisfaction or understanding in her own work. But like so many theories that Marx arrived at sitting in the reading room of the British Museum, he got this one wrong. Just because a person spends her time making a piece of something does not mean that she becomes that, a piece of something. What she does with the money she earns, what she learns in that place, and how it changes her, these are the things that matter. What a factory makes is never the point, and the workers could not care less who buys their products.
Journalistic coverage of Chinese factories, on the other hand, plays up this relationship between the workers and the products they make. Many articles calculate: How long would it take for this worker to work in order to earn enough money to buy what he's making? For example, an entry-level-line assembly line worker in China in an iPhone plant would have to shell out two and a half months' wages for an iPhone.
But how meaningful is this calculation, really? For example, I recently wrote an article in The New Yorker magazine, but I can't afford to buy an ad in it. But, who cares? I don't want an ad in The New Yorker, and most of these workers don't really want iPhones. Their calculations are different. How long should I stay in this factory? How much money can I save? How much will it take to buy an apartment or a car, to get married, or to put my child through school?
The workers I got to know had a curiously abstract relationship with the product of their labor. About a year after I met Lu Qingmin, or Min, she invited me home to her family village for the Chinese New Year. On the train home, she gave me a present: a Coach brand change purse with brown leather trim. I thanked her, assuming it was fake, like almost everything else for sale in Dongguan. After we got home, Min gave her mother another present: a pink Dooney & Bourke handbag, and a few nights later, her sister was showing off a maroon LeSportsac shoulder bag. Slowly it was dawning on me that these handbags were made by their factory, and every single one of them was authentic.
Min's sister said to her parents, "In America, this bag sells for 320 dollars." Her parents, who are both farmers, looked on, speechless. "And that's not all -- Coach is coming out with a new line, 2191," she said. "One bag will sell for 6,000." She paused and said, "I don't know if that's 6,000 yuan or 6,000 American dollars, but anyway, it's 6,000." (Laughter)
Min's sister's boyfriend, who had traveled home with her for the new year, said, "It doesn't look like it's worth that much."
Min's sister turned to him and said, "Some people actually understand these things. You don't understand shit."
(Laughter) (Applause)
In Min's world, the Coach bags had a curious currency. They weren't exactly worthless, but they were nothing close to the actual value, because almost no one they knew wanted to buy one, or knew how much it was worth. Once, when Min's older sister's friend got married, she brought a handbag along as a wedding present. Another time, after Min had already left the handbag factory, her younger sister came to visit, bringing two Coach Signature handbags as gifts.
I looked in the zippered pocket of one, and I found a printed card in English, which read, "An American classic. In 1941, the burnished patina of an all-American baseball glove inspired the founder of Coach to create a new collection of handbags from the same luxuriously soft gloved-hand leather. Six skilled leatherworkers crafted 12 Signature handbags with perfect proportions and a timeless flair. They were fresh, functional, and women everywhere adored them. A new American classic was born."
I wonder what Karl Marx would have made of Min and her sisters. Their relationship with the product of their labor was more complicated, surprising and funny than he could have imagined. And yet, his view of the world persists, and our tendency to see the workers as faceless masses, to imagine that we can know what they're really thinking.
The first time I met Min, she had just turned 18 and quit her first job on the assembly line of an electronics factory. Over the next two years, I watched as she switched jobs five times, eventually landing a lucrative post in the purchasing department of a hardware factory. Later, she married a fellow migrant worker, moved with him to his village, gave birth to two daughters, and saved enough money to buy a secondhand Buick for herself and an apartment for her parents. She recently returned to Dongguan on her own to take a job in a factory that makes construction cranes, temporarily leaving her husband and children back in the village.
In a recent email to me, she explained, "A person should have some ambition while she is young so that in old age she can look back on her life and feel that it was not lived to no purpose."
Across China, there are 150 million workers like her, one third of them women, who have left their villages to work in the factories, the hotels, the restaurants and the construction sites of the big cities. Together, they make up the largest migration in history, and it is globalization, this chain that begins in a Chinese farming village and ends with iPhones in our pockets and Nikes on our feet and Coach handbags on our arms that has changed the way these millions of people work and marry and live and think. Very few of them would want to go back to the way things used to be.
When I first went to Dongguan, I worried that it would be depressing to spend so much time with workers. I also worried that nothing would ever happen to them, or that they would have nothing to say to me. Instead, I found young women who were smart and funny and brave and generous. By opening up their lives to me, they taught me so much about factories and about China and about how to live in the world.
This is the Coach purse that Min gave me on the train home to visit her family. I keep it with me to remind me of the ties that tie me to the young women I wrote about, ties that are not economic but personal in nature, measured not in money but in memories. This purse is also a reminder that the things that you imagine, sitting in your office or in the library, are not how you find them when you actually go out into the world.
Thank you. (Applause) (Applause)
Chris Anderson: Thank you, Leslie, that was an insight that a lot of us haven't had before. But I'm curious. If you had a minute, say, with Apple's head of manufacturing, what would you say?
Leslie Chang: One minute?
CA: One minute. (Laughter)
LC: You know, what really impressed me about the workers is how much they're self-motivated, self-driven, resourceful, and the thing that struck me, what they want most is education, to learn, because most of them come from very poor backgrounds. They usually left school when they were in 7th or 8th grade. Their parents are often illiterate, and then they come to the city, and they, on their own, at night, during the weekends, they'll take a computer class, they'll take an English class, and learn really, really rudimentary things, you know, like how to type a document in Word, or how to say really simple things in English. So, if you really want to help these workers, start these small, very focused, very pragmatic classes in these schools, and what's going to happen is, all your workers are going to move on, but hopefully they'll move on into higher jobs within Apple, and you can help their social mobility and their self-improvement. When you talk to workers, that's what they want. They do not say, "I want better hot water in the showers. I want a nicer room. I want a TV set." I mean, it would be nice to have those things, but that's not why they're in the city, and that's not what they care about.
CA: Was there a sense from them of a narrative that things were kind of tough and bad, or was there a narrative of some kind of level of growth, that things over time were getting better?
LC: Oh definitely, definitely. I mean, you know, it was interesting, because I spent basically two years hanging out in this city, Dongguan, and over that time, you could see immense change in every person's life: upward, downward, sideways, but generally upward. If you spend enough time, it's upward, and I met people who had moved to the city 10 years ago, and who are now basically urban middle class people, so the trajectory is definitely upward. It's just hard to see when you're suddenly sucked into the city. It looks like everyone's poor and desperate, but that's not really how it is. Certainly, the factory conditions are really tough, and it's nothing you or I would want to do, but from their perspective, where they're coming from is much worse, and where they're going is hopefully much better, and I just wanted to give that context of what's going on in their minds, not what necessarily is going on in yours.
CA: Thanks so much for your talk. Thank you very much. (Applause) |
My search is always to find ways to chronicle, to share and to document stories about people, just everyday people. Stories that offer transformation, that lean into transcendence, but that are never sentimental, that never look away from the darkest things about us. Because I really believe that we're never more beautiful than when we're most ugly. Because that's really the moment we really know what we're made of. As Chris said, I grew up in Nigeria with a whole generation -- in the '80s -- of students who were protesting a military dictatorship, which has finally ended. So it wasn't just me, there was a whole generation of us.
But what I've come to learn is that the world is never saved in grand messianic gestures, but in the simple accumulation of gentle, soft, almost invisible acts of compassion, everyday acts of compassion. In South Africa, they have a phrase called Ubuntu. Ubuntu comes out of a philosophy that says, the only way for me to be human is for you to reflect my humanity back at me. But if you're like me, my humanity is more like a window. I don't really see it, I don't pay attention to it until there's, you know, like a bug that's dead on the window. Then suddenly I see it, and usually, it's never good. It's usually when I'm cussing in traffic at someone who is trying to drive their car and drink coffee and send emails and make notes. So what Ubuntu really says is that there is no way for us to be human without other people. It's really very simple, but really very complicated.
So, I thought I should start with some stories. I should tell you some stories about remarkable people, so I thought I'd start with my mother. (Laughter) And she was dark, too. My mother was English. My parents met in Oxford in the '50s, and my mother moved to Nigeria and lived there. She was five foot two, very feisty and very English. This is how English my mother is -- or was, she just passed. She came out to California, to Los Angeles, to visit me, and we went to Malibu, which she thought was very disappointing. (Laughter) And then we went to a fish restaurant, and we had Chad, the surfer dude, serving us, and he came up and my mother said, "Do you have any specials, young man?" And Chad says, "Sure, like, we have this, like, salmon, that's, like, rolled in this, like, wasabi, like, crust. It's totally rad." And my mother turned to me and said, "What language is he speaking?" (Laughter) I said, "English, mum." And she shook her head and said, "Oh, these Americans. We gave them a language, why don't they use it?" (Laughter)
So, this woman, who converted from the Church of England to Catholicism when she married my father -- and there's no one more rabid than a Catholic convert -- decided to teach in the rural areas in Nigeria, particularly among Igbo women, the Billings ovulation method, which was the only approved birth control by the Catholic Church. But her Igbo wasn't too good. So she took me along to translate. I was seven. (Laughter) So, here are these women, who never discuss their period with their husbands, and here I am telling them, "Well, how often do you get your period?" (Laughter) And, "Do you notice any discharges?" (Laughter) And, "How swollen is your vulva?" (Laughter) She never would have thought of herself as a feminist, my mother, but she always used to say, "Anything a man can do, I can fix." (Applause) And when my father complained about this situation, where she's taking a seven-year-old boy to teach this birth control, you know, he used to say, "Oh, you're turning him into -- you're teaching him how to be a woman." My mother said, "Someone has to." (Laughter)
This woman -- during the Biafran war, we were caught in the war. It was my mother with five little children. It takes her one year, through refugee camp after refugee camp, to make her way to an airstrip where we can fly out of the country. At every single refugee camp, she has to face off soldiers who want to take my elder brother Mark, who was nine, and make him a boy soldier. Can you imagine this five-foot-two woman, standing up to men with guns who want to kill us? All through that one year, my mother never cried one time, not once. But when we were in Lisbon, in the airport, about to fly to England, this woman saw my mother wearing this dress, which had been washed so many times it was basically see through, with five really hungry-looking kids, came over and asked her what had happened. And she told this woman. And so this woman emptied out her suitcase and gave all of her clothes to my mother, and to us, and the toys of her kids, who didn't like that very much, but -- (Laughter) -- that was the only time she cried. And I remember years later, I was writing about my mother, and I asked her, "Why did you cry then?" And she said, "You know, you can steel your heart against any kind of trouble, any kind of horror. But the simple act of kindness from a complete stranger will unstitch you."
The old women in my father's village, after this war had happened, memorized the names of every dead person, and they would sing these dirges, made up of these names. Dirges so melancholic that they would scorch you. And they would sing them only when they planted the rice, as though they were seeding the hearts of the dead into the rice. But when it came for harvest time, they would sing these joyful songs, that were made up of the names of every child who had been born that year. And then the next planting season, when they sang the dirge, they would remove as many names of the dead that equaled as many people that were born. And in this way, these women enacted a lot of transformation, beautiful transformation.
Did you know, that before the genocide in Rwanda, the word for rape and the word for marriage was the same one? But today, women are rebuilding Rwanda. Did you also know that after apartheid, when the new government went into the parliament houses, there were no female toilets in the building? Which would seem to suggest that apartheid was entirely the business of men. All of this to say, that despite the horror, and despite the death, women are never really counted. Their humanity never seems to matter very much to us.
When I was growing up in Nigeria -- and I shouldn't say Nigeria, because that's too general, but in Afikpo, the Igbo part of the country where I'm from -- there were always rites of passage for young men. Men were taught to be men in the ways in which we are not women, that's essentially what it is. And a lot of rituals involved killing, killing little animals, progressing along, so when I turned 13 -- and, I mean, it made sense, it was an agrarian community, somebody had to kill the animals, there was no Whole Foods you could go and get kangaroo steak at -- so when I turned 13, it was my turn now to kill a goat. And I was this weird, sensitive kid, who couldn't really do it, but I had to do it. And I was supposed to do this alone. But a friend of mine, called Emmanuel, who was significantly older than me, who'd been a boy soldier during the Biafran war, decided to come with me. Which sort of made me feel good, because he'd seen a lot of things. Now, when I was growing up, he used to tell me stories about how he used to bayonet people, and their intestines would fall out, but they would keep running. So, this guy comes with me. And I don't know if you've ever heard a goat, or seen one -- they sound like human beings, that's why we call tragedies "a song of a goat." My friend Brad Kessler says that we didn't become human until we started keeping goats. Anyway, a goat's eyes are like a child's eyes. So when I tried to kill this goat and I couldn't, Emmanuel bent down, he puts his hand over the mouth of the goat, covers its eyes, so I don't have to look into them, while I kill the goat. It didn't seem like a lot, for this guy who'd seen so much, and to whom the killing of a goat must have seemed such a quotidian experience, still found it in himself to try to protect me. I was a wimp. I cried for a very long time. And afterwards, he didn't say a word. He just sat there watching me cry for an hour. And then afterwards he said to me, "It will always be difficult, but if you cry like this every time, you will die of heartbreak. Just know that it is enough sometimes to know that it is difficult." Of course, talking about goats makes me think of sheep, and not in good ways. (Laughter)
So, I was born two days after Christmas. So growing up, you know, I had a cake and everything, but I never got any presents, because, born two days after Christmas. So, I was about nine, and my uncle had just come back from Germany, and we had the Catholic priest over, my mother was entertaining him with tea. And my uncle suddenly says, "Where are Chris' presents?" And my mother said, "Don't talk about that in front of guests." But he was desperate to show that he'd just come back, so he summoned me up, and he said, "Go into the bedroom, my bedroom. Take anything you want out of the suitcase. It's your birthday present." I'm sure he thought I'd take a book or a shirt, but I found an inflatable sheep. (Laughter) So, I blew it up and ran into the living room, my finger where it shouldn't have been, I was waving this buzzing sheep around, and my mother looked like she was going to die of shock. (Laughter) And Father McGetrick was completely unflustered, just stirred his tea and looked at my mother and said, "It's all right Daphne, I'm Scottish." (Laughter) (Applause)
My last days in prison, the last 18 months, my cellmate -- for the last year, the first year of the last 18 months -- my cellmate was 14 years old. The name was John James, and in those days, if a family member committed a crime, the military would hold you as ransom till your family turned themselves in. So, here was this 14-year-old kid on death row. And not everybody on death row was a political prisoner. There were some really bad people there. And he had smuggled in two comics, two comic books -- "Spiderman" and "X-Men." He was obsessed. And when he got tired of reading them, he started to teach the men in death row how to read, with these comic books. And so, I remember night after night, you'd hear all these men, these really hardened criminals, huddled around John James, reciting, "Take that, Spidey!" (Laughter) It's incredible. I was really worried. He didn't know what death row meant. I'd been there twice, and I was terribly afraid that I was going to die. And he would always laugh, and say, "Come on, man, we'll make it out." Then I'd say, "How do you know?" And he said, "Oh, I heard it on the grapevine." They killed him. They handcuffed him to a chair, and they tacked his penis to a table with a six-inch nail, then left him there to bleed to death. That's how I ended up in solitary, because I let my feelings be known. All around us, everywhere, there are people like this.
The Igbo used to say that they built their own gods. They would come together as a community, and they would express a wish. And their wish would then be brought to a priest, who would find a ritual object, and the appropriate sacrifices would be made, and the shrine would be built for the god. But if the god became unruly and began to ask for human sacrifice, the Igbos would destroy the god. They would knock down the shrine, and they would stop saying the god's name. This is how they came to reclaim their humanity. Every day, all of us here, we're building gods that have gone rampant, and it's time we started knocking them down and forgetting their names. It doesn't require a tremendous thing. All it requires is to recognize among us, every day -- the few of us that can see -- are surrounded by people like the ones I've told you.
There are some of you in this room, amazing people, who offer all of us the mirror to our own humanity. I want to end with a poem by an American poet called Lucille Clifton. The poem is called "Libation," and it's for my friend Vusi who is in the audience here somewhere. "Libation, North Carolina, 1999. I offer to this ground, this gin. I imagine an old man crying here, out of the sight of the overseer. He pushes his tongue through a hole where his tooth would be, if he were whole. It aches in that space where his tooth would be, where his land would be, his house, his wife, his son, his beautiful daughter. He wipes sorrow from his face, and puts his thirsty finger to his thirsty tongue, and tastes the salt. I call a name that could be his. This is for you, old man. This gin, this salty earth." Thank you. (Applause) |
I've been in Afghanistan for 21 years. I work for the Red Cross and I'm a physical therapist. My job is to make arms and legs -- well it's not completely true. We do more than that. We provide the patients, the Afghan disabled, first with the physical rehabilitation then with the social reintegration. It's a very logical plan, but it was not always like this. For many years, we were just providing them with artificial limbs. It took quite many years for the program to become what it is now.
Today, I would like to tell you a story, the story of a big change, and the story of the people who made this change possible. I arrived in Afghanistan in 1990 to work in a hospital for war victims. And then, not only for war victims, but it was for any kind of patient. I was also working in the orthopedic center, we call it. This is the place where we make the legs. At that time I found myself in a strange situation. I felt not quite ready for that job. There was so much to learn. There were so many things new to me. But it was a terrific job. But as soon as the fighting intensified, the physical rehabilitation was suspended. There were many other things to do. So the orthopedic center was closed because physical rehabilitation was not considered a priority. It was a strange sensation. Anyway, you know every time I make this speech -- it's not the first time -- but it's an emotion. It's something that comes out from the past. It's 21 years, but they are still all there.
Anyway, in 1992, the Mujahideen took all Afghanistan. And the orthopedic center was closed. I was assigned to work for the homeless, for the internally displaced people. But one day, something happened. I was coming back from a big food distribution in a mosque where tens and tens of people were squatting in terrible conditions. I wanted to go home. I was driving. You know, when you want to forget, you don't want to see things, so you just want to go to your room, to lock yourself inside and say, "That's enough." A bomb fell not far from my car -- well, far enough, but big noise. And everybody disappeared from the street. The cars disappeared as well. I ducked. And only one figure remained in the middle of the road. It was a man in a wheelchair desperately trying to move away.
Well I'm not a particularly brave person, I have to confess it, but I could not just ignore him. So I stopped the car and I went to help. The man was without legs and only with one arm. Behind him there was a child, his son, red in the face in an effort to push the father. So I took him into a safe place. And I ask, "What are you doing out in the street in this situation?" "I work," he said. I wondered, what work? And then I ask an even more stupid question: "Why don't you have the prostheses? Why don't you have the artificial legs?" And he said, "The Red Cross has closed." Well without thinking, I told him "Come tomorrow. We will provide you with a pair of legs." The man, his name was Mahmoud, and the child, whose name was Rafi, left. And then I said, "Oh, my God. What did I say? The center is closed, no staff around. Maybe the machinery is broken. Who is going to make the legs for him?" So I hoped that he would not come. This is the streets of Kabul in those days. So I said, "Well I will give him some money."
And so the following day, I went to the orthopedic center. And I spoke with a gatekeeper. I was ready to tell him, "Listen, if someone such-and-such comes tomorrow, please tell him that it was a mistake. Nothing can be done. Give him some money." But Mahmoud and his son were already there. And they were not alone. There were 15, maybe 20, people like him waiting. And there was some staff too. Among them there was my right-hand man, Najmuddin. And the gatekeeper told me, "They come everyday to see if the center will open." I said, "No. We have to go away. We cannot stay here." They were bombing -- not very close -- but you could hear the noise of the bombs. So, "We cannot stay here, it's dangerous. It's not a priority." But Najmuddin told me, "Listen now, we're here." At least we can start repairing the prostheses, the broken prostheses of the people and maybe try to do something for people like Mahmoud." I said, "No, please. We cannot do that. It's really dangerous. We have other things to do." But they insisted. When you have 20 people in front of you, looking at you and you are the one who has to decide ...
So we started doing some repairs. Also one of the physical therapists reported that Mahmoud could be provided with a leg, but not immediately. The legs were swollen and the knees were stiff, so he needed a long preparation. Believe me, I was worried because I was breaking the rules. I was doing something that I was not supposed to do. In the evening, I went to speak with the bosses at the headquarters, and I told them -- I lied -- I told them, "Listen, we are going to start a couple of hours per day, just a few repairs." Maybe some of them are here now.
(Laughter)
So we started. I was working, I was going everyday to work for the homeless. And Najmuddin was staying there, doing everything and reporting on the patients. He was telling me, "Patients are coming." We knew that many more patients could not come, prevented by the fighting. But people were coming. And Mahmoud was coming every day. And slowly, slowly week after week his legs were improving. The stump or cast prosthesis was made, and he was starting the real physical rehabilitation. He was coming every day, crossing the front line. A couple of times I crossed the front line in the very place where Mahmoud and his son were crossing. I tell you, it was something so sinister that I was astonished he could do it every day.
But finally, the great day arrived. Mahmoud was going to be discharged with his new legs. It was April, I remember, a very beautiful day. April in Kabul is beautiful, full of roses, full of flowers. We could not possibly stay indoors, with all these sandbags at the windows. Very sad, dark. So we chose a small spot in the garden. And Mahmoud put on his prostheses, the other patients did the same, and they started practicing for the last time before being discharged.
Suddenly, they started fighting. Two groups of Mujahideen started fighting. We could hear in the air the bullets passing. So we dashed, all of us, towards the shelter. Mahmoud grabbed his son, I grabbed someone else. Everybody was grabbing something. And we ran. You know, 50 meters can be a long distance if you are totally exposed, but we managed to reach the shelter. Inside, all of us panting, I sat a moment and I heard Rafi telling his father, "Father, you can run faster than me." (Laughter) And Mahmoud, "Of course I can. I can run, and now you can go to school. No need of staying with me all the day pushing my wheelchair." Later on, we took them home. And I will never forget Mahmoud and his son walking together pushing the empty wheelchair. And then I understood, physical rehabilitation is a priority. Dignity cannot wait for better times.
From that day on, we never closed a single day. Well sometimes we were suspended for a few hours, but we never, we never closed it again. I met Mahmoud one year later. He was in good shape -- a bit thinner. He needed to change his prostheses -- a new pair of prostheses. I asked about his son. He told me, "He's at school. He'd doing quite well." But I understood he wanted to tell me something. So I asked him, "What is that?" He was sweating. He was clearly embarrassed. And he was standing in front of me, his head down. He said, "You have taught me to walk. Thank you very much. Now help me not to be a beggar anymore." That was the job. "My children are growing. I feel ashamed. I don't want them to be teased at school by the other students." I said, "Okay." I thought, how much money do I have in my pocket? Just to give him some money. It was the easiest way. He read my mind, and he said, "I ask for a job." And then he added something I will never forget for the rest of my life. He said, "I am a scrap of a man, but if you help me, I'm ready to do anything, even if I have to crawl on the ground." And then he sat down. I sat down too with goosebumps everywhere.
Legless, with only one arm, illiterate, unskilled -- what job for him? Najmuddin told me, "Well we have a vacancy in the carpentry shop." "What?" I said, "Stop." "Well yes, we need to increase the production of feet. We need to employ someone to glue and to screw the sole of the feet. We need to increase the production." "Excuse me?" I could not believe. And then he said, "No, we can modify the workbench maybe to put a special stool, a special anvil, special vice, and maybe an electric screwdriver." I said, "Listen, it's insane. And it's even cruel to think of anything like this. That's a production line and a very fast one. It's cruel to offer him a job knowing that he's going to fail." But with Najmuddin, we cannot discuss. So the only things I could manage to obtain was a kind of a compromise. Only one week -- one week try and not a single day more. One week later, Mahmoud was the fastest in the production line. I told Najmuddin, "That's a trick. I can't believe it." The production was up 20 percent. "It's a trick, it's a trick," I said. And then I asked for verification. It was true.
The comment of Najmuddin was Mahmoud has something to prove. I understood that I was wrong again. Mahmoud had looked taller. I remember him sitting behind the workbench smiling. He was a new man, taller again. Of course, I understood that what made him stand tall -- yeah they were the legs, thank you very much -- but as a first step, it was the dignity. He has regained his full dignity thanks to that job. So of course, I understood. And then we started a new policy -- a new policy completely different. We decided to employ as many disabled as possible to train them in any possible job. It became a policy of "positive discrimination," we call it now.
And you know what? It's good for everybody. Everybody benefits from that -- those employed, of course, because they get a job and dignity. But also for the newcomers. They are 7,000 every year -- people coming for the first time. And you should see the faces of these people when they realize that those assisting them are like them. Sometimes you see them, they look, "Oh." And you see the faces. And then the surprise turns into hope. And it's easy for me as well to train someone who has already passed through the experience of disability. Poof, they learn much faster -- the motivation, the empathy they can establish with the patient is completely different, completely. Scraps of men do not exist.
People like Mahmoud are agents of change. And when you start changing, you cannot stop. So employing people, yes, but also we started programming projects of microfinance, education. And when you start, you cannot stop. So you do vocational training, home education for those who cannot go to school. Physical therapies can be done, not only in the orthopedic center, but also in the houses of the people. There is always a better way to do things. That's Najmuddin, the one with the white coat. Terrible Najmuddin, is that one. I have learned a lot from people like Najmuddin, Mahmoud, Rafi. They are my teachers.
I have a wish, a big wish, that this way of working, this way of thinking, is going to be implemented in other countries. There are plenty of countries at war like Afghanistan. It is possible and it is not difficult. All we have to do is to listen to the people that we are supposed assist, to make them part of the decision-making process and then, of course, to adapt. This is my big wish.
Well don't think that the changes in Afghanistan are over; not at all. We are going on. Recently we have just started a program, a sport program -- basketball for wheelchair users. We transport the wheelchairs everywhere. We have several teams in the main part of Afghanistan. At the beginning, when Anajulina told me, "We would like to start it," I hesitated. I said, "No," you can imagine. I said, "No, no, no, no, we can't." And then I asked the usual question: "Is it a priority? Is it really necessary?" Well now you should see me. I never miss a single training session. The night before a match I'm very nervous. And you should see me during the match. I shout like a true Italian.
(Laughter)
What's next? What is going to be the next change? Well I don't know yet, but I'm sure Najmuddin and his friends, they have it already in mind.
That was my story. Thank you very much.
(Applause) |
Someone who looks like me walks past you in the street. Do you think they're a mother, a refugee or a victim of oppression? Or do you think they're a cardiologist, a barrister or maybe your local politician? Do you look me up and down, wondering how hot I must get or if my husband has forced me to wear this outfit? What if I wore my scarf like this?
I can walk down the street in the exact same outfit and what the world expects of me and the way I'm treated depends on the arrangement of this piece of cloth. But this isn't going to be another monologue about the hijab because Lord knows, Muslim women are so much more than the piece of cloth they choose, or not, to wrap their head in. This is about looking beyond your bias.
What if I walked past you and later on you'd found out that actually I was a race car engineer, and that I designed my own race car and I ran my university's race team, because it's true. What if I told you that I was actually trained as a boxer for five years, because that's true, too. Would it surprise you? Why?
Ladies and gentlemen, ultimately, that surprise and the behaviors associated with it are the product of something called unconscious bias, or implicit prejudice. And that results in the ridiculously detrimental lack of diversity in our workforce, particularly in areas of influence. Hello, Australian Federal Cabinet. (Applause)
Let me just set something out from the outset: Unconscious bias is not the same as conscious discrimination. I'm not saying that in all of you, there's a secret sexist or racist or ageist lurking within, waiting to get out. That's not what I'm saying. We all have our biases. They're the filters through which we see the world around us. I'm not accusing anyone, bias is not an accusation. Rather, it's something that has to be identified, acknowledged and mitigated against. Bias can be about race, it can be about gender. It can also be about class, education, disability. The fact is, we all have biases against what's different, what's different to our social norms.
The thing is, if we want to live in a world where the circumstances of your birth do not dictate your future and where equal opportunity is ubiquitous, then each and every one of us has a role to play in making sure unconscious bias does not determine our lives.
There's this really famous experiment in the space of unconscious bias and that's in the space of gender in the 1970s and 1980s. So orchestras, back in the day, were made up mostly of dudes, up to only five percent were female. And apparently, that was because men played it differently, presumably better, presumably. But in 1952, The Boston Symphony Orchestra started an experiment. They started blind auditions. So rather than face-to-face auditions, you would have to play behind a screen. Now funnily enough, no immediate change was registered until they asked the audition-ers to take their shoes off before they entered the room. because the clickity-clack of the heels against the hardwood floors was enough to give the ladies away. Now get this, there results of the audition showed that there was a 50 percent increased chance a woman would progress past the preliminary stage. And it almost tripled their chances of getting in. What does that tell us? Well, unfortunately for the guys, men actually didn't play differently, but there was the perception that they did. And it was that bias that was determining their outcome.
So what we're doing here is identifying and acknowledging that a bias exists. And look, we all do it. Let me give you an example. A son and his father are in a horrible car accident. The father dies on impact and the son, who's severely injured, is rushed to hospital. The surgeon looks at the son when they arrive and is like, "I can't operate." Why? "The boy is my son." How can that be? Ladies and gentlemen, the surgeon is his mother. Now hands up -- and it's okay -- but hands up if you initially assumed the surgeon was a guy? There's evidence that that unconscious bias exists, but we all just have to acknowledge that it's there and then look at ways that we can move past it so that we can look at solutions.
Now one of the interesting things around the space of unconscious bias is the topic of quotas. And this something that's often brought up. And of of the criticisms is this idea of merit. Look, I don't want to be picked because I'm a chick, I want to be picked because I have merit, because I'm the best person for the job. It's a sentiment that's pretty common among female engineers that I work with and that I know. And yeah, I get it, I've been there. But, if the merit idea was true, why would identical resumes, in an experiment done in 2012 by Yale, identical resumes sent out for a lab technician, why would Jennifers be deemed less competent, be less likely to be offered the job, and be paid less than Johns. The unconscious bias is there, but we just have to look at how we can move past it.
And, you know, it's interesting, there's some research that talks about why this is the case and it's called the merit paradox. And in organizations -- and this is kind of ironic -- in organizations that talk about merit being their primary value-driver in terms of who they hire, they were more likely to hire dudes and more likely to pay the guys more because apparently merit is a masculine quality. But, hey.
So you guys think you've got a good read on me, you kinda think you know what's up. Can you imagine me running one of these? Can you imagine me walking in and being like, "Hey boys, this is what's up. This is how it's done." Well, I'm glad you can. (Applause) Because ladies and gentlemen, that's my day job. And the cool thing about it is that it's pretty entertaining. Actually, in places like Malaysia, Muslim women on rigs isn't even comment-worthy. There are that many of them. But, it is entertaining.
I remember, I was telling one of the guys, "Hey, mate, look, I really want to learn how to surf." And he's like, "Yassmin, I don't know how you can surf with all that gear you've got on, and I don't know any women-only beaches." And then, the guy came up with a brilliant idea, he was like, "I know, you run that organization Youth Without Borders, right? Why don't you start a clothing line for Muslim chicks in beaches. You can call it Youth Without Boardshorts." (Laughter) And I was like, "Thanks, guys." And I remember another bloke telling me that I should eat all the yogurt I could because that was the only culture I was going to get around there.
But, the problem is, it's kind of true because there's an intense lack of diversity in our workforce, particularly in places of influence. Now, in 2010, The Australian National University did an experiment where they sent out 4,000 identical applications to entry level jobs, essentially. To get the same number of interviews as someone with an Anglo-Saxon name, if you were Chinese, you had to send out 68 percent more applications. If you were Middle Eastern -- Abdel-Magied -- you had to send out 64 percent, and if you're Italian, you're pretty lucky, you only have to send out 12 percent more. In places like Silicon Valley, it's not that much better. In Google, they put out some diversity results and 61 percent white, 30 percent Asian and nine, a bunch of blacks, Hispanics, all that kind of thing. And the rest of the tech world is not that much better and they've acknowledged it, but I'm not really sure what they're doing about it.
The thing is, it doesn't trickle up. In a study done by Green Park, who are a British senior exec supplier, they said that over half of the FTSE 100 companies don't have a nonwhite leader at their board level, executive or non-executive. And two out of every three don't have an executive who's from a minority. And most of the minorities that are at that sort of level are non-executive board directors. So their influence isn't that great.
I've told you a bunch of terrible things. You're like, "Oh my god, how bad is that? What can I do about it?" Well, fortunately, we've identified that there's a problem. There's a lack of opportunity, and that's due to unconscious bias. But you might be sitting there thinking, "I ain't brown. What's that got to do with me?" Let me offer you a solution. And as I've said before, we live in a world where we're looking for an ideal. And if we want to create a world where the circumstances of your birth don't matter, we all have to be part of the solution. And interestingly, the author of the lab resume experiment offered some sort of a solution. She said the one thing that brought the successful women together, the one thing that they had in common, was the fact that they had good mentors.
So mentoring, we've all kind of heard that before, it's in the vernacular. Here's another challenge for you. I challenge each and every one of you to mentor someone different. Think about it. Everyone wants to mentor someone who kind of is familiar, who looks like us, we have shared experiences. If I see a Muslim chick who's got a bit of attitude, I'm like, "What's up? We can hang out." You walk into a room and there's someone who went to the same school, you play the same sports, there's a high chance that you're going to want to help that person out. But for the person in the room who has no shared experiences with you it becomes extremely difficult to find that connection.
The idea of finding someone different to mentor, someone who doesn't come from the same background as you, whatever that background is, is about opening doors for people who couldn't even get to the damn hallway.
Because ladies and gentlemen, the world is not just. People are not born with equal opportunity. I was born in one of the poorest cities in the world, Khartoum. I was born brown, I was born female, and I was born Muslim in a world that is pretty suspicious of us for reasons I can't control. However, I also acknowledge the fact that I was born with privilege. I was born with amazing parents, I was given an education and had the blessing of migrating to Australia. But also, I've been blessed with amazing mentors who've opened doors for me that I didn't even know were there. A mentor who said to me, "Hey, your story's interesting. Let's write something about it so that I can share it with people." A mentor who said, "I know you're all those things that don't belong on an Australian rig, but come on anyway." And here I am, talking to you.
And I'm not the only one. There's all sorts of people in my communities that I see have been helped out by mentors. A young Muslim man in Sydney who ended up using his mentor's help to start up a poetry slam in Bankstown and now it's a huge thing. And he's able to change the lives of so many other young people. Or a lady here in Brisbane, an Afghan lady who's a refugee, who could barely speak English when she came to Australia, her mentors helped her become a doctor and she took our Young Queenslander of the Year Award in 2008. She's an inspiration. This is so not smooth.
This is me. But I'm also the woman in the rig clothes, and I'm also the woman who was in the abaya at the beginning. Would you have chosen to mentor me if you had seen me in one of those other versions of who I am? Because I'm that same person. We have to look past our unconscious bias, find someone to mentor who's at the opposite end of your spectrum because structural change takes time, and I don't have that level of patience. So if we're going to create a change, if we're going to create a world where we all have those kinds of opportunities, then choose to open doors for people. Because you might think that diversity has nothing to do with you, but we are all part of this system and we can all be part of that solution.
And if you don't know where to find someone different, go to the places you wouldn't usually go. If you enroll in private high school tutoring, go to your local state school or maybe just drop into your local refugee tutoring center. Or perhaps you work at an office. Take out that new grad who looks totally out of place -- 'cause that was me -- and open doors for them, not in a tokenistic way, because we're not victims, but show them the opportunities because opening up your world will make you realize that you have access to doors that they didn't even know existed and you didn't even know they didn't have.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a problem in our community with lack of opportunity, especially due to unconscious bias. But each and every one one of you has the potential to change that. I know you've been given a lot of challenges today, but if you can take this one piece and think about it a little differently, because diversity is magic. And I encourage you to look past your initial perceptions because I bet you, they're probably wrong.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
What I do is I organize information. I'm a graphic designer. Professionally, I try to make sense often of things that don't make much sense themselves.
So my father might not understand what it is that I do for a living. His part of my ancestry has been farmers. He's part of this ethnic minority called the Pontic Greeks. They lived in Asia Minor and fled to Greece after a genocide about a hundred years ago. And ever since that, migration has somewhat been a theme in my family. My father moved to Germany, studied there and married, and as a result, I now have this half-German brain, with all the analytical thinking and that slightly dorky demeanor that come with that. And of course it meant that I was a foreigner in both countries, and that of course made it pretty easy for me to migrate as well, in good family tradition, if you like.
But of course, most journeys that we undertake from day to day are within a city. And, especially if you know the city, getting from A to B may seem pretty obvious, right? But the question is, why is it obvious? How do we know where we're going?
So I washed up on a Dublin ferry port about 12 years ago, a professional foreigner, if you like, and I'm sure you've all had this experience before, yeah? You arrive in a new city, and your brain is trying to make sense of this new place. Once you find your base, your home, you start to build this cognitive map of your environment. It's essentially this virtual map that only exists in your brain. All animal species do it, even though we all use slightly different tools. Us humans, of course, we don't move around marking our territory by scent, like dogs. We don't run around emitting ultrasonic squeaks, like bats. We just don't do that, although a night in the Temple Bar district can get pretty wild.
(Laughter)
No, we do two important things to make a place our own. First, we move along linear routes. Typically, we find a main street, and this main street becomes a linear strip map in our minds. But our mind keeps it pretty simple, yeah? Every street is generally perceived as a straight line, and we kind of ignore the little twists and turns that the streets make. When we do, however, make a turn into a side street, our mind tends to adjust that turn to a 90-degree angle. This of course makes for some funny moments when you're in some old city layout that follows some sort of circular city logic, yeah? Maybe you've had that experience as well.
Let's say you're on some spot on a side street that projects from a main cathedral square, and you want to get to another point on a side street just like that. The cognitive map in your mind may tell you, "Aris, go back to the main cathedral square, take a 90-degree turn and walk down that other side street." But somehow you feel adventurous that day, and you suddenly discover that the two spots were actually only a single building apart. Now, I don't know about you, but I always feel like I find this wormhole or this inter-dimensional portal.
(Laughter)
So we move along linear routes and our mind straightens streets and perceives turns as 90-degree angles.
The second thing that we do to make a place our own is we attach meaning and emotions to the things that we see along those lines. If you go to the Irish countryside and you ask an old lady for directions, brace yourself for some elaborate Irish storytelling about all the landmarks, yeah? She'll tell you the pub where her sister used to work, and "... go past that church where I got married," that kind of thing. So we fill our cognitive maps with these markers of meaning. What's more, we abstract repeat patterns and recognize them. We recognize them by the experiences and we abstract them into symbols. And of course, we're all capable of understanding these symbols.
(Laughter)
What's more, we're all capable of understanding the cognitive maps, and you are all capable of creating these cognitive maps yourselves. So next time, when you want to tell your friend how to get to your place, you grab a beermat, grab a napkin, and you just observe yourself create this awesome piece of communication design. It's got straight lines. It's got 90-degree corners. You might add little symbols along the way. And when you look at what you've just drawn, you realize it does not resemble a street map. If you were to put an actual street map on top of what you've just drawn, you'd realize your streets and the distances -- they'd be way off. No, what you've just drawn is more like a diagram or a schematic. It's a visual construct of lines, dots, letters, designed in the language of our brains.
So it's no big surprise that the big information-design icon of the last century -- the pinnacle of showing everybody how to get from A to B, the London Underground map -- was not designed by a cartographer or a city planner; it was designed by an engineering draftsman. In the 1930s, Harry Beck applied the principles of schematic diagram design and changed the way public transport maps are designed forever. Now the very key to the success of this map is in the omission of less important information and in the extreme simplification. So, straightened streets, corners of 90 and 45 degrees, but also the extreme geographic distortion in that map. If you were to look at the actual locations of these stations, you'd see they're very different. But this is all for the clarity of the public Tube map. If you, say, wanted to get from Regent's Park station to Great Portland Street, the Tube map would tell you: take the Tube, go to Baker Street, change over, take another Tube. Of course, what you don't know is that the two stations are only about a hundred meters apart.
Now we've reached the subject of public transport, and public transport here in Dublin is a somewhat touchy subject.
(Laughter)
For everybody who does not know the public transport here in Dublin, essentially, we have this system of local buses that grew with the city. For every outskirt that was added, there was another bus route added, running from the outskirt all the way to the city center. And as these local buses approach the city center, they all run side by side and converge in pretty much one main street.
So when I stepped off the boat 12 years ago, I tried to make sense of that. Because exploring a city on foot only gets you so far. But when you explore a foreign and new public transport system, you will build a cognitive map in your mind in pretty much the same way. Typically, you choose yourself a rapid transport route, and in your mind, this route is perceived as a straight line. And like a pearl necklace, all the stations and stops are nicely and neatly aligned along the line. And only then you start to discover some local bus routes that would fill in the gaps, and that allow for those wormhole, inter-dimensional portal shortcuts. So I tried to make sense, and when I arrived, I was looking for some information leaflets that would help me crack this system and understand it, and I found those brochures.
(Laughter)
They were not geographically distorted. They had a lot of omission of information, but unfortunately, the wrong information. Say, in the city center -- there were never actually any lines that showed the routes.
(Laughter)
There are actually not even any stations with names.
(Laughter)
Now, the maps of Dublin transport have gotten better, and after I finished the project, they got a good bit better, but still no station names, still no routes.
So, being naive, and being half-German, I decided, "Aris, why don't you build your own map?" So that's what I did. I researched how each and every bus route moved through the city, nice and logical, every bus route a separate line. I plotted it into my own map of Dublin, and in the city center ... I got a nice spaghetti plate.
(Laughter)
Now, this is a bit of a mess, so I decided, of course, "You're going to apply the rules of schematic design," cleaning up the corridors, widening the streets where there were loads of buses and making the streets at straight, 90-degree corners, 45-degree corners or fractions of that, and filled it in with the bus routes. And I built this city center bus map of the system, how it was five years ago. I'll zoom in again so that you get the full impact of the quays and Westmoreland Street.
(Laughter)
Now I can proudly say --
(Applause)
I can proudly say, as a public transport map, this diagram is an utter failure.
(Laughter) Except, probably, in one aspect: I now had a great visual representation of just how clogged up and overrun the city center really was.
Now, call me old-fashioned, but I think a public transport route map should have lines, because that's what they are, yeah? They're little pieces of string that wrap their way through the city center or through the city. If you will, the Greek guy inside of me feels if I don't get a line, it's like entering the labyrinth of the Minotaur without having Ariadne giving you the string to find your way. So the outcome of my academic research, loads of questionnaires, case studies and looking at a lot of maps, was that a lot of the problems and shortcomings of the public transport system here in Dublin was the lack of a coherent public transport map -- a simplified, coherent public transport map -- because I think this is the crucial step to understanding a public transport network on a physical level, but it's also the crucial step to make a public transport network mappable on a visual level.
So I teamed up with a gentleman called James Leahy, a civil engineer and a recent master's graduate of the Sustainable Development program at DIT, and together we drafted the simplified model network, which I could then go ahead and visualize.
So here's what we did. We distributed these rapid-transport corridors throughout the city center, and extended them into the outskirts. Rapid, because we wanted them to be served by rapid-transport vehicles. They would get exclusive road use, where possible, and it would be high-quantity, high-quality transport. James wanted to use bus rapid transport for that, rather than light rail. For me, it was important that the vehicles that would run on those rapid transport corridors would be visibly distinguishable from local buses on the street. Now we could take out all the local buses that ran alongside those rapid transport means. Any gaps that appeared in the outskirts were filled again. So, in other words, if there was a street in an outskirt where there had been a bus, we put a bus back in, only now these buses wouldn't run all the way to the city center, but connect to the nearest rapid-transport mode, one of these thick lines over there. So the rest was merely a couple of months of work, and a couple of fights with my girlfriend, of our place constantly being clogged up with maps, and the outcome, one of the outcomes, was this map of the Greater Dublin area. I'll zoom in a little bit.
This map only shows the rapid transport connections, no local bus, very much in the "metro map" style that was so successful in London, and that since has been exported to so many other major cities, and therefore is the language that we should use for public transport maps. What's also important is, with a simplified network like this, it now would become possible for me to tackle the ultimate challenge and make a public transport map for the city center, one where I wouldn't just show rapid transport connections, but also all the local bus routes, streets and the likes, and this is what a map like this could look like. I'll zoom in a little bit.
In this map, I'm including each transport mode, so rapid transport, bus, DART, tram and the likes. Each individual route is represented by a separate line. The map shows each and every station, each and every station name, and I'm also displaying side streets. In fact, most of the side streets even with their name, and for good measure, also a couple of landmarks, some of them signified by little symbols, others by these isometric three-dimensional bird's-eye-view drawings.
The map is relatively small in overall size, so something that you could still hold as a fold-out map or display in a reasonably-sized display box on a bus shelter. I think it tries to be the best balance between actual representation and simplification -- the language of way-finding in our brain. So, straightened lines, cleaned-up corners, and of course, that very, very important geographic distortion that makes public transport maps possible. If you, for example, have a look at the two main corridors that run through the city -- the yellow and orange one over here -- this is how they look in an actual, accurate street map, and this is how they would look in my distorted, simplified public transport map.
So for a successful public transport map, we should not stick to accurate representation, but design them in the way our brains work.
The reactions I got were tremendous, it was really good to see. And of course, for my own self, I was very happy to see that my folks in Germany and Greece finally have an idea what I do for a living.
(Laughter)
Thank you.
(Applause) |
The magical moment, the magical moment of conducting. Which is, you go onto a stage. There is an orchestra sitting. They are all, you know, warming up and doing stuff. And I go on the podium. You know, this little office of the conductor. Or rather a cubicle, an open-space cubicle, with a lot of space. And in front of all that noise, you do a very small gesture. Something like this, not very pomp, not very sophisticated, this. And suddenly, out of the chaos, order. Noise becomes music.
And this is fantastic. And it's so tempting to think that it's all about me. (Laughter) All those great people here, virtuosos, they make noise, they need me to do that. Not really. If it were that, I would just save you the talk, and teach you the gesture. So you could go out to the world and do this thing in whatever company or whatever you want, and you have perfect harmony. It doesn't work. Let's look at the first video. I hope you'll think it's a good example of harmony. And then speak a little bit about how it comes about.
(Music)
Was that nice? So that was a sort of a success. Now, who should we thank for the success? I mean, obviously the orchestra musicians playing beautifully, the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. They don't often even look at the conductor. Then you have the clapping audience, yeah, actually taking part in doing the music. You know Viennese audiences usually don't interfere with the music. This is the closest to an Oriental bellydancing feast that you will ever get in Vienna. (Laughter)
Unlike, for example Israel, where audiences cough all the time. You know, Arthur Rubinstein, the pianist, used to say that, "Anywhere in the world, people that have the flu, they go to the doctor. In Tel Aviv they come to my concerts." (Laughter) So that's a sort of a tradition. But Viennese audiences do not do that. Here they go out of their regular, just to be part of that, to become part of the orchestra, and that's great. You know, audiences like you, yeah, make the event.
But what about the conductor? What can you say the conductor was doing, actually? Um, he was happy. And I often show this to senior management. People get annoyed. "You come to work. How come you're so happy?" Something must be wrong there, yeah? But he's spreading happiness. And I think the happiness, the important thing is this happiness does not come from only his own story and his joy of the music. The joy is about enabling other people's stories to be heard at the same time.
You have the story of the orchestra as a professional body. You have the story of the audience as a community. Yeah. You have the stories of the individuals in the orchestra and in the audience. And then you have other stories, unseen. People who build this wonderful concert hall. People who made those Stradivarius, Amati, all those beautiful instruments. And all those stories are being heard at the same time. This is the true experience of a live concert. That's a reason to go out of home. Yeah? And not all conductors do just that. Let's see somebody else, a great conductor. Riccardo Muti, please.
(Music)
Yeah, that was very short, but you could see it's a completely different figure. Right? He's awesome. He's so commanding. Yeah? So clear. Maybe a little bit over-clear. Can we have a little demonstration? Would you be my orchestra for a second? Can you sing, please, the first note of Don Giovanni? You have to sing "Aaaaaah," and I'll stop you. Okay? Ready?
Audience: ♫ Aaaaaaah ... ♫
Itay Talgam: Come on, with me. If you do it without me I feel even more redundant than I already feel. So please, wait for the conductor. Now look at me. "Aaaaaah," and I stop you. Let's go.
Audience: ♫ ... Aaaaaaaah ... ♫ (Laughter)
Itay Talgam: So we'll have a little chat later. (Laughter) But ... There is a vacancy for a ... But -- (Laughter) -- you could see that you could stop an orchestra with a finger. Now what does Riccardo Muti do? He does something like this ... (Laughter) And then -- sort of -- (Laughter) So not only the instruction is clear, but also the sanction, what will happen if you don't do what I tell you. (Laughter) So, does it work? Yes, it works -- to a certain point.
When Muti is asked, "Why do you conduct like this?" He says, "I'm responsible." Responsible in front of him. No he doesn't really mean Him. He means Mozart, which is -- (Laughter) -- like a third seat from the center. (Laughter) So he says, "If I'm -- (Applause) if I'm responsible for Mozart, this is going to be the only story to be told. It's Mozart as I, Riccardo Muti, understand it."
And you know what happened to Muti? Three years ago he got a letter signed by all 700 employees of La Scala, musical employees, I mean the musicians, saying, "You're a great conductor. We don't want to work with you. Please resign." (Laughter) "Why? Because you don't let us develop. You're using us as instruments, not as partners. And our joy of music, etc., etc. ..." So he had to resign. Isn't that nice? (Laughter) He's a nice guy. He's a really nice guy. Well, can you do it with less control, or with a different kind of control? Let's look at the next conductor, Richard Strauss.
(Music)
I'm afraid you'll get the feeling that I really picked on him because he's old. It's not true. When he was a young man of about 30, he wrote what he called "The Ten Commandments for Conductors." The first one was: If you sweat by the end of the concert it means that you must have done something wrong. That's the first one. The fourth one you'll like better. It says: Never look at the trombones -- it only encourages them. (Laughter)
So, the whole idea is really to let it happen by itself. Do not interfere. But how does it happen? Did you see him turning pages in the score? Now, either he is senile, and doesn't remember his own music, because he wrote the music. Or he is actually transferring a very strong message to them, saying, "Come on guys. You have to play by the book. So it's not about my story. It's not about your story. It's only the execution of the written music, no interpretation." Interpretation is the real story of the performer. So, no, he doesn't want that. That's a different kind of control. Let's see another super-conductor, a German super-conductor. Herbert von Karajan, please.
(Music)
What's different? Did you see the eyes? Closed. Did you see the hands? Did you see this kind of movement? Let me conduct you. Twice. Once like a Muti, and you'll -- (Claps) -- clap, just once. And then like Karajan. Let's see what happens. Okay? Like Muti. You ready? Because Muti ... (Laughter) Okay? Ready? Let's do it.
Audience: (Claps)
Itay Talgam: Hmm ... again.
Audience: (Claps) Itay Talgam: Good. Now like a Karajan. Since you're already trained, let me concentrate, close my eyes. Come, come.
Audience: (Claps) (Laughter)
Itay Talgam: Why not together? (Laughter) Because you didn't know when to play. Now I can tell you, even the Berlin Philharmonic doesn't know when to play. (Laughter) But I'll tell you how they do it. No cynicism. This is a German orchestra, yes? They look at Karajan. And then they look at each other. (Laughter) "Do you understand what this guy wants?" And after doing that, they really look at each other, and the first players of the orchestra lead the whole ensemble in playing together.
And when Karajan is asked about it he actually says, "Yes, the worst damage I can do to my orchestra is to give them a clear instruction. Because that would prevent the ensemble, the listening to each other that is needed for an orchestra." Now that's great. What about the eyes? Why are the eyes closed? There is a wonderful story about Karajan conducting in London. And he cues in a flute player like this. The guy has no idea what to do. (Laughter) "Maestro, with all due respect, when should I start?" What do you think Karajan's reply was? When should I start? Oh yeah. He says, "You start when you can't stand it anymore." (Laughter)
Meaning that you know you have no authority to change anything. It's my music. The real music is only in Karajan's head. And you have to guess my mind. So you are under tremendous pressure because I don't give you instruction, and yet, you have to guess my mind. So it's a different kind of, a very spiritual but yet very firm control. Can we do it in another way? Of course we can. Let's go back to the first conductor we've seen: Carlos Kleiber, his name. Next video, please.
(Music)
(Laughter) Yeah. Well, it is different. But isn't that controlling in the same way? No, it's not, because he is not telling them what to do. When he does this, it's not, "Take your Stradivarius and like Jimi Hendrix, smash it on the floor." It's not that. He says, "This is the gesture of the music. I'm opening a space for you to put in another layer of interpretation." That is another story.
But how does it really work together if it doesn't give them instructions? It's like being on a rollercoaster. Yeah? You're not really given any instructions, but the forces of the process itself keep you in place. That's what he does. The interesting thing is of course the rollercoaster does not really exist. It's not a physical thing. It's in the players' heads.
And that's what makes them into partners. You have the plan in your head. You know what to do, even though Kleiber is not conducting you. But here and there and that. You know what to do. And you become a partner building the rollercoaster, yeah, with sound, as you actually take the ride. This is very exciting for those players. They do need to go to a sanatorium for two weeks, later. (Laughter) It is very tiring. Yeah? But it's the best music making, like this.
But of course it's not only about motivation and giving them a lot of physical energy. You also have to be very professional. And look again at this Kleiber. Can we have the next video, quickly? You'll see what happens when there is a mistake.
(Music) Again you see the beautiful body language. (Music) And now there is a trumpet player who does something not exactly the way it should be done. Go along with the video. Look. See, second time for the same player. (Laughter) And now the third time for the same player. (Laughter) "Wait for me after the concert. I have a short notice to give you." You know, when it's needed, the authority is there. It's very important. But authority is not enough to make people your partners.
Let's see the next video, please. See what happens here. You might be surprised having seen Kleiber as such a hyperactive guy. He's conducting Mozart. (Music) The whole orchestra is playing. (Music) Now something else. (Music) See? He is there 100 percent, but not commanding, not telling what to do. Rather enjoying what the soloist is doing. (Music)
Another solo now. See what you can pick up from this. (Music) Look at the eyes. Okay. You see that? First of all, it's a kind of a compliment we all like to get. It's not feedback. It's an "Mmmm ..." Yeah, it comes from here. So that's a good thing. And the second thing is it's about actually being in control, but in a very special way. When Kleiber does -- did you see the eyes, going from here? (Singing) You know what happens? Gravitation is no more.
Kleiber not only creates a process, but also creates the conditions in the world in which this process takes place. So again, the oboe player is completely autonomous and therefore happy and proud of his work, and creative and all of that. And the level in which Kleiber is in control is in a different level. So control is no longer a zero-sum game. You have this control. You have this control. And all you put together, in partnership, brings about the best music. So Kleiber is about process. Kleiber is about conditions in the world.
But you need to have process and content to create the meaning. Lenny Bernstein, my own personal maestro. Since he was a great teacher, Lenny Bernstein always started from the meaning. Look at this, please.
(Music)
Do you remember the face of Muti, at the beginning? Well he had a wonderful expression, but only one. (Laughter) Did you see Lenny's face? You know why? Because the meaning of the music is pain. And you're playing a painful sound. And you look at Lenny and he's suffering. But not in a way that you want to stop. It's suffering, like, enjoying himself in a Jewish way, as they say. (Laughter) But you can see the music on his face. You can see the baton left his hand. No more baton. Now it's about you, the player, telling the story. Now it's a reversed thing. You're telling the story. And you're telling the story. And even briefly, you become the storyteller to which the community, the whole community, listens to. And Bernstein enables that. Isn't that wonderful?
Now, if you are doing all the things we talked about, together, and maybe some others, you can get to this wonderful point of doing without doing. And for the last video, I think this is simply the best title. My friend Peter says, "If you love something, give it away." So, please.
(Music)
(Applause) |
Well, we all need a reason to wake up. For me, it just took 11,000 volts.
I know you're too polite to ask, so I will tell you.
One night, sophomore year of college, just back from Thanksgiving holiday, a few of my friends and I were horsing around, and we decided to climb atop a parked commuter train. It was just sitting there, with the wires that run overhead. Somehow, that seemed like a great idea at the time. We'd certainly done stupider things. I scurried up the ladder on the back, and when I stood up, the electrical current entered my arm, blew down and out my feet, and that was that. Would you believe that watch still works? Takes a licking!
(Laughter)
My father wears it now in solidarity.
That night began my formal relationship with death -- my death -- and it also began my long run as a patient. It's a good word. It means one who suffers. So I guess we're all patients.
Now, the American health care system has more than its fair share of dysfunction -- to match its brilliance, to be sure. I'm a physician now, a hospice and palliative medicine doc, so I've seen care from both sides. And believe me: almost everyone who goes into healthcare really means well -- I mean, truly. But we who work in it are also unwitting agents for a system that too often does not serve.
Why? Well, there's actually a pretty easy answer to that question, and it explains a lot: because healthcare was designed with diseases, not people, at its center. Which is to say, of course, it was badly designed. And nowhere are the effects of bad design more heartbreaking or the opportunity for good design more compelling than at the end of life, where things are so distilled and concentrated. There are no do-overs.
My purpose today is to reach out across disciplines and invite design thinking into this big conversation. That is, to bring intention and creativity to the experience of dying. We have a monumental opportunity in front of us, before one of the few universal issues as individuals as well as a civil society: to rethink and redesign how it is we die.
So let's begin at the end. For most people, the scariest thing about death isn't being dead, it's dying, suffering. It's a key distinction. To get underneath this, it can be very helpful to tease out suffering which is necessary as it is, from suffering we can change. The former is a natural, essential part of life, part of the deal, and to this we are called to make space, adjust, grow. It can be really good to realize forces larger than ourselves. They bring proportionality, like a cosmic right-sizing. After my limbs were gone, that loss, for example, became fact, fixed -- necessarily part of my life, and I learned that I could no more reject this fact than reject myself. It took me a while, but I learned it eventually. Now, another great thing about necessary suffering is that it is the very thing that unites caregiver and care receiver -- human beings. This, we are finally realizing, is where healing happens. Yes, compassion -- literally, as we learned yesterday -- suffering together.
Now, on the systems side, on the other hand, so much of the suffering is unnecessary, invented. It serves no good purpose. But the good news is, since this brand of suffering is made up, well, we can change it. How we die is indeed something we can affect. Making the system sensitive to this fundamental distinction between necessary and unnecessary suffering gives us our first of three design cues for the day. After all, our role as caregivers, as people who care, is to relieve suffering -- not add to the pile.
True to the tenets of palliative care, I function as something of a reflective advocate, as much as prescribing physician. Quick aside: palliative care -- a very important field but poorly understood -- while it includes, it is not limited to end of life care. It is not limited to hospice. It's simply about comfort and living well at any stage. So please know that you don't have to be dying anytime soon to benefit from palliative care.
Now, let me introduce you to Frank. Sort of makes this point. I've been seeing Frank now for years. He's living with advancing prostate cancer on top of long-standing HIV. We work on his bone pain and his fatigue, but most of the time we spend thinking out loud together about his life -- really, about our lives. In this way, Frank grieves. In this way, he keeps up with his losses as they roll in, so that he's ready to take in the next moment. Loss is one thing, but regret, quite another. Frank has always been an adventurer -- he looks like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting -- and no fan of regret. So it wasn't surprising when he came into clinic one day, saying he wanted to raft down the Colorado River. Was this a good idea? With all the risks to his safety and his health, some would say no. Many did, but he went for it, while he still could. It was a glorious, marvelous trip: freezing water, blistering dry heat, scorpions, snakes, wildlife howling off the flaming walls of the Grand Canyon -- all the glorious side of the world beyond our control. Frank's decision, while maybe dramatic, is exactly the kind so many of us would make, if we only had the support to figure out what is best for ourselves over time.
So much of what we're talking about today is a shift in perspective. After my accident, when I went back to college, I changed my major to art history. Studying visual art, I figured I'd learn something about how to see -- a really potent lesson for a kid who couldn't change so much of what he was seeing. Perspective, that kind of alchemy we humans get to play with, turning anguish into a flower.
Flash forward: now I work at an amazing place in San Francisco called the Zen Hospice Project, where we have a little ritual that helps with this shift in perspective. When one of our residents dies, the mortuary men come, and as we're wheeling the body out through the garden, heading for the gate, we pause. Anyone who wants -- fellow residents, family, nurses, volunteers, the hearse drivers too, now -- shares a story or a song or silence, as we sprinkle the body with flower petals. It takes a few minutes; it's a sweet, simple parting image to usher in grief with warmth, rather than repugnance. Contrast that with the typical experience in the hospital setting, much like this -- floodlit room lined with tubes and beeping machines and blinking lights that don't stop even when the patient's life has. Cleaning crew swoops in, the body's whisked away, and it all feels as though that person had never really existed. Well-intended, of course, in the name of sterility, but hospitals tend to assault our senses, and the most we might hope for within those walls is numbness -- anesthetic, literally the opposite of aesthetic. I revere hospitals for what they can do; I am alive because of them. But we ask too much of our hospitals. They are places for acute trauma and treatable illness. They are no place to live and die; that's not what they were designed for.
Now mind you -- I am not giving up on the notion that our institutions can become more humane. Beauty can be found anywhere. I spent a few months in a burn unit at St. Barnabas Hospital in Livingston, New Jersey, where I got really great care at every turn, including good palliative care for my pain. And one night, it began to snow outside. I remember my nurses complaining about driving through it. And there was no window in my room, but it was great to just imagine it coming down all sticky. Next day, one of my nurses smuggled in a snowball for me. She brought it in to the unit. I cannot tell you the rapture I felt holding that in my hand, and the coldness dripping onto my burning skin; the miracle of it all, the fascination as I watched it melt and turn into water. In that moment, just being any part of this planet in this universe mattered more to me than whether I lived or died. That little snowball packed all the inspiration I needed to both try to live and be OK if I did not. In a hospital, that's a stolen moment.
In my work over the years, I've known many people who were ready to go, ready to die. Not because they had found some final peace or transcendence, but because they were so repulsed by what their lives had become -- in a word, cut off, or ugly. There are already record numbers of us living with chronic and terminal illness, and into ever older age. And we are nowhere near ready or prepared for this silver tsunami. We need an infrastructure dynamic enough to handle these seismic shifts in our population. Now is the time to create something new, something vital. I know we can because we have to. The alternative is just unacceptable. And the key ingredients are known: policy, education and training, systems, bricks and mortar. We have tons of input for designers of all stripes to work with.
We know, for example, from research what's most important to people who are closer to death: comfort; feeling unburdened and unburdening to those they love; existential peace; and a sense of wonderment and spirituality.
Over Zen Hospice's nearly 30 years, we've learned much more from our residents in subtle detail. Little things aren't so little. Take Janette. She finds it harder to breathe one day to the next due to ALS. Well, guess what? She wants to start smoking again -- and French cigarettes, if you please. Not out of some self-destructive bent, but to feel her lungs filled while she has them. Priorities change. Or Kate -- she just wants to know her dog Austin is lying at the foot of her bed, his cold muzzle against her dry skin, instead of more chemotherapy coursing through her veins -- she's done that. Sensuous, aesthetic gratification, where in a moment, in an instant, we are rewarded for just being. So much of it comes down to loving our time by way of the senses, by way of the body -- the very thing doing the living and the dying.
Probably the most poignant room in the Zen Hospice guest house is our kitchen, which is a little strange when you realize that so many of our residents can eat very little, if anything at all. But we realize we are providing sustenance on several levels: smell, a symbolic plane. Seriously, with all the heavy-duty stuff happening under our roof, one of the most tried and true interventions we know of, is to bake cookies. As long as we have our senses -- even just one -- we have at least the possibility of accessing what makes us feel human, connected. Imagine the ripples of this notion for the millions of people living and dying with dementia. Primal sensorial delights that say the things we don't have words for, impulses that make us stay present -- no need for a past or a future.
So, if teasing unnecessary suffering out of the system was our first design cue, then tending to dignity by way of the senses, by way of the body -- the aesthetic realm -- is design cue number two. Now this gets us quickly to the third and final bit for today; namely, we need to lift our sights, to set our sights on well-being, so that life and health and healthcare can become about making life more wonderful, rather than just less horrible. Beneficence.
Here, this gets right at the distinction between a disease-centered and a patient- or human-centered model of care, and here is where caring becomes a creative, generative, even playful act. "Play" may sound like a funny word here. But it is also one of our highest forms of adaptation. Consider every major compulsory effort it takes to be human. The need for food has birthed cuisine. The need for shelter has given rise to architecture. The need for cover, fashion. And for being subjected to the clock, well, we invented music. So, since dying is a necessary part of life, what might we create with this fact? By "play" I am in no way suggesting we take a light approach to dying or that we mandate any particular way of dying. There are mountains of sorrow that cannot move, and one way or another, we will all kneel there. Rather, I am asking that we make space -- physical, psychic room, to allow life to play itself all the way out -- so that rather than just getting out of the way, aging and dying can become a process of crescendo through to the end. We can't solve for death. I know some of you are working on this.
(Laughter)
Meanwhile, we can --
(Laughter)
We can design towards it. Parts of me died early on, and that's something we can all say one way or another. I got to redesign my life around this fact, and I tell you it has been a liberation to realize you can always find a shock of beauty or meaning in what life you have left, like that snowball lasting for a perfect moment, all the while melting away. If we love such moments ferociously, then maybe we can learn to live well -- not in spite of death, but because of it. Let death be what takes us, not lack of imagination.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Compassion: what does it look like? Come with me to 915 South Bloodworth Street in Raleigh, North Carolina, where I grew up. If you come in you will see us: evening time, at table -- set for ten but not always all seats filled -- at the point when dinner is ready to be served. Since mom had eight kids, sometimes she said she couldn't tell who was who and where they were. Before we could eat, she would ask, "Are all the children in?" And if someone happened to be missing, we would have to, we say, "Fix a plate" for that person, put it in the oven, then we could say grace, and we could eat.
Also, while we were at the table, there was a ritual in our family: when something significant had happened for any one of us -- whether mom had just been elected as the president of the PTA, or whether dad had gotten an assignment at the college of our denomination, or whether someone had won the jabberwocky contest for talent -- the ritual at the family was, once the announcement is made, we must take five, ten minutes to do what we call "make over" that person -- that is, to make a fuss over the one who had been honored in some way. For when one is honored, all are honored.
Also, we had to make a report on our extended "visited" members, that is, extended members of the family, sick and elderly, shut in. My task was, at least once a week, to visit Mother Lassiter who lived on East Street, Mother Williamson who lived on Bledsoe Avenue, and Mother Lathers who lived on Oberlin Road. Why? Because they were old and infirm, and we needed to go by to see if they needed anything. For mom said, "To be family, is to care and share and to look out for one another. They are our family."
And, of course, sometimes there was a bonus for going. They would offer sweets or money. Mom says, "If they ask you what it costs to either go shopping for them, you must always say, 'Nothing.' And if they insist, say, 'Whatever you mind to give me.'" This was the nature of being at that table. In fact, she indicated that if we would do that, not only would we have the joy of receiving the gratitude from the members of the extended family, but she said, "Even God will smile, and when God smiles, there is peace, and justice, and joy."
So, at the table at 915, I learned something about compassion. Of course, it was a minister's family, so we had to add God into it. And so, I came to think that mama eternal, mama eternal, is always wondering: Are all the children in? And if we had been faithful in caring and sharing, we had the sense that justice and peace would have a chance in the world.
Now, it was not always wonderful at that table. Let me explain a point at which we did not rise to the occasion. It was Christmas, and at our family, oh, what a morning. Christmas morning, where we open up our gifts, where we have special prayers, and where we get to the old upright piano and we would sing carols. It was a very intimate moment. In fact, you could come down to the tree to get your gifts and get ready to sing, and then get ready for breakfast without even taking a bath or getting dressed, except that daddy messed it up.
There was a member of his staff who did not have any place on that particular Christmas to celebrate. And daddy brought Elder Revels to the Christmas family celebration. We thought he must be out of his mind. This is our time. This is intimate time. This is when we can just be who we are, and now we have this stuffy brother with his shirt and tie on, while we are still in our PJs. Why would daddy bring Elder Revels? Any other time, but not to the Christmas celebration.
And mom overheard us and said, "Well, you know what? If you really understand the nature of this celebration, it is that this is a time where you extend the circle of love. That's what the celebration is all about. It's time to make space, to share the enjoyment of life in a beloved community." So, we sucked up. (Laughter)
But growing up at 915, compassion was not a word to be debated; it was a sensibility to how we are together. We are sisters and brothers united together. And, like Chief Seattle said, "We did not spin the web of life. We're all strands in it. And whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves." Now that's compassion.
So, let me tell you, I kind of look at the world this way. I see pictures, and something says, "Now, that's compassion." A harvested field of grain, with some grain in the corners, reminding me of the Hebrew tradition that you may indeed harvest, but you must always leave some on the edges, just in case there's someone who has not had the share necessary for good nurture. Talk about a picture of compassion.
I see -- always, it stirs my heart -- a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. walking arm in arm with Andy Young and Rabbi Heschel and maybe Thich Nhat Hanh and some of the other saints assembled, walking across the bridge and going into Selma. Just a photograph. Arm in arm for struggle. Suffering together in a common hope that we can be brothers and sisters without the accidents of our birth or our ethnicity robbing us of a sense of unity of being.
So, there's another picture. Here, this one. I really do like this picture. When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, that day, everybody in my community was upset. You heard about riots all across the land. Bobby Kennedy was scheduled to bring an inner city message in Indianapolis. This is the picture. They said, "It's going to be too volatile for you to go." He insisted, "I must go."
So, sitting on a flatbed truck, the elders of the community are there, and Bobby stands up and says to the people, "I have bad news for you. Some of you may not have heard that Dr. King has been assassinated. I know that you are angry, and I know that you would almost wish to have the opportunity to enter now into activities of revenge. But," he said, "what I really want you to know is that I know how you feel. Because I had someone dear to me snatched away. I know how you feel." And he said, "I hope that you will have the strength to do what I did. I allowed my anger, my bitterness, my grief to simmer a while, and then I made up my mind that I was going to make a different world, and we can do that together." That's a picture. Compassion? I think I see it.
I saw it when the Dalai Lama came to the Riverside Church while I was a pastor, and he invited representatives of faith traditions from all around the world. He asked them to give a message, and they each read in their own language a central affirmation, and that was some version of the golden rule: "As you would that others would do unto you, do also unto them." Twelve in their ecclesiastical or cultural or tribal attire affirming one message. We are so connected that we must treat each other as if an action toward you is an action toward myself.
One more picture while I'm stinking and thinking about the Riverside Church: 9/11. Last night at Chagrin Fall, a newspaperman and a television guy said, "That evening, when a service was held at the Riverside Church, we carried it on our station in this city. It was," he said, "one of the most powerful moments of life together. We were all suffering. But you invited representatives of all of the traditions to come, and you invited them. 'Find out what it is in your tradition that tells us what to do when we have been humiliated, when we have been despised and rejected.' And they all spoke out of their own traditions, a word about the healing power of solidarity, one with the other."
I developed a sense of compassion sort of as second nature, but I became a preacher. Now, as a preacher, I got a job. I got to preach the stuff, but I got to do it too. Or, as Father Divine in Harlem used to say to folks, "Some people preach the Gospel. I have to tangibilitate the Gospel." So, the real issue is: How do you tangibilitate compassion? How do you make it real?
My faith has constantly lifted up the ideal, and challenged me when I fell beneath it. In my tradition, there is a gift that we have made to other traditions -- to everybody around the world who knows the story of the "Good Samaritan." Many people think of it primarily in terms of charity, random acts of kindness. But for those who really study that text a little more thoroughly, you will discover that a question has been raised that leads to this parable.
The question was: "What is the greatest commandment?" And, according to Jesus, the word comes forth, "You must love yourself, you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself."
And then the person asked, "Well, what do you mean, 'neighbor?'"
And he answered it by telling the story of the man who fell among thieves, and how religious authorities went the other way, and how their supporters in the congregation went the other way; but an unsuspecting, despised person came along, saw the man in need, provided oil and wine for his wounds, put him on his own transportation, and took him to the inn and asked the innkeeper, "Take care of him." And he said, "Here, this is the initial investment, but if needs continue, make sure that you provide them. And whatever else is needed, I will provide it and pay for it when I return."
This always seemed to me to be a deepening of the sense of what it means to be a Good Samaritan. A Good Samaritan is not simply one whose heart is touched in an immediate act of care and charity, but one who provides a system of sustained care -- I like that, 'a system of sustained care ' -- in the inn, take care. I think maybe it's one time when the Bible talks about a healthcare system and a commitment to do whatever is necessary -- that all God's children would have their needs cared for, so that we could answer when mommy eternal asks, "In regards to health, are all the children in?" And we could say yes.
Oh, what a joy it has been to be a person seeking to tangibilitate compassion. I recall that my work as a pastor has always involved caring for their spiritual needs; being concerned for housing, for healthcare, for the prisoners, for the infirm, for children -- even the foster care children for whom no one can even keep a record where they started off, where they are going. To be a pastor is to care for these individual needs.
But now, to be a Good Samaritan -- and I always say, and to be a good American -- for me, is not simply to congratulate myself for the individual acts of care. Compassion takes on a corporate dynamic. I believe that whatever we did around that table at Bloodworth Street must be done around tables and rituals of faith until we become that family, that family together that understands the nature of our unity. We are one people together.
So, let me explain to you what I mean when I think about compassion, and why I think it is so important that right at this point in history. We would decide to establish this charter of compassion. The reason it's important is because this is a very special time in history. It is the time that, biblically, we would speak of as the day, or the year, of God's favor. This is a season of grace. Unusual things are beginning to happen. Please pardon me, as a black man, for celebrating that the election of Obama was an unusual sign of the fact that it is a year of favor. And yet, there is so much more that needs to be done. We need to bring health and food and education and respect for all God's citizens, all God's children, remembering mama eternal.
Now, let me close my comments by telling you that whenever I feel something very deeply, it usually takes the form of verse. And so I want to close with a little song. I close with this song -- it's a children's song -- because we are all children at the table of mama eternal. And if mama eternal has taught us correctly, this song will make sense, not only to those of us who are a part of this gathering, but to all who sign the charter for compassion. And this is why we do it.
The song says, ♫ "I made heaven so happy today, ♫ ♫ Receiving God's love and giving it away ♫ ♫ When I looked up, heaven smiled at me ♫ ♫ Now, I'm so happy. Can't you see? ♫ ♫ I'm happy. Look at me. I'm happy. Can't you see? ♫ ♫ Sharing makes me happy, makes heaven happy too ♫ ♫ I'm happy. Look at me. I'm happy. Can't you see? ♫ ♫ Let me share my happy loving smile with you. ♫
That's compassion. (Applause) |
What I do is I organize information. I'm a graphic designer. Professionally, I try to make sense often of things that don't make much sense themselves.
So my father might not understand what it is that I do for a living. His part of my ancestry has been farmers. He's part of this ethnic minority called the Pontic Greeks. They lived in Asia Minor, and fled to Greece after a genocide about a hundred years ago, and ever since that, migration has somewhat been a theme in my family. My father moved to Germany, studied there, and married, and as a result, I now have this half-German brain with all the analytical thinking and that slight dorky demeanor that comes with that. And of course it meant that I was a foreigner in both countries, and that of course made it pretty easy for me to migrate as well, in good family tradition, if you like.
But of course, most journeys that we undertake from day to day are within a city, and especially if you know the city, getting from A to B may seem pretty obvious, right? But the question is, why is it obvious? How do we know where we're going?
So I washed up on a Dublin ferry port about 12 years ago, a professional foreigner, if you like, and I'm sure you've all had this experience before, yeah? You arrive in a new city, and your brain is trying to make sense of this new place. Once you find your base, your home, you start to built this cognitive map of your environment. It's essentially this virtual map that only exists in your brain. All animal species do it, even though we all use slightly different tools. Us humans, of course, we don't move around marking our territory by scent, like dogs. We don't run around emitting ultrasonic squeaks, like bats. We just don't do that, although a night in the Temple Bar district can get pretty wild. (Laughter)
No, we do two important things to make a place our own. First, we move along linear routes. Typically we find a main street, and this main street becomes a linear strip map in our minds. But our mind keeps it pretty simple, yeah? Every street is generally perceived as a straight line, and we kind of ignore the little twists and turns that the streets make. When we do, however, make a turn into a side street, our mind tends to adjust that turn to a 90-degree angle. This of course makes for some funny moments when you're in some old city layout that follows some sort of circular city logic, yeah? Maybe you've had that experience as well, right? Let's say you're on some spot on a side street that projects from a main cathedral square, and you want to get to another point on a side street just like that. The cognitive map in your mind may tell you, "Aris, go back to the main cathedral square, take a 90-degree turn, and walk down that other side street." But somehow you feel adventurous that day, and you suddenly discover that the two spots were actually only a single building apart. Now, I don't know about you, but I always feel like I find this wormhole or this inter-dimensional portal.
So we move along linear routes and our mind straightens streets and perceives turns as 90-degree angles.
The second thing that we do to make a place our own is we attach meaning and emotions to the things that we see along those lines. If you go to the Irish countryside, and you ask an old lady for directions, brace yourself for some elaborate Irish storytelling about all the landmarks. Yeah? She'll tell you the pub where her sister used to work, and go past the church where I got married, that kind of thing. So we fill our cognitive maps with these markers of meaning. What's more, we abstract, repeat patterns, and recognize them. We recognize them by the experiences, and we abstract them into symbols. And of course, we are all capable of understanding these symbols. (Laughter) What's more, we're all capable of understanding the cognitive maps, and you are all capable of creating these cognitive maps yourselves. So next time, when you want to tell your friend how to get to your place, you grab a beermat, grab a napkin, and you just observe yourself create this awesome piece of communication design. It's got straight lines. It's got 90 degree corners. You might add little symbols along the way. And when you look at what you've just drawn, you realize it does not resemble a street map. If you were to put an actual street map on top of what you've just drawn, you'd realize your streets and the distances, they'd be way off. No, what you've just drawn is more like a diagram or a schematic. It's a visual construct of lines, dots, letters, designed in the language of our brains.
So it's no big surprise that the big information design icon of the last century, the pinnacle of showing everybody how to get from A to B, the London Underground map, was not designed by a cartographer or a city planner. It was designed by an engineering draftsman. In the 1930s, Harry Beck applied the principles of schematic diagram design, and changed the way public transport maps are designed forever. Now the very key to the success of this map is in the omission of less important information and in the extreme simplification. So straightened streets, corners of 90 and 45 degrees, but also the extreme geographic distortion in that map. If you were to look at the actual locations of these stations, you'd see they're very different. Yeah? But this is all for the clarity of the public tube map. Yeah? If you, say, wanted to get from Regent's Park Station to Great Portland Street, the tube map would tell you, take the tube, go to Baker Street, change over, take another tube. Of course, what you don't know is that the two stations are only about a hundred meters apart.
Now we've reached the subject of public transport, and public transport here in Dublin is a somewhat touchy subject. (Laughter) For everybody who does not know the public transport here in Dublin, essentially we have this system of local buses that grew with the city. For every outskirt that was added, there was another bus route added running from the outskirt all the way to the city center, and as these local buses approach the city center, they all run side by side, and converge in pretty much one main street.
So when I stepped off the boat 12 years ago, I tried to make sense of that, because exploring a city on foot only gets you so far. But when you explore a foreign and new public transport system, you will build a cognitive map in your mind in pretty much the same way. Typically, you choose yourself a rapid transport route, and in your mind this route is perceived as a straight line, and like a pearl necklace, all the stations and stops are nicely and neatly aligned along the line, and only then you start to discover some local bus routes that would fill in the gaps and that allow you for those wormhole, inter-dimensional portal shortcuts. So I tried to make sense, and when I arrived, I was looking for some information leaflets that would help me crack this system and understand it, and I found those brochures. (Laughter) They were not geographically distorted. They were having a lot of omission of information, but unfortunately the wrong information, say, in the city center. There were never actually any lines that showed the routes. There are actually not even any stations with names. Now the maps of Dublin transport, have gotten better, and after I finished the project, they got a good bit better, but still no station names, still no routes.
So, being naive, and being half-German, I decided, "Aris, why don't you build your own map?" So that's what I did. I researched how each and every bus route moved through the city, nice and logical, every bus route a separate line, and I plotted it into my own map of Dublin, and in the city center, I got a nice spaghetti plate. (Laughter) Now this is a bit of a mess, so I decided, of course, you're going to apply the rules of schematic design, cleaning up the corridors, widening the streets where there were loads of buses, and making the streets at straight, 90-degree corners, 45-degree corners, or fractions of that, and filled it in with the bus routes. And I built this city center bus map of the system, how it was five years ago. I'll zoom in again so that you get the full impact of the quays and Westmoreland Street. (Laughter) Now I can proudly say — (Applause) — I can proudly say, as a public transport map, this diagram is an utter failure — (Laughter) — except probably in one aspect: I now had a great visual representation of just how clogged up and overrun the city center really was.
Now call me old-fashioned, right, but I think a public transport route map should have lines, because that's what they are. Yeah? They're little pieces of string that wrap their way through the city center, or through the city. If you will, the Greek guy inside of me feels, if I don't get a line, it's like entering the Labyrinth of the Minotaur without having Ariadne giving you the string to find your way. So the outcome of my academic research, loads of questionnaires, case studies, and looking at a lot of maps, was that a lot of the problems and shortcomings of the public transport system here in Dublin was the lack of a coherent public transport map -- a simplified, coherent public transport map -- because I think this is the crucial step to understanding a public transport network on a physical level, but it's also the crucial step to make a public transport network mappable on a visual level.
So I teamed up with a gentleman called James Leahy, a civil engineer and a recent Master's graduate of the Sustainable Development Program at DIT, and together we drafted this simplified model network which I could then go ahead and visualize.
So here's what we did. We distributed these rapid transport corridors throughout the city center, and extended them into the outskirts. Rapid, because we wanted them to be served by rapid transport vehicles, yeah? They would get exclusive road use, where possible, and it would be high-quantity, high-quality transport. James wanted to use bus rapid transport for that, rather than light rail. For me, it was important that the vehicles that would run on those rapid transport corridors would be visibly distinguishable from local buses on the street. Now we could take out all the local buses that ran alongside those rapid transport means. Any gaps that appeared in the outskirts were filled again. So, in other words, if there was a street in an outskirt where there had been a bus, we put a bus back in, only now these buses wouldn't run all the way to the city center but connect to the nearest rapid transport mode, one of these thick lines over there. So the rest was merely a couple of months of work, and a couple of fights with my girlfriend of our place constantly being clogged up with maps, and the outcome, one of the outcomes, was this map of the Greater Dublin Area. I'll zoom in a little bit. This map only shows the rapid transport connections, no local bus, very much in the Metro map style that was so successful in London, and that since has been exported to so many other major cities, and therefore is the language that we should use for public transport maps. What's also important is, with a simplified network like this, it now would become possible for me to tackle the ultimate challenge, and make a public transport map for the city center, one where it wouldn't just show rapid transport connections but also all the local bus routes, streets and the likes, and this is what a map like this could like. I'll zoom in a little bit. In this map, I'm including each transport mode, so rapid transport, bus, DART, tram and the likes. Each individual route is represented by a separate line. The map shows each and every station, each and every station name, and I'm also displaying side streets, in fact, most of the side streets even with their name, and for good measure, also a couple of landmarks, some of them signified by little symbols, others by these isometric three-dimensional bird's-eye-view drawings. The map is relatively small in overall size, so something that you could still hold as a fold-out map, or display in a reasonably-sized display box on a bus shelter. I think it tries to be the best balance between actual representation and simplification, the language of way-finding in our brain. So straightened lines, cleaned-up corners, and, of course, that very, very important geographic distortion that makes public transport maps possible. If you, for example, have a look at the two main corridors that run through the city, the yellow and orange one over here, this is how they look in an actual, accurate street map, and this is how they would look in my distorted, simplified public transport map.
So for a successful public transport map, we should not stick to accurate representation, but design them in the way our brains work.
The reactions I got were tremendous. It was really good to see. And of course, for my own self, I was very happy to see that my folks in Germany and Greece finally have an idea what I do for a living. (Laughter) Thank you. (Applause) |
I grew up in Europe, and World War II caught me when I was between seven and 10 years old. And I realized how few of the grown-ups that I knew were able to withstand the tragedies that the war visited on them -- how few of them could even resemble a normal, contented, satisfied, happy life once their job, their home, their security was destroyed by the war. So I became interested in understanding what contributed to a life that was worth living. And I tried, as a child, as a teenager, to read philosophy and to get involved in art and religion and many other ways that I could see as a possible answer to that question. And finally I ended up encountering psychology by chance.
I was at a ski resort in Switzerland without any money to actually enjoy myself, because the snow had melted and I didn't have money to go to a movie. But I found that on the -- I read in the newspapers that there was to be a presentation by someone in a place that I'd seen in the center of Zurich, and it was about flying saucers [that] he was going to talk. And I thought, well, since I can't go to the movies, at least I will go for free to listen to flying saucers. And the man who talked at that evening lecture was very interesting. Instead of talking about little green men, he talked about how the psyche of the Europeans had been traumatized by the war, and now they're projecting flying saucers into the sky. He talked about how the mandalas of ancient Hindu religion were kind of projected into the sky as an attempt to regain some sense of order after the chaos of war. And this seemed very interesting to me. And I started reading his books after that lecture. And that was Carl Jung, whose name or work I had no idea about.
Then I came to this country to study psychology and I started trying to understand the roots of happiness. This is a typical result that many people have presented, and there are many variations on it. But this, for instance, shows that about 30 percent of the people surveyed in the United States since 1956 say that their life is very happy. And that hasn't changed at all. Whereas the personal income, on a scale that has been held constant to accommodate for inflation, has more than doubled, almost tripled, in that period. But you find essentially the same results, namely, that after a certain basic point -- which corresponds more or less to just a few 1,000 dollars above the minimum poverty level -- increases in material well-being don't seem to affect how happy people are. In fact, you can find that the lack of basic resources, material resources, contributes to unhappiness, but the increase in material resources does not increase happiness.
So my research has been focused more on -- after finding out these things that actually corresponded to my own experience, I tried to understand: where -- in everyday life, in our normal experience -- do we feel really happy? And to start those studies about 40 years ago, I began to look at creative people -- first artists and scientists, and so forth -- trying to understand what made them feel that it was worth essentially spending their life doing things for which many of them didn't expect either fame or fortune, but which made their life meaningful and worth doing.
This was one of the leading composers of American music back in the '70s. And the interview was 40 pages long. But this little excerpt is a very good summary of what he was saying during the interview. And it describes how he feels when composing is going well. And he says by describing it as an ecstatic state.
Now, "ecstasy" in Greek meant simply to stand to the side of something. And then it became essentially an analogy for a mental state where you feel that you are not doing your ordinary everyday routines. So ecstasy is essentially a stepping into an alternative reality. And it's interesting, if you think about it, how, when we think about the civilizations that we look up to as having been pinnacles of human achievement -- whether it's China, Greece, the Hindu civilization, or the Mayas, or Egyptians -- what we know about them is really about their ecstasies, not about their everyday life. We know the temples they built, where people could come to experience a different reality. We know about the circuses, the arenas, the theaters. These are the remains of civilizations and they are the places that people went to experience life in a more concentrated, more ordered form.
Now, this man doesn't need to go to a place like this, which is also -- this place, this arena, which is built like a Greek amphitheatre, is a place for ecstasy also. We are participating in a reality that is different from that of the everyday life that we're used to. But this man doesn't need to go there. He needs just a piece of paper where he can put down little marks, and as he does that, he can imagine sounds that had not existed before in that particular combination. So once he gets to that point of beginning to create, like Jennifer did in her improvisation, a new reality -- that is, a moment of ecstasy -- he enters that different reality. Now he says also that this is so intense an experience that it feels almost as if he didn't exist. And that sounds like a kind of a romantic exaggeration. But actually, our nervous system is incapable of processing more than about 110 bits of information per second. And in order to hear me and understand what I'm saying, you need to process about 60 bits per second. That's why you can't hear more than two people. You can't understand more than two people talking to you.
Well, when you are really involved in this completely engaging process of creating something new, as this man is, he doesn't have enough attention left over to monitor how his body feels, or his problems at home. He can't feel even that he's hungry or tired. His body disappears, his identity disappears from his consciousness, because he doesn't have enough attention, like none of us do, to really do well something that requires a lot of concentration, and at the same time to feel that he exists. So existence is temporarily suspended. And he says that his hand seems to be moving by itself. Now, I could look at my hand for two weeks, and I wouldn't feel any awe or wonder, because I can't compose. (Laughter)
So what it's telling you here is that obviously this automatic, spontaneous process that he's describing can only happen to someone who is very well trained and who has developed technique. And it has become a kind of a truism in the study of creativity that you can't be creating anything with less than 10 years of technical-knowledge immersion in a particular field. Whether it's mathematics or music, it takes that long to be able to begin to change something in a way that it's better than what was there before. Now, when that happens, he says the music just flows out. And because all of these people I started interviewing -- this was an interview which is over 30 years old -- so many of the people described this as a spontaneous flow that I called this type of experience the "flow experience." And it happens in different realms.
For instance, a poet describes it in this form. This is by a student of mine who interviewed some of the leading writers and poets in the United States. And it describes the same effortless, spontaneous feeling that you get when you enter into this ecstatic state. This poet describes it as opening a door that floats in the sky -- a very similar description to what Albert Einstein gave as to how he imagined the forces of relativity, when he was struggling with trying to understand how it worked. But it happens in other activities. For instance, this is another student of mine, Susan Jackson from Australia, who did work with some of the leading athletes in the world. And you see here in this description of an Olympic skater, the same essential description of the phenomenology of the inner state of the person. You don't think; it goes automatically, if you merge yourself with the music, and so forth.
It happens also, actually, in the most recent book I wrote, called "Good Business," where I interviewed some of the CEOs who had been nominated by their peers as being both very successful and very ethical, very socially responsible. You see that these people define success as something that helps others and at the same time makes you feel happy as you are working at it. And like all of these successful and responsible CEOs say, you can't have just one of these things be successful if you want a meaningful and successful job. Anita Roddick is another one of these CEOs we interviewed. She is the founder of Body Shop, the natural cosmetics king. It's kind of a passion that comes from doing the best and having flow while you're working.
This is an interesting little quote from Masaru Ibuka, who was at that time starting out Sony without any money, without a product -- they didn't have a product, they didn't have anything, but they had an idea. And the idea he had was to establish a place of work where engineers can feel the joy of technological innovation, be aware of their mission to society and work to their heart's content. I couldn't improve on this as a good example of how flow enters the workplace.
Now, when we do studies -- we have, with other colleagues around the world, done over 8,000 interviews of people -- from Dominican monks, to blind nuns, to Himalayan climbers, to Navajo shepherds -- who enjoy their work. And regardless of the culture, regardless of education or whatever, there are these seven conditions that seem to be there when a person is in flow. There's this focus that, once it becomes intense, leads to a sense of ecstasy, a sense of clarity: you know exactly what you want to do from one moment to the other; you get immediate feedback. You know that what you need to do is possible to do, even though difficult, and sense of time disappears, you forget yourself, you feel part of something larger. And once the conditions are present, what you are doing becomes worth doing for its own sake.
In our studies, we represent the everyday life of people in this simple scheme. And we can measure this very precisely, actually, because we give people electronic pagers that go off 10 times a day, and whenever they go off you say what you're doing, how you feel, where you are, what you're thinking about. And two things that we measure is the amount of challenge people experience at that moment and the amount of skill that they feel they have at that moment. So for each person we can establish an average, which is the center of the diagram. That would be your mean level of challenge and skill, which will be different from that of anybody else. But you have a kind of a set point there, which would be in the middle.
If we know what that set point is, we can predict fairly accurately when you will be in flow, and it will be when your challenges are higher than average and skills are higher than average. And you may be doing things very differently from other people, but for everyone that flow channel, that area there, will be when you are doing what you really like to do -- play the piano, be with your best friend, perhaps work, if work is what provides flow for you. And then the other areas become less and less positive.
Arousal is still good because you are over-challenged there. Your skills are not quite as high as they should be, but you can move into flow fairly easily by just developing a little more skill. So, arousal is the area where most people learn from, because that's where they're pushed beyond their comfort zone and to enter that -- going back to flow -- then they develop higher skills. Control is also a good place to be, because there you feel comfortable, but not very excited. It's not very challenging any more. And if you want to enter flow from control, you have to increase the challenges. So those two are ideal and complementary areas from which flow is easy to go into.
The other combinations of challenge and skill become progressively less optimal. Relaxation is fine -- you still feel OK. Boredom begins to be very aversive and apathy becomes very negative: you don't feel that you're doing anything, you don't use your skills, there's no challenge. Unfortunately, a lot of people's experience is in apathy. The largest single contributor to that experience is watching television; the next one is being in the bathroom, sitting. Even though sometimes watching television about seven to eight percent of the time is in flow, but that's when you choose a program you really want to watch and you get feedback from it.
So the question we are trying to address -- and I'm way over time -- is how to put more and more of everyday life in that flow channel. And that is the kind of challenge that we're trying to understand. And some of you obviously know how to do that spontaneously without any advice, but unfortunately a lot of people don't. And that's what our mandate is, in a way, to do.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
In the past several days, I heard people talking about China. And also, I talked to friends about China and Chinese Internet. Something is very challenging to me. I want to make my friends understand: China is complicated. So I always want to tell the story, like, one hand it is that, the other hand is that. You can't just tell a one sided story. I'll give an example. China is a BRIC country. BRIC country means Brazil, Russia, India and China. This emerging economy really is helping the revival of the world economy. But at the same time, on the other hand, China is a SICK country, the terminology coined by Facebook IPO papers -- file. He said the SICK country means Syria, Iran, China and North Korea. The four countries have no access to Facebook. So basically, China is a SICK BRIC country.
(Laughter)
Another project was built up to watch China and Chinese Internet. And now, today I want to tell you my personal observation in the past several years, from that wall. So, if you are a fan of the Game of Thrones, you definitely know how important a big wall is for an old kingdom. It prevents weird things from the north.
Same was true for China. In the north, there was a great wall, Chang Cheng. It protected China from invaders for 2,000 years. But China also has a great firewall. That's the biggest digital boundary in the whole world. It's not only to defend the Chinese regime from overseas, from the universal values, but also to prevent China's own citizens to access the global free Internet, and even separate themselves into blocks, not united.
So, basically the "Internet" has two Internets. One is the Internet, the other is the Chinanet. But if you think the Chinanet is something like a deadland, wasteland, I think it's wrong. But we also use a very simple metaphor, the cat and the mouse game, to describe in the past 15 years the continuing fight between Chinese censorship, government censorship, the cat, and the Chinese Internet users. That means us, the mouse. But sometimes this kind of a metaphor is too simple.
So today I want to upgrade it to 2.0 version. In China, we have 500 million Internet users. That's the biggest population of Netizens, Internet users, in the whole world. So even though China's is a totally censored Internet, but still, Chinese Internet society is really booming. How to make it? It's simple. You have Google, we have Baidu. You have Twitter, we have Weibo. You have Facebook, we have Renren. You have YouTube, we have Youku and Tudou. The Chinese government blocked every single international Web 2.0 service, and we Chinese copycat every one.
(Laughter)
So, that's the kind of the thing I call smart censorship. That's not only to censor you. Sometimes this Chinese national Internet policy is very simple: Block and clone. On the one hand, he wants to satisfy people's need of a social network, which is very important; people really love social networking. But on the other hand, they want to keep the server in Beijing so they can access the data any time they want. That's also the reason Google was pulled out from China, because they can't accept the fact that Chinese government wants to keep the server.
Sometimes the Arab dictators didn't understand these two hands. For example, Mubarak, he shut down the Internet. He wanted to prevent the Netizens [from criticizing] him. But once Netizens can't go online, they go in the street. And now the result is very simple. We all know Mubarak is technically dead. But also, Ben Ali, Tunisian president, didn't follow the second rule. That means keep the server in your hands. He allowed Facebook, a U.S.-based service, to continue to stay on inside of Tunisia. So he can't prevent it, his own citizens to post critical videos against his corruption. The same thing happend. He was the first to topple during the Arab Spring.
But those two very smart international censorship policies didn't prevent Chinese social media [from] becoming a really public sphere, a pathway of public opinion and the nightmare of Chinese officials. Because we have 300 million microbloggers in China. It's the entire population of the United States. So when these 300 million people, microbloggers, even they block the tweet in our censored platform. But itself -- the Chinanet -- but itself can create very powerful energy, which has never happened in the Chinese history.
2011, in July, two [unclear] trains crashed, in Wenzhou, a southern city. Right after the train crash, authorities literally wanted to cover up the train, bury the train. So it angered the Chinese Netizens. The first five days after the train crash, there were 10 million criticisms of the posting on social media, which never happened in Chinese history. And later this year, the rail minister was sacked and sentenced to jail for 10 years.
And also, recently, very funny debate between the Beijing Environment Ministry and the American Embassy in Beijing because the Ministry blamed the American Embassy for intervening in Chinese internal politics by disclosing the air quality data of Beijing. So, the up is the Embassy data, the PM 2.5. He showed 148, they showed it's dangerous for the sensitive group. So a suggestion, it's not good to go outside. But that is the Ministry's data. He shows 50. He says it's good. It's good to go outside. But 99 percent of Chinese microbloggers stand firmly on the Embassy's side. I live in Beijing. Every day, I just watch the American Embassy's data to decide whether I should open my window.
Why is Chinese social networking, even within the censorship, so booming? Part of the reason is Chinese languages. You know, Twitter and Twitter clones have a kind of a limitation of 140 characters. But in English it's 20 words or a sentence with a short link. Maybe in Germany, in German language, it may be just "Aha!"
(Laughter)
But in Chinese language, it's really about 140 characters, means a paragraph, a story. You can almost have all the journalistic elements there. For example, this is Hamlet, of Shakespeare. It's the same content. One, you can see exactly one Chinese tweet is equal to 3.5 English tweets. Chinese is always cheating, right? So because of this, the Chinese really regard this microblogging as a media, not only a headline to media.
And also, the clone, Sina company is the guy who cloned Twitter. It even has its own name, with Weibo. "Weibo" is the Chinese translation for "microblog". It has its own innovation. At the commenting area, [it makes] the Chinese Weibo more like Facebook, rather than the original Twitter. So these innovations and clones, as the Weibo and microblogging, when it came to China in 2009, it immediately became a media platform itself. It became the media platform of 300 million readers. It became the media. Anything not mentioned in Weibo, it does not appear to exist for the Chinese public.
But also, Chinese social media is really changing Chinese mindsets and Chinese life. For example, they give the voiceless people a channel to make your voice heard. We had a petition system. It's a remedy outside the judicial system, because the Chinese central government wants to keep a myth: The emperor is good. The old local officials are thugs. So that's why the petitioner, the victims, the peasants, want to take the train to Beijing to petition to the central government, they want the emperor to settle the problem. But when more and more people go to Beijing, they also cause the risk of a revolution. So they send them back in recent years. And even some of them were put into black jails. But now we have Weibo, so I call it the Weibo petition. People just use their cell phones to tweet.
So your sad stories, by some chance your story will be picked up by reporters, professors or celebrities. One of them is Yao Chen, she is the most popular microblogger in China, who has about 21 million followers. They're almost like a national TV station. If you -- so a sad story will be picked up by her. So this Weibo social media, even in the censorship, still gave the Chinese a real chance for 300 million people every day chatting together, talking together. It's like a big TED, right? But also, it is like the first time a public sphere happened in China. Chinese people start to learn how to negotiate and talk to people.
But also, the cat, the censorship, is not sleeping. It's so hard to post some sensitive words on the Chinese Weibo. For example, you can't post the name of the president, Hu Jintao, and also you can't post the city of Chongqing, the name, and until recently, you can't search the surname of top leaders. So, the Chinese are very good at these puns and alternative wording and even memes. They even name themselves -- you know, use the name of this world-changing battle between the grass-mud horse and the river crab. The grass-mud horse is caoníma, is the phonogram for motherfucker, the Netizens call themselves. River crab is héxiè, is the phonogram for harmonization, for censorship. So that's kind of a caoníma versus the héxiè, that's very good. So, when some very political, exciting moments happened, you can see on Weibo, you see a lot of very weird stories happened. Weird phrases and words, even if you have a PhD of Chinese language, you can't understand them.
But you can't even expand more, no, because Chinese Sina Weibo, when it was founded was exactly one month after the official blocking of Twitter.com. That means from the very beginning, Weibo has already convinced the Chinese government, we will not become the stage for any kind of a threat to the regime. For example, anything you want to post, like "get together" or "meet up" or "walk," it is automatically recorded and data mined and reported to a poll for further political analyzing. Even if you want to have some gathering, before you go there, the police are already waiting for you. Why? Because they have the data. They have everything in their hands. So they can use the 1984 scenario data mining of the dissident. So the crackdown is very serious.
But I want you to notice a very funny thing during the process of the cat-and-mouse. The cat is the censorship, but Chinese is not only one cat, but also has local cats. Central cat and local cats.
(Laughter)
You know, the server is in the [central] cats' hands, so even that -- when the Netizens criticize the local government, the local government has not any access to the data in Beijing. Without bribing the central cats, he can do nothing, only apologize.
So these three years, in the past three years, social movements about microblogging really changed local government, became more and more transparent, because they can't access the data. The server is in Beijing. The story about the train crash, maybe the question is not about why 10 million criticisms in five days, but why the Chinese central government allowed the five days of freedom of speech online. It's never happened before. And so it's very simple, because even the top leaders were fed up with this guy, this independent kingdom. So they want an excuse -- public opinion is a very good excuse to punish him.
But also, the Bo Xilai case recently, very big news, he's a princeling. But from February to April this year, Weibo really became a marketplace of rumors. You can almost joke everything about these princelings, everything! It's almost like you're living in the United States. But if you dare to retweet or mention any fake coup about Beijing, you definitely will be arrested. So this kind of freedom is a targeted and precise window.
So Chinese in China, censorship is normal. Something you find is, freedom is weird. Something will happen behind it. Because he was a very popular Leftist leader, so the central government wanted to purge him, and he was very cute, he convinced all the Chinese people, why he is so bad. So Weibo, the 300 million public sphere, became a very good, convenient tool for a political fight.
But this technology is very new, but technically is very old. It was made famous by Chairman Mao, Mao Zedong, because he mobilized millions of Chinese people in the Cultural Revolution to destroy every local government. It's very simple, because Chinese central government doesn't need to even lead the public opinion. They just give them a target window to not censor people. Not censoring in China has become a political tool.
So that's the update about this game, cat-and-mouse. Social media changed Chinese mindset. More and more Chinese intend to embrace freedom of speech and human rights as their birthright, not some imported American privilege. But also, it gave the Chinese a national public sphere for people to, it's like a training of their citizenship, preparing for future democracy. But it didn't change the Chinese political system, and also the Chinese central government utilized this centralized server structure to strengthen its power to counter the local government and the different factions.
So, what's the future? After all, we are the mouse. Whatever the future is, we should fight against the [cat]. There is not only in China, but also in the United States there are some very small, cute but bad cats.
(Laughter)
SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP and ITU. And also, like Facebook and Google, they claim they are friends of the mouse, but sometimes we see them dating the cats. So my conclusion is very simple. We Chinese fight for our freedom, you just watch your bad cats. Don't let them hook [up] with the Chinese cats. Only in this way, in the future, we will achieve the dreams of the mouse: that we can tweet anytime, anywhere, without fear.
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Applause) |
Something happened in the early morning hours of May 2nd, 2000, that had a profound effect on the way our society operates. Ironically, hardly anyone noticed at the time. The change was silent, imperceptible, unless you knew exactly what to look for. On that morning, U.S. President Bill Clinton ordered that a special switch be thrown in the orbiting satellites of the Global Positioning System. Instantaneously, every civilian GPS receiver around the globe went from errors the size of a football field to errors the size of a small room.
It's hard to overstate the effect that this change in accuracy has had on us. Before this switch was thrown, we didn't have in-car navigation systems giving turn-by-turn directions, because back then, GPS couldn't tell you what block you were on, let alone what street.
For geolocation, accuracy matters, and things have only improved over the last 10 years. With more base stations, more ground stations, better receivers and better algorithms, GPS can now not only tell you what street you are on, but what part of the street.
This level of accuracy has unleashed a firestorm of innovation. In fact, many of you navigated here today with the help of your TomTom or your smartphone. Paper maps are becoming obsolete.
But we now stand on the verge of another revolution in geolocation accuracy. What if I told you that the two-meter positioning that our current cell phones and our TomToms give us is pathetic compared to what we could be getting? For some time now, it's been known that if you pay attention to the carrier phase of the GPS signal, and if you have an Internet connection, then you can go from meter level to centimeter level, even millimeter-level positioning.
So why don't we have this capability on our phones? Only, I believe, for a lack of imagination. Manufacturers haven't built this carrier phase technique into their cheap GPS chips because they're not sure what the general public would do with geolocation so accurate that you could pinpoint the wrinkles in the palm of your hand. But you and I and other innovators, we can see the potential in this next leap in accuracy. Imagine, for example, an augmented reality app that overlays a virtual world to millimeter-level precision on top of the physical world. I could build for you a structure up here in 3D, millimeter accurate, that only you could see, or my friends at home.
So this level of positioning, this is what we're looking for, and I believe that, within the next few years, I predict, that this kind of hyper-precise, carrier phase-based positioning will become cheap and ubiquitous, and the consequences will be fantastic.
The Holy Grail, of course, is the GPS dot. Do you remember the movie "The Da Vinci Code?" Here's Professor Langdon examining a GPS dot, which his accomplice tells him is a tracking device accurate within two feet anywhere on the globe, but we know that in the world of nonfiction, the GPS dot is impossible, right? For one thing, GPS doesn't work indoors, and for another, they don't make devices quite this small, especially when those devices have to relay their measurements back over a network.
Well, these objections were perfectly reasonable a few years ago, but things have changed. There's been a strong trend toward miniaturization, better sensitivity, so much so that, a few years ago, a GPS tracking device looked like this clunky box to the left of the keys. Compare that with the device released just months ago that's now packaged into something the size of a key fob, and if you take a look at the state of the art for a complete GPS receiver, which is only a centimeter on a side and more sensitive than ever, you realize that the GPS dot will soon move from fiction to nonfiction.
Imagine what we could do with a world full of GPS dots. It's not just that you'll never lose your wallet or your keys anymore, or your child when you're at Disneyland. You'll buy GPS dots in bulk, and you'll stick them on everything you own worth more than a few tens of dollars.
I couldn't find my shoes one recent morning, and, as usual, had to ask my wife if she had seen them. But I shouldn't have to bother my wife with that kind of triviality. I should be able to ask my house where my shoes are. (Laughter)
Those of you who have made the switch to Gmail, remember how refreshing it was to go from organizing all of your email to simply searching it. The GPS dot will do the same for our possessions.
Now, of course, there is a flip side to the GPS dot. I was in my office some months back and got a telephone call. The woman on the other end of the line, we'll call her Carol, was panicked. Apparently, an ex-boyfriend of Carol's from California had found her in Texas and was following her around. So you might ask at this point why she's calling you. Well, so did I. But it turned out there was a technical twist to Carol's case. Every time her ex-boyfriend would show up, at the most improbable times and the most improbable locations, he was carrying an open laptop, and over time Carol realized that he had planted a GPS tracking device on her car, so she was calling me for help to disable it.
"Well, you should go to a good mechanic and have him look at your car," I said.
"I already have," she told me. "He didn't see anything obvious, and he said he'd have to take the car apart piece by piece."
"Well then, you'd better go to the police," I said.
"I already have," she replied. "They're not sure this rises to the level of harassment, and they're not set up technically to find the device."
"Okay, what about the FBI?"
"I've talked to them too, and same story."
We then talked about her coming to my lab and us performing a radio sweep of her car, but I wasn't even sure that would work, given that some of these devices are configured to only transmit when they're inside safe zones or when the car is moving.
So, there we were. Carol isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, to find herself in this kind of fearsome environment, worrisome situation caused by GPS tracking.
In fact, as I looked into her case, I discovered to my surprise that it's not clearly illegal for you or me to put a tracking device on someone else's car. The Supreme Court ruled last month that a policeman has to get a warrant if he wants to do prolonged tracking, but the law isn't clear about civilians doing this to one another, so it's not just Big Brother we have to worry about, but Big Neighbor. (Laughter)
There is one alternative that Carol could have taken, very effective. It's called the Wave Bubble. It's an open-source GPS jammer, developed by Limor Fried, a graduate student at MIT, and Limor calls it "a tool for reclaiming our personal space." With a flip of the switch you create a bubble around you within which GPS signals can't reside. They get drowned out by the bubble. And Limor designed this, in part, because, like Carol, she felt threatened by GPS tracking. Then she posted her design to the web, and if you don't have time to build your own, you can buy one. Chinese manufacturers now sell thousands of nearly identical devices on the Internet.
So you might be thinking, the Wave Bubble sounds great. I should have one. Might come in handy if somebody ever puts a tracking device on my car. But you should be aware that its use is very much illegal in the United States. And why is that? Well, because it's not a bubble at all. Its jamming signals don't stop at the edge of your personal space or at the edge of your car. They go on to jam innocent GPS receivers for miles around you. (Laughter)
Now, if you're Carol or Limor, or someone who feels threatened by GPS tracking, it might not feel wrong to turn on a Wave Bubble, but in fact, the results can be disastrous. Imagine, for example, you're the captain of a cruise ship trying to make your way through a thick fog and some passenger in the back turns on a Wave Bubble. All of a sudden your GPS readout goes blank, and now it's just you and the fog and whatever you can pull off the radar system if you remember how to work it. They -- in fact, they don't update or upkeep lighthouses anymore, and LORAN, the only backup to GPS, was discontinued last year.
Our modern society has a special relationship with GPS. We're almost blindly reliant on it. It's built deeply into our systems and infrastructure. Some call it "the invisible utility." So, turning on a Wave Bubble might not just cause inconvenience. It might be deadly.
But as it turns out, for purposes of protecting your privacy at the expense of general GPS reliability, there's something even more potent and more subversive than a Wave Bubble, and that is a GPS spoofer.
The idea behind the GPS spoofer is simple. Instead of jamming the GPS signals, you fake them. You imitate them, and if you do it right, the device you're attacking doesn't even know it's being spoofed.
So let me show you how this works. In any GPS receiver, there's a peak inside that corresponds to the authentic signals. These three red dots represent the tracking points that try to keep themselves centered on that peak. But if you send in a fake GPS signal, another peak pops up, and if you can get these two peaks perfectly aligned, the tracking points can't tell the difference, and they get hijacked by the stronger counterfeit signal, with the authentic peak getting forced off. At this point, the game is over. The fake signals now completely control this GPS receiver.
So is this really possible? Can someone really manipulate the timing and positioning of a GPS receiver just like that, with a spoofer? Well, the short answer is yes. The key is that civil GPS signals are completely open. They have no encryption. They have no authentication. They're wide open, vulnerable to a kind of spoofing attack. Even so, up until very recently, nobody worried about GPS spoofers. People figured that it would be too complex or too expensive for some hacker to build one.
But I, and a friend of mine from graduate school, we didn't see it that way. We knew it wasn't going to be so hard, and we wanted to be the first to build one so we could get out in front of the problem and help protect against GPS spoofing. I remember vividly the week it all came together. We built it at my home, which means that I got a little extra help from my three-year-old son Ramon. Here's Ramon — (Laughter) — looking for a little attention from Dad that week. At first, the spoofer was just a jumble of cables and computers, though we eventually got it packaged into a small box.
Now, the Dr. Frankenstein moment, when the spoofer finally came alive and I glimpsed its awful potential, came late one night when I tested the spoofer against my iPhone. Let me show you some actual footage from that very first experiment. I had come to completely trust this little blue dot and its reassuring blue halo. They seemed to speak to me. They'd say, "Here you are. Here you are." (Laughter) And "you can trust us." So something felt very wrong about the world. It was a sense, almost, of betrayal, when this little blue dot started at my house, and went running off toward the north leaving me behind. I wasn't moving. What I then saw in this little moving blue dot was the potential for chaos. I saw airplanes and ships veering off course, with the captain learning only too late that something was wrong. I saw the GPS-derived timing of the New York Stock Exchange being manipulated by hackers. You can scarcely imagine the kind of havoc you could cause if you knew what you were doing with a GPS spoofer.
There is, though, one redeeming feature of the GPS spoofer. It's the ultimate weapon against an invasion of GPS dots. Imagine, for example, you're being tracked. Well, you can play the tracker for a fool, pretending to be at work when you're really on vacation. Or, if you're Carol, you could lure your ex-boyfriend into some empty parking lot where the police are waiting for him.
So I'm fascinated by this conflict, a looming conflict, between privacy on the one hand and the need for a clean radio spectrum on the other. We simply cannot tolerate GPS jammers and spoofers, and yet, given the lack of effective legal means for protecting our privacy from the GPS dot, can you really blame people for wanting to turn them on, for wanting to use them?
I hold out hope that we'll be able to reconcile this conflict with some sort of, some yet uninvented technology. But meanwhile, grab some popcorn, because things are going to get interesting.
Within the next few years, many of you will be the proud owner of a GPS dot. Maybe you'll have a whole bag full of them. You'll never lose track of your things again. The GPS dot will fundamentally reorder your life. But will you be able to resist the temptation to track your fellow man? Or will you be able to resist the temptation to turn on a GPS spoofer or a Wave Bubble to protect your own privacy?
So, as usual, what we see just beyond the horizon is full of promise and peril. It'll be fascinating to see how this all turns out.
Thanks. (Applause) |
Type is something we consume in enormous quantities. In much of the world, it's completely inescapable. But few consumers are concerned to know where a particular typeface came from or when or who designed it, if, indeed, there was any human agency involved in its creation, if it didn't just sort of materialize out of the software ether.
But I do have to be concerned with those things. It's my job. I'm one of the tiny handful of people who gets badly bent out of shape by the bad spacing of the T and the E that you see there. I've got to take that slide off. I can't stand it. Nor can Chris. There. Good.
So my talk is about the connection between technology and design of type. The technology has changed a number of times since I started work: photo, digital, desktop, screen, web. I've had to survive those changes and try to understand their implications for what I do for design. This slide is about the effect of tools on form. The two letters, the two K's, the one on your left, my right, is modern, made on a computer. All straight lines are dead straight. The curves have that kind of mathematical smoothness that the Bézier formula imposes. On the right, ancient Gothic, cut in the resistant material of steel by hand. None of the straight lines are actually straight. The curves are kind of subtle. It has that spark of life from the human hand that the machine or the program can never capture. What a contrast.
Well, I tell a lie. A lie at TED. I'm really sorry. Both of these were made on a computer, same software, same Bézier curves, same font format. The one on your left was made by Zuzana Licko at Emigre, and I did the other one. The tool is the same, yet the letters are different. The letters are different because the designers are different. That's all. Zuzana wanted hers to look like that. I wanted mine to look like that. End of story. Type is very adaptable. Unlike a fine art, such as sculpture or architecture, type hides its methods. I think of myself as an industrial designer. The thing I design is manufactured, and it has a function: to be read, to convey meaning. But there is a bit more to it than that. There's the sort of aesthetic element. What makes these two letters different from different interpretations by different designers? What gives the work of some designers sort of characteristic personal style, as you might find in the work of a fashion designer, an automobile designer, whatever?
There have been some cases, I admit, where I as a designer did feel the influence of technology. This is from the mid-'60s, the change from metal type to photo, hot to cold. This brought some benefits but also one particular drawback: a spacing system that only provided 18 discrete units for letters to be accommodated on. I was asked at this time to design a series of condensed sans serif types with as many different variants as possible within this 18-unit box. Quickly looking at the arithmetic, I realized I could only actually make three of related design. Here you see them. In Helvetica Compressed, Extra Compressed, and Ultra Compressed, this rigid 18-unit system really boxed me in. It kind of determined the proportions of the design. Here are the typefaces, at least the lower cases. So do you look at these and say, "Poor Matthew, he had to submit to a problem, and by God it shows in the results." I hope not. If I were doing this same job today, instead of having 18 spacing units, I would have 1,000. Clearly I could make more variants, but would these three members of the family be better? It's hard to say without actually doing it, but they would not be better in the proportion of 1,000 to 18, I can tell you that. My instinct tells you that any improvement would be rather slight, because they were designed as functions of the system they were designed to fit, and as I said, type is very adaptable. It does hide its methods. All industrial designers work within constraints. This is not fine art.
The question is, does a constraint force a compromise? By accepting a constraint, are you working to a lower standard? I don't believe so, and I've always been encouraged by something that Charles Eames said. He said he was conscious of working within constraints, but not of making compromises. The distinction between a constraint and a compromise is obviously very subtle, but it's very central to my attitude to work.
Remember this reading experience? The phone book. I'll hold the slide so you can enjoy the nostalgia. This is from the mid-'70s early trials of Bell Centennial typeface I designed for the U.S. phone books, and it was my first experience of digital type, and quite a baptism. Designed for the phone books, as I said, to be printed at tiny size on newsprint on very high-speed rotary presses with ink that was kerosene and lampblack. This is not a hospitable environment for a typographic designer. So the challenge for me was to design type that performed as well as possible in these very adverse production conditions. As I say, we were in the infancy of digital type. I had to draw every character by hand on quadrille graph paper -- there were four weights of Bell Centennial — pixel by pixel, then encode them raster line by raster line for the keyboard. It took two years, but I learned a lot. These letters look as though they've been chewed by the dog or something or other, but the missing pixels at the intersections of strokes or in the crotches are the result of my studying the effects of ink spread on cheap paper and reacting, revising the font accordingly. These strange artifacts are designed to compensate for the undesirable effects of scale and production process. At the outset, AT&T had wanted to set the phone books in Helvetica, but as my friend Erik Spiekermann said in the Helvetica movie, if you've seen that, the letters in Helvetica were designed to be as similar to one another as possible. This is not the recipe for legibility at small size. It looks very elegant up on a slide. I had to disambiguate these forms of the figures as much as possible in Bell Centennial by sort of opening the shapes up, as you can see in the bottom part of that slide.
So now we're on to the mid-'80s, the early days of digital outline fonts, vector technology. There was an issue at that time with the size of the fonts, the amount of data that was required to find and store a font in computer memory. It limited the number of fonts you could get on your typesetting system at any one time. I did an analysis of the data, and found that a typical serif face you see on the left needed nearly twice as much data as a sans serif in the middle because of all the points required to define the elegantly curved serif brackets. The numbers at the bottom of the slide, by the way, they represent the amount of data needed to store each of the fonts. So the sans serif, in the middle, sans the serifs, was much more economical, 81 to 151.
"Aha," I thought. "The engineers have a problem. Designer to the rescue."
I made a serif type, you can see it on the right, without curved serifs. I made them polygonal, out of straight line segments, chamfered brackets. And look, as economical in data as a sans serif. We call it Charter, on the right.
So I went to the head of engineering with my numbers, and I said proudly, "I have solved your problem."
"Oh," he said. "What problem?"
And I said, "Well, you know, the problem of the huge data you require for serif fonts and so on."
"Oh," he said. "We solved that problem last week. We wrote a compaction routine that reduces the size of all fonts by an order of magnitude. You can have as many fonts on your system as you like."
"Well, thank you for letting me know," I said.
Foiled again. I was left with a design solution for a nonexistent technical problem.
But here is where the story sort of gets interesting for me. I didn't just throw my design away in a fit of pique. I persevered. What had started as a technical exercise became an aesthetic exercise, really. In other words, I had come to like this typeface. Forget its origins. Screw that. I liked the design for its own sake. The simplified forms of Charter gave it a sort of plain-spoken quality and unfussy spareness that sort of pleased me. You know, at times of technical innovation, designers want to be influenced by what's in the air. We want to respond. We want to be pushed into exploring something new. So Charter is a sort of parable for me, really. In the end, there was no hard and fast causal link between the technology and the design of Charter. I had really misunderstood the technology. The technology did suggest something to me, but it did not force my hand, and I think this happens very often.
You know, engineers are very smart, and despite occasional frustrations because I'm less smart, I've always enjoyed working with them and learning from them. Apropos, in the mid-'90s, I started talking to Microsoft about screen fonts. Up to that point, all the fonts on screen had been adapted from previously existing printing fonts, of course. But Microsoft foresaw correctly the movement, the stampede towards electronic communication, to reading and writing onscreen with the printed output as being sort of secondary in importance.
So the priorities were just tipping at that point. They wanted a small core set of fonts that were not adapted but designed for the screen to face up to the problems of screen, which were their coarse resolution displays. I said to Microsoft, a typeface designed for a particular technology is a self-obsoleting typeface. I've designed too many faces in the past that were intended to mitigate technical problems. Thanks to the engineers, the technical problems went away. So did my typeface. It was only a stopgap. Microsoft came back to say that affordable computer monitors with better resolutions were at least a decade away. So I thought, well, a decade, that's not bad, that's more than a stopgap.
So I was persuaded, I was convinced, and we went to work on what became Verdana and Georgia, for the first time working not on paper but directly onto the screen from the pixel up. At that time, screens were binary. The pixel was either on or it was off. Here you see the outline of a letter, the cap H, which is the thin black line, the contour, which is how it is stored in memory, superimposed on the bitmap, which is the grey area, which is how it's displayed on the screen. The bitmap is rasterized from the outline. Here in a cap H, which is all straight lines, the two are in almost perfect sync on the Cartesian grid. Not so with an O. This looks more like bricklaying than type design, but believe me, this is a good bitmap O, for the simple reason that it's symmetrical in both x and y axes. In a binary bitmap, you actually can't ask for more than that. I would sometimes make, I don't know, three or four different versions of a difficult letter like a lowercase A, and then stand back to choose which was the best. Well, there was no best, so the designer's judgment comes in in trying to decide which is the least bad. Is that a compromise? Not to me, if you are working at the highest standard the technology will allow, although that standard may be well short of the ideal. You may be able to see on this slide two different bitmap fonts there. The "a" in the upper one, I think, is better than the "a" in the lower one, but it still ain't great. You can maybe see the effect better if it's reduced. Well, maybe not.
So I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist, out of necessity. For a certain kind of temperament, there is a certain kind of satisfaction in doing something that cannot be perfect but can still be done to the best of your ability. Here's the lowercase H from Georgia Italic. The bitmap looks jagged and rough. It is jagged and rough. But I discovered, by experiment, that there is an optimum slant for an italic on a screen so the strokes break well at the pixel boundaries. Look in this example how, rough as it is, how the left and right legs actually break at the same level. That's a victory. That's good, right there. And of course, at the lower depths, you don't get much choice. This is an S, in case you were wondering.
Well, it's been 18 years now since Verdana and Georgia were released. Microsoft were absolutely right, it took a good 10 years, but screen displays now do have improved spatial resolution, and very much improved photometric resolution thanks to anti-aliasing and so on. So now that their mission is accomplished, has that meant the demise of the screen fonts that I designed for coarser displays back then? Will they outlive the now-obsolete screens and the flood of new web fonts coming on to the market? Or have they established their own sort of evolutionary niche that is independent of technology? In other words, have they been absorbed into the typographic mainstream? I'm not sure, but they've had a good run so far. Hey, 18 is a good age for anything with present-day rates of attrition, so I'm not complaining.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
A few years ago, with my colleague, Emmanuelle Charpentier, I invented a new technology for editing genomes. It's called CRISPR-Cas9. The CRISPR technology allows scientists to make changes to the DNA in cells that could allow us to cure genetic disease.
You might be interested to know that the CRISPR technology came about through a basic research project that was aimed at discovering how bacteria fight viral infections. Bacteria have to deal with viruses in their environment, and we can think about a viral infection like a ticking time bomb -- a bacterium has only a few minutes to defuse the bomb before it gets destroyed. So, many bacteria have in their cells an adaptive immune system called CRISPR, that allows them to detect viral DNA and destroy it.
Part of the CRISPR system is a protein called Cas9, that's able to seek out, cut and eventually degrade viral DNA in a specific way. And it was through our research to understand the activity of this protein, Cas9, that we realized that we could harness its function as a genetic engineering technology -- a way for scientists to delete or insert specific bits of DNA into cells with incredible precision -- that would offer opportunities to do things that really haven't been possible in the past.
The CRISPR technology has already been used to change the DNA in the cells of mice and monkeys, other organisms as well. Chinese scientists showed recently that they could even use the CRISPR technology to change genes in human embryos. And scientists in Philadelphia showed they could use CRISPR to remove the DNA of an integrated HIV virus from infected human cells.
The opportunity to do this kind of genome editing also raises various ethical issues that we have to consider, because this technology can be employed not only in adult cells, but also in the embryos of organisms, including our own species. And so, together with my colleagues, I've called for a global conversation about the technology that I co-invented, so that we can consider all of the ethical and societal implications of a technology like this.
What I want to do now is tell you what the CRISPR technology is, what it can do, where we are today and why I think we need to take a prudent path forward in the way that we employ this technology.
When viruses infect a cell, they inject their DNA. And in a bacterium, the CRISPR system allows that DNA to be plucked out of the virus, and inserted in little bits into the chromosome -- the DNA of the bacterium. And these integrated bits of viral DNA get inserted at a site called CRISPR. CRISPR stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. (Laughter)
A big mouthful -- you can see why we use the acronym CRISPR. It's a mechanism that allows cells to record, over time, the viruses they have been exposed to. And importantly, those bits of DNA are passed on to the cells' progeny, so cells are protected from viruses not only in one generation, but over many generations of cells. This allows the cells to keep a record of infection, and as my colleague, Blake Wiedenheft, likes to say, the CRISPR locus is effectively a genetic vaccination card in cells. Once those bits of DNA have been inserted into the bacterial chromosome, the cell then makes a little copy of a molecule called RNA, which is orange in this picture, that is an exact replicate of the viral DNA. RNA is a chemical cousin of DNA, and it allows interaction with DNA molecules that have a matching sequence.
So those little bits of RNA from the CRISPR locus associate -- they bind -- to protein called Cas9, which is white in the picture, and form a complex that functions like a sentinel in the cell. It searches through all of the DNA in the cell, to find sites that match the sequences in the bound RNAs. And when those sites are found -- as you can see here, the blue molecule is DNA -- this complex associates with that DNA and allows the Cas9 cleaver to cut up the viral DNA. It makes a very precise break. So we can think of the Cas9 RNA sentinel complex like a pair of scissors that can cut DNA -- it makes a double-stranded break in the DNA helix. And importantly, this complex is programmable, so it can be programmed to recognize particular DNA sequences, and make a break in the DNA at that site.
As I'm going to tell you now, we recognized that that activity could be harnessed for genome engineering, to allow cells to make a very precise change to the DNA at the site where this break was introduced. That's sort of analogous to the way that we use a word-processing program to fix a typo in a document.
The reason we envisioned using the CRISPR system for genome engineering is because cells have the ability to detect broken DNA and repair it. So when a plant or an animal cell detects a double-stranded break in its DNA, it can fix that break, either by pasting together the ends of the broken DNA with a little, tiny change in the sequence of that position, or it can repair the break by integrating a new piece of DNA at the site of the cut. So if we have a way to introduce double-stranded breaks into DNA at precise places, we can trigger cells to repair those breaks, by either the disruption or incorporation of new genetic information. So if we were able to program the CRISPR technology to make a break in DNA at the position at or near a mutation causing cystic fibrosis, for example, we could trigger cells to repair that mutation.
Genome engineering is actually not new, it's been in development since the 1970s. We've had technologies for sequencing DNA, for copying DNA, and even for manipulating DNA. And these technologies were very promising, but the problem was that they were either inefficient, or they were difficult enough to use that most scientists had not adopted them for use in their own laboratories, or certainly for many clinical applications. So, the opportunity to take a technology like CRISPR and utilize it has appeal, because of its relative simplicity. We can think of older genome engineering technologies as similar to having to rewire your computer each time you want to run a new piece of software, whereas the CRISPR technology is like software for the genome, we can program it easily, using these little bits of RNA.
So once a double-stranded break is made in DNA, we can induce repair, and thereby potentially achieve astounding things, like being able to correct mutations that cause sickle cell anemia or cause Huntington's Disease. I actually think that the first applications of the CRISPR technology are going to happen in the blood, where it's relatively easier to deliver this tool into cells, compared to solid tissues.
Right now, a lot of the work that's going on applies to animal models of human disease, such as mice. The technology is being used to make very precise changes that allow us to study the way that these changes in the cell's DNA affect either a tissue or, in this case, an entire organism.
Now in this example, the CRISPR technology was used to disrupt a gene by making a tiny change in the DNA in a gene that is responsible for the black coat color of these mice. Imagine that these white mice differ from their pigmented litter-mates by just a tiny change at one gene in the entire genome, and they're otherwise completely normal. And when we sequence the DNA from these animals, we find that the change in the DNA has occurred at exactly the place where we induced it, using the CRISPR technology.
Additional experiments are going on in other animals that are useful for creating models for human disease, such as monkeys. And here we find that we can use these systems to test the application of this technology in particular tissues, for example, figuring out how to deliver the CRISPR tool into cells. We also want to understand better how to control the way that DNA is repaired after it's cut, and also to figure out how to control and limit any kind of off-target, or unintended effects of using the technology.
I think that we will see clinical application of this technology, certainly in adults, within the next 10 years. I think that it's likely that we will see clinical trials and possibly even approved therapies within that time, which is a very exciting thing to think about. And because of the excitement around this technology, there's a lot of interest in start-up companies that have been founded to commercialize the CRISPR technology, and lots of venture capitalists that have been investing in these companies.
But we have to also consider that the CRISPR technology can be used for things like enhancement. Imagine that we could try to engineer humans that have enhanced properties, such as stronger bones, or less susceptibility to cardiovascular disease or even to have properties that we would consider maybe to be desirable, like a different eye color or to be taller, things like that. "Designer humans," if you will. Right now, the genetic information to understand what types of genes would give rise to these traits is mostly not known. But it's important to know that the CRISPR technology gives us a tool to make such changes, once that knowledge becomes available.
This raises a number of ethical questions that we have to carefully consider, and this is why I and my colleagues have called for a global pause in any clinical application of the CRISPR technology in human embryos, to give us time to really consider all of the various implications of doing so. And actually, there is an important precedent for such a pause from the 1970s, when scientists got together to call for a moratorium on the use of molecular cloning, until the safety of that technology could be tested carefully and validated.
So, genome-engineered humans are not with us yet, but this is no longer science fiction. Genome-engineered animals and plants are happening right now. And this puts in front of all of us a huge responsibility, to consider carefully both the unintended consequences as well as the intended impacts of a scientific breakthrough.
Thank you.
(Applause)
(Applause ends)
Bruno Giussani: Jennifer, this is a technology with huge consequences, as you pointed out. Your attitude about asking for a pause or a moratorium or a quarantine is incredibly responsible. There are, of course, the therapeutic results of this, but then there are the un-therapeutic ones and they seem to be the ones gaining traction, particularly in the media. This is one of the latest issues of The Economist -- "Editing humanity." It's all about genetic enhancement, it's not about therapeutics. What kind of reactions did you get back in March from your colleagues in the science world, when you asked or suggested that we should actually pause this for a moment and think about it?
Jennifer Doudna: My colleagues were actually, I think, delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this openly. It's interesting that as I talk to people, my scientific colleagues as well as others, there's a wide variety of viewpoints about this. So clearly it's a topic that needs careful consideration and discussion.
BG: There's a big meeting happening in December that you and your colleagues are calling, together with the National Academy of Sciences and others, what do you hope will come out of the meeting, practically?
JD: Well, I hope that we can air the views of many different individuals and stakeholders who want to think about how to use this technology responsibly. It may not be possible to come up with a consensus point of view, but I think we should at least understand what all the issues are as we go forward.
BG: Now, colleagues of yours, like George Church, for example, at Harvard, they say, "Yeah, ethical issues basically are just a question of safety. We test and test and test again, in animals and in labs, and then once we feel it's safe enough, we move on to humans." So that's kind of the other school of thought, that we should actually use this opportunity and really go for it. Is there a possible split happening in the science community about this? I mean, are we going to see some people holding back because they have ethical concerns, and some others just going forward because some countries under-regulate or don't regulate at all?
JD: Well, I think with any new technology, especially something like this, there are going to be a variety of viewpoints, and I think that's perfectly understandable. I think that in the end, this technology will be used for human genome engineering, but I think to do that without careful consideration and discussion of the risks and potential complications would not be responsible.
BG: There are a lot of technologies and other fields of science that are developing exponentially, pretty much like yours. I'm thinking about artificial intelligence, autonomous robots and so on. No one seems -- aside from autonomous warfare robots -- nobody seems to have launched a similar discussion in those fields, in calling for a moratorium. Do you think that your discussion may serve as a blueprint for other fields?
JD: Well, I think it's hard for scientists to get out of the laboratory. Speaking for myself, it's a little bit uncomfortable to do that. But I do think that being involved in the genesis of this really puts me and my colleagues in a position of responsibility. And I would say that I certainly hope that other technologies will be considered in the same way, just as we would want to consider something that could have implications in other fields besides biology.
BG: Jennifer, thanks for coming to TED.
JD: Thank you.
(Applause) |
Let me begin with four words that will provide the context for this week, four words that will come to define this century. Here they are: The Earth is full. It's full of us, it's full of our stuff, full of our waste, full of our demands. Yes, we are a brilliant and creative species, but we've created a little too much stuff -- so much that our economy is now bigger than its host, our planet.
This is not a philosophical statement, this is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means. The eminent scientists of the Global Footprint Network, for example, calculate that we need about 1.5 Earths to sustain this economy. In other words, to keep operating at our current level, we need 50 percent more Earth than we've got. In financial terms, this would be like always spending 50 percent more than you earn, going further into debt every year. But of course, you can't borrow natural resources, so we're burning through our capital, or stealing from the future.
So when I say full, I mean really full -- well past any margin for error, well past any dispute about methodology. What this means is our economy is unsustainable. I'm not saying it's not nice or pleasant or that it's bad for polar bears or forests, though it certainly is. What I'm saying is our approach is simply unsustainable. In other words, thanks to those pesky laws of physics, when things aren't sustainable, they stop. But that's not possible, you might think. We can't stop economic growth. Because that's what will stop: economic growth. It will stop because of the end of trade resources. It will stop because of the growing demand of us on all the resources, all the capacity, all the systems of the Earth, which is now having economic damage.
When we think about economic growth stopping, we go, "That's not possible," because economic growth is so essential to our society that is is rarely questioned. Although growth has certainly delivered many benefits, it is an idea so essential that we tend not to understand the possibility of it not being around. Even though it has delivered many benefits, it is based on a crazy idea -- the crazy idea being that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet. And I'm here to tell you the emperor has no clothes. That the crazy idea is just that, it is crazy, and with the Earth full, it's game over.
Come on, you're thinking. That's not possible. Technology is amazing. People are innovative. There are so many ways we can improve the way we do things. We can surely sort this out. That's all true. Well, it's mostly true. We are certainly amazing, and we regularly solve complex problems with amazing creativity. So if our problem was to get the human economy down from 150 percent to 100 percent of the Earth's capacity, we could do that. The problem is we're just warming up this growth engine. We plan to take this highly-stressed economy and make it twice as big and then make it four times as big -- not in some distant future, but in less than 40 years, in the life time of most of you. China plans to be there in just 20 years. The only problem with this plan is that it's not possible.
In response, some people argue, but we need growth, we need it to solve poverty. We need it to develop technology. We need it to keep social stability. I find this argument fascinating, as though we can kind of bend the rules of physics to suit our needs. It's like the Earth doesn't care what we need. Mother nature doesn't negotiate; she just sets rules and describes consequences. And these are not esoteric limits. This is about food and water, soil and climate, the basic practical and economic foundations of our lives.
So the idea that we can smoothly transition to a highly-efficient, solar-powered, knowledge-based economy transformed by science and technology so that nine billion people can live in 2050 a life of abundance and digital downloads is a delusion. It's not that it's not possible to feed, clothe and house us all and have us live decent lives. It certainly is. But the idea that we can gently grow there with a few minor hiccups is just wrong, and it's dangerously wrong, because it means we're not getting ready for what's really going to happen.
See what happens when you operate a system past its limits and then keep on going at an ever-accelerating rate is that the system stops working and breaks down. And that's what will happen to us. Many of you will be thinking, but surely we can still stop this. If it's that bad, we'll react. Let's just think through that idea. Now we've had 50 years of warnings. We've had science proving the urgency of change. We've had economic analysis pointing out that, not only can we afford it, it's cheaper to act early. And yet, the reality is we've done pretty much nothing to change course. We're not even slowing down. Last year on climate, for example, we had the highest global emissions ever. The story on food, on water, on soil, on climate is all much the same.
I actually don't say this in despair. I've done my grieving about the loss. I accept where we are. It is sad, but it is what it is. But it is also time that we ended our denial and recognized that we're not acting, we're not close to acting and we're not going to act until this crisis hits the economy. And that's why the end of growth is the central issue and the event that we need to get ready for.
So when does this transition begin? When does this breakdown begin? In my view, it is well underway. I know most people don't see it that way. We tend to look at the world, not as the integrated system that it is, but as a series of individual issues. We see the Occupy protests, we see spiraling debt crises, we see growing inequality, we see money's influence on politics, we see resource constraint, food and oil prices. But we see, mistakenly, each of these issues as individual problems to be solved. In fact, it's the system in the painful process of breaking down -- our system, of debt-fueled economic growth, of ineffective democracy, of overloading planet Earth, is eating itself alive.
I could give you countless studies and evidence to prove this, but I won't because, if you want to see it, that evidence is all around you. I want to talk to you about fear. I want to do so because, in my view, the most important issue we face is how we respond to this question. The crisis is now inevitable. This issue is, how will we react? Of course, we can't know what will happen. The future is inherently uncertain.
But let's just think through what the science is telling us is likely to happen. Imagine our economy when the carbon bubble bursts, when the financial markets recognize that, to have any hope of preventing the climate spiraling out of control, the oil and coal industries are finished. Imagine China, India and Pakistan going to war as climate impacts generate conflict over food and water. Imagine the Middle East without oil income, but with collapsing governments. Imagine our highly-tuned, just-in-time food industry and our highly-stressed agricultural system failing and supermarket shelves emptying. Imagine 30 percent unemployment in America as the global economy is gripped by fear and uncertainty.
Now imagine what that means for you, your family, your friends, your personal financial security. Imagine what it means for your personal security as a heavily armed civilian population gets angrier and angrier about why this was allowed to happen. Imagine what you'll tell your children when they ask you, "So, in 2012, Mom and Dad, what was it like when you'd had the hottest decade on record for the third decade in a row, when every scientific body in the world was saying you've got a major problem, when the oceans were acidifying, when oil and food prices were spiking, when they were rioting in the streets of London and occupying Wall Street? When the system was so clearly breaking down, Mom and Dad, what did you do, what were you thinking?"
So how do you feel when the lights go out on the global economy in your mind, when your assumptions about the future fade away and something very different emerges? Just take a moment and take a breath and think, what do you feel at this point? Perhaps denial. Perhaps anger. Maybe fear. Of course, we can't know what's going to happen and we have to live with uncertainty. But when we think about the kind of possibilities I paint, we should feel a bit of fear.
We are in danger, all of us, and we've evolved to respond to danger with fear to motivate a powerful response, to help us bravely face a threat. But this time it's not a tiger at the cave mouth. You can't see the danger at your door. But if you look, you can see it at the door of your civilization. That's why we need to feel our response now while the lights are still on, because if we wait until the crisis takes hold, we may panic and hide. If we feel it now and think it through, we will realize we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Yes, things will get ugly, and it will happen soon -- certainly in our lifetime -- but we are more than capable of getting through everything that's coming.
You see, those people that have faith that humans can solve any problem, that technology is limitless, that markets can be a force for good, are in fact right. The only thing they're missing is that it takes a good crisis to get us going. When we feel fear and we fear loss we are capable of quite extraordinary things. Think about war. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it just took four days for the government to ban the production of civilian cars and to redirect the auto industry, and from there to rationing of food and energy. Think about how a company responds to a bankruptcy threat and how a change that seemed impossible just gets done. Think about how an individual responds to a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness and how lifestyle changes that previously were just too difficult suddenly become relatively easy.
We are smart, in fact, we really are quite amazing, but we do love a good crisis. And the good news, this one's a monster. (Laughter) Sure, if we get it wrong, we could face the end of this civilization, but if we get it right, it could be the beginning of civilization instead. And how cool would it be to tell your grandchildren that you were part of that?
There's certainly no technical or economic barrier in the way. Scientists like James Hansen tell us we may need to eliminate net CO2 emissions from the economy in just a few decades. I wanted to know what that would take, so I worked with professor Jorgen Randers from Norway to find the answer. We developed a plan called "The One Degree War Plan" -- so named because of the level of mobilization and focus required. To my surprise, eliminating net CO2 emissions from the economy in just 20 years is actually pretty easy and pretty cheap, not very cheap, but certainly less than the cost of a collapsing civilization. We didn't calculate that precisely, but we understand that's very expensive. You can read the details, but in summary, we can transform our economy. We can do it with proven technology. We can do it at an affordable cost. We can do it with existing political structures. The only thing we need to change is how we think and how we feel. And this is where you come in.
When we think about the future I paint, of course we should feel a bit of fear. But fear can be paralyzing or motivating. We need to accept the fear and then we need to act. We need to act like the future depends on it. We need to act like we only have one planet. We can do this. I know the free market fundamentalists will tell you that more growth, more stuff and nine billion people going shopping is the best we can do. They're wrong. We can be more, we can be much more. We have achieved remarkable things since working out how to grow food some 10,000 years ago. We've built a powerful foundation of science, knowledge and technology -- more than enough to build a society where nine billion people can lead decent, meaningful and satisfying lives. The Earth can support that if we choose the right path.
We can choose this moment of crisis to ask and answer the big questions of society's evolution -- like, what do we want to be when we grow up, when we move past this bumbling adolescence where we think there are no limits and suffer delusions of immortality? Well it's time to grow up, to be wiser, to be calmer, to be more considered. Like generations before us, we'll be growing up in war -- not a war between civilizations, but a war for civilization, for the extraordinary opportunity to build a society which is stronger and happier and plans on staying around into middle age.
We can choose life over fear. We can do what we need to do, but it will take every entrepreneur, every artist, every scientist, every communicator, every mother, every father, every child, every one of us. This could be our finest hour.
Thank you.
(Applause) |
You know, I've talked about some of these projects before -- about the human genome and what that might mean, and discovering new sets of genes. We're actually starting at a new point: we've been digitizing biology, and now we're trying to go from that digital code into a new phase of biology with designing and synthesizing life.
So, we've always been trying to ask big questions. "What is life?" is something that I think many biologists have been trying to understand at various levels. We've tried various approaches, paring it down to minimal components. We've been digitizing it now for almost 20 years; when we sequenced the human genome, it was going from the analog world of biology into the digital world of the computer. Now we're trying to ask, "Can we regenerate life or can we create new life out of this digital universe?"
This is the map of a small organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, that has the smallest genome for a species that can self-replicate in the laboratory, and we've been trying to just see if we can come up with an even smaller genome. We're able to knock out on the order of 100 genes out of the 500 or so that are here. When we look at its metabolic map, it's relatively simple compared to ours -- trust me, this is simple -- but when we look at all the genes that we can knock out one at a time, it's very unlikely that this would yield a living cell. So we decided the only way forward was to actually synthesize this chromosome so we could vary the components to ask some of these most fundamental questions. And so we started down the road of: can we synthesize a chromosome? Can chemistry permit making these really large molecules where we've never been before? And if we do, can we boot up a chromosome? A chromosome, by the way, is just a piece of inert chemical material. So, our pace of digitizing life has been increasing at an exponential pace.
Our ability to write the genetic code has been moving pretty slowly but has been increasing, and our latest point would put it on, now, an exponential curve. We started this over 15 years ago. It took several stages, in fact, starting with a bioethical review before we did the first experiments. But it turns out synthesizing DNA is very difficult. There are tens of thousands of machines around the world that make small pieces of DNA -- 30 to 50 letters in length -- and it's a degenerate process, so the longer you make the piece, the more errors there are. So we had to create a new method for putting these little pieces together and correct all the errors.
And this was our first attempt, starting with the digital information of the genome of phi X174. It's a small virus that kills bacteria. We designed the pieces, went through our error correction and had a DNA molecule of about 5,000 letters. The exciting phase came when we took this piece of inert chemical and put it in the bacteria, and the bacteria started to read this genetic code, made the viral particles. The viral particles then were released from the cells and came back and killed the E. coli. I was talking to the oil industry recently and I said they clearly understood that model.
(Laughter)
They laughed more than you guys are. (Laughter)
And so, we think this is a situation where the software can actually build its own hardware in a biological system. But we wanted to go much larger: we wanted to build the entire bacterial chromosome -- it's over 580,000 letters of genetic code -- so we thought we'd build them in cassettes the size of the viruses so we could actually vary the cassettes to understand what the actual components of a living cell are. Design is critical, and if you're starting with digital information in the computer, that digital information has to be really accurate. When we first sequenced this genome in 1995, the standard of accuracy was one error per 10,000 base pairs. We actually found, on resequencing it, 30 errors; had we used that original sequence, it never would have been able to be booted up. Part of the design is designing pieces that are 50 letters long that have to overlap with all the other 50-letter pieces to build smaller subunits we have to design so they can go together. We design unique elements into this.
You may have read that we put watermarks in. Think of this: we have a four-letter genetic code -- A, C, G and T. Triplets of those letters code for roughly 20 amino acids, such that there's a single letter designation for each of the amino acids. So we can use the genetic code to write out words, sentences, thoughts. Initially, all we did was autograph it. Some people were disappointed there was not poetry. We designed these pieces so we can just chew back with enzymes; there are enzymes that repair them and put them together. And we started making pieces, starting with pieces that were 5,000 to 7,000 letters, put those together to make 24,000-letter pieces, then put sets of those going up to 72,000.
At each stage, we grew up these pieces in abundance so we could sequence them because we're trying to create a process that's extremely robust that you can see in a minute. We're trying to get to the point of automation. So, this looks like a basketball playoff. When we get into these really large pieces over 100,000 base pairs, they won't any longer grow readily in E. coli -- it exhausts all the modern tools of molecular biology -- and so we turned to other mechanisms. We knew there's a mechanism called homologous recombination that biology uses to repair DNA that can put pieces together. Here's an example of it: there's an organism called Deinococcus radiodurans that can take three millions rads of radiation.
You can see in the top panel, its chromosome just gets blown apart. Twelve to 24 hours later, it put it back together exactly as it was before. We have thousands of organisms that can do this. These organisms can be totally desiccated; they can live in a vacuum. I am absolutely certain that life can exist in outer space, move around, find a new aqueous environment. In fact, NASA has shown a lot of this is out there.
Here's an actual micrograph of the molecule we built using these processes, actually just using yeast mechanisms with the right design of the pieces we put them in; yeast puts them together automatically. This is not an electron micrograph; this is just a regular photomicrograph. It's such a large molecule we can see it with a light microscope. These are pictures over about a six-second period.
So, this is the publication we had just a short while ago. This is over 580,000 letters of genetic code; it's the largest molecule ever made by humans of a defined structure. It's over 300 million molecular weight. If we printed it out at a 10 font with no spacing, it takes 142 pages just to print this genetic code. Well, how do we boot up a chromosome? How do we activate this? Obviously, with a virus it's pretty simple; it's much more complicated dealing with bacteria. It's also simpler when you go into eukaryotes like ourselves: you can just pop out the nucleus and pop in another one, and that's what you've all heard about with cloning. With bacteria and Archaea, the chromosome is integrated into the cell, but we recently showed that we can do a complete transplant of a chromosome from one cell to another and activate it. We purified a chromosome from one microbial species -- roughly, these two are as distant as human and mice -- we added a few extra genes so we could select for this chromosome, we digested it with enzymes to kill all the proteins, and it was pretty stunning when we put this in the cell -- and you'll appreciate our very sophisticated graphics here. The new chromosome went into the cell. In fact, we thought this might be as far as it went, but we tried to design the process a little bit further.
This is a major mechanism of evolution right here. We find all kinds of species that have taken up a second chromosome or a third one from somewhere, adding thousands of new traits in a second to that species. So, people who think of evolution as just one gene changing at a time have missed much of biology.
There are enzymes called restriction enzymes that actually digest DNA. The chromosome that was in the cell doesn't have one; the chromosome we put in does. It got expressed and it recognized the other chromosome as foreign material, chewed it up, and so we ended up just with a cell with the new chromosome. It turned blue because of the genes we put in it. And with a very short period of time, all the characteristics of one species were lost and it converted totally into the new species based on the new software that we put in the cell. All the proteins changed, the membranes changed; when we read the genetic code, it's exactly what we had transferred in.
So, this may sound like genomic alchemy, but we can, by moving the software of DNA around, change things quite dramatically. Now I've argued, this is not genesis; this is building on three and a half billion years of evolution. And I've argued that we're about to perhaps create a new version of the Cambrian explosion, where there's massive new speciation based on this digital design.
Why do this? I think this is pretty obvious in terms of some of the needs. We're about to go from six and a half to nine billion people over the next 40 years. To put it in context for myself: I was born in 1946. There are now three people on the planet for every one of us that existed in 1946; within 40 years, there'll be four. We have trouble feeding, providing fresh, clean water, medicines, fuel for the six and a half billion. It's going to be a stretch to do it for nine. We use over five billion tons of coal, 30 billion-plus barrels of oil -- that's a hundred million barrels a day. When we try to think of biological processes or any process to replace that, it's going to be a huge challenge. Then of course, there's all that CO2 from this material that ends up in the atmosphere.
We now, from our discovery around the world, have a database with about 20 million genes, and I like to think of these as the design components of the future. The electronics industry only had a dozen or so components, and look at the diversity that came out of that. We're limited here primarily by a biological reality and our imagination. We now have techniques, because of these rapid methods of synthesis, to do what we're calling combinatorial genomics. We have the ability now to build a large robot that can make a million chromosomes a day. When you think of processing these 20 million different genes or trying to optimize processes to produce octane or to produce pharmaceuticals, new vaccines, we can just with a small team, do more molecular biology than the last 20 years of all science. And it's just standard selection: we can select for viability, chemical or fuel production, vaccine production, etc.
This is a screen snapshot of some true design software that we're working on to actually be able to sit down and design species in the computer. You know, we don't know necessarily what it'll look like: we know exactly what their genetic code looks like. We're focusing on now fourth-generation fuels. You've seen recently, corn to ethanol is just a bad experiment. We have second- and third-generation fuels that will be coming out relatively soon that are sugar, to much higher-value fuels like octane or different types of butanol.
But the only way we think that biology can have a major impact without further increasing the cost of food and limiting its availability is if we start with CO2 as its feedstock, and so we're working with designing cells to go down this road. And we think we'll have the first fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months. Sunlight and CO2 is one method ... (Applause) but in our discovery around the world, we have all kinds of other methods.
This is an organism we described in 1996. It lives in the deep ocean, about a mile and a half deep, almost at boiling-water temperatures. It takes CO2 to methane using molecular hydrogen as its energy source. We're looking to see if we can take captured CO2, which can easily be piped to sites, convert that CO2 back into fuel to drive this process.
So, in a short period of time, we think that we might be able to increase what the basic question is of "What is life?" We truly, you know, have modest goals of replacing the whole petrol-chemical industry --
(Laughter) (Applause)
Yeah. If you can't do that at TED, where can you? --
(Laughter)
become a major source of energy ... But also, we're now working on using these same tools to come up with instant sets of vaccines. You've seen this year with flu; we're always a year behind and a dollar short when it comes to the right vaccine. I think that can be changed by building combinatorial vaccines in advance. Here's what the future may begin to look like with changing, now, the evolutionary tree, speeding up evolution with synthetic bacteria, Archaea and, eventually, eukaryotes. We're a ways away from improving people: our goal is just to make sure that we have a chance to survive long enough to maybe do that. Thank you very much.
(Applause) |
We grew up interacting with the physical objects around us. There are an enormous number of them that we use every day. Unlike most of our computing devices, these objects are much more fun to use. When you talk about objects, one other thing automatically comes attached to that thing, and that is gestures: how we manipulate these objects, how we use these objects in everyday life. We use gestures not only to interact with these objects, but we also use them to interact with each other. A gesture of "Namaste!", maybe, to respect someone, or maybe -- in India I don't need to teach a kid that this means "four runs" in cricket. It comes as a part of our everyday learning.
So, I am very interested, from the beginning, that how -- how our knowledge about everyday objects and gestures, and how we use these objects, can be leveraged to our interactions with the digital world. Rather than using a keyboard and mouse, why can I not use my computer in the same way that I interact in the physical world?
So, I started this exploration around eight years back, and it literally started with a mouse on my desk. Rather than using it for my computer, I actually opened it. Most of you might be aware that, in those days, the mouse used to come with a ball inside, and there were two rollers that actually guide the computer where the ball is moving, and, accordingly, where the mouse is moving. So, I was interested in these two rollers, and I actually wanted more, so I borrowed another mouse from a friend -- never returned to him -- and I now had four rollers. Interestingly, what I did with these rollers is, basically, I took them off of these mouses and then put them in one line. It had some strings and pulleys and some springs. What I got is basically a gesture interface device that actually acts as a motion-sensing device made for two dollars. So, here, whatever movement I do in my physical world is actually replicated inside the digital world just using this small device that I made, around eight years back, in 2000.
Because I was interested in integrating these two worlds, I thought of sticky notes. I thought, "Why can I not connect the normal interface of a physical sticky note to the digital world?" A message written on a sticky note to my mom on paper can come to an SMS, or maybe a meeting reminder automatically syncs with my digital calendar -- a to-do list that automatically syncs with you. But you can also search in the digital world, or maybe you can write a query, saying, "What is Dr. Smith's address?" and this small system actually prints it out -- so it actually acts like a paper input-output system, just made out of paper.
In another exploration, I thought of making a pen that can draw in three dimensions. So, I implemented this pen that can help designers and architects not only think in three dimensions, but they can actually draw so that it's more intuitive to use that way.
Then I thought, "Why not make a Google Map, but in the physical world?" Rather than typing a keyword to find something, I put my objects on top of it. If I put a boarding pass, it will show me where the flight gate is. A coffee cup will show where you can find more coffee, or where you can trash the cup.
So, these were some of the earlier explorations I did because the goal was to connect these two worlds seamlessly. Among all these experiments, there was one thing in common: I was trying to bring a part of the physical world to the digital world. I was taking some part of the objects, or any of the intuitiveness of real life, and bringing them to the digital world, because the goal was to make our computing interfaces more intuitive.
But then I realized that we humans are not actually interested in computing. What we are interested in is information. We want to know about things. We want to know about dynamic things going around.
So I thought, around last year -- in the beginning of the last year -- I started thinking, "Why can I not take this approach in the reverse way?" Maybe, "How about I take my digital world and paint the physical world with that digital information?" Because pixels are actually, right now, confined in these rectangular devices that fit in our pockets. Why can I not remove this confine and take that to my everyday objects, everyday life so that I don't need to learn the new language for interacting with those pixels?
So, in order to realize this dream, I actually thought of putting a big-size projector on my head. I think that's why this is called a head-mounted projector, isn't it? I took it very literally, and took my bike helmet, put a little cut over there so that the projector actually fits nicely. So now, what I can do -- I can augment the world around me with this digital information.
But later, I realized that I actually wanted to interact with those digital pixels, also. So I put a small camera over there, that acts as a digital eye. Later, we moved to a much better, consumer-oriented pendant version of that, that many of you now know as the SixthSense device.
But the most interesting thing about this particular technology is that you can carry your digital world with you wherever you go. You can start using any surface, any wall around you, as an interface. The camera is actually tracking all your gestures. Whatever you're doing with your hands, it's understanding that gesture. And, actually, if you see, there are some color markers that in the beginning version we are using with it. You can start painting on any wall. You stop by a wall, and start painting on that wall. But we are not only tracking one finger, here. We are giving you the freedom of using all of both of your hands, so you can actually use both of your hands to zoom into or zoom out of a map just by pinching all present. The camera is actually doing -- just, getting all the images -- is doing the edge recognition and also the color recognition and so many other small algorithms are going on inside. So, technically, it's a little bit complex, but it gives you an output which is more intuitive to use, in some sense.
But I'm more excited that you can actually take it outside. Rather than getting your camera out of your pocket, you can just do the gesture of taking a photo and it takes a photo for you.
(Applause)
Thank you.
And later I can find a wall, anywhere, and start browsing those photos or maybe, "OK, I want to modify this photo a little bit and send it as an email to a friend." So, we are looking for an era where computing will actually merge with the physical world. And, of course, if you don't have any surface, you can start using your palm for simple operations. Here, I'm dialing a phone number just using my hand. The camera is actually not only understanding your hand movements, but, interestingly, is also able to understand what objects you are holding in your hand.
What we're doing here is actually -- for example, in this case, the book cover is matched with so many thousands, or maybe millions of books online, and checking out which book it is. Once it has that information, it finds out more reviews about that, or maybe New York Times has a sound overview on that, so you can actually hear, on a physical book, a review as sound. ("famous talk at Harvard University ...")
This was Obama's visit last week to MIT. ("... and particularly I want to thank two outstanding MIT ...") So, I was seeing the live [video] of his talk, outside, on just a newspaper. Your newspaper will show you live weather information rather than having it updated -- like, you have to check your computer in order to do that, right?
(Applause)
When I'm going back, I can just use my boarding pass to check how much my flight has been delayed, because at that particular time, I'm not feeling like opening my iPhone, and checking out a particular icon. And I think this technology will not only change the way -- yes. (Laughter) It will change the way we interact with people, also, not only the physical world. The fun part is, I'm going to the Boston metro, and playing a pong game inside the train on the ground, right? (Laughter) And I think the imagination is the only limit of what you can think of when this kind of technology merges with real life.
But many of you argue, actually, that all of our work is not only about physical objects. We actually do lots of accounting and paper editing and all those kinds of things; what about that? And many of you are excited about the next generation tablet computers to come out in the market. So, rather than waiting for that, I actually made my own, just using a piece of paper. So, what I did here is remove the camera -- All the webcam cameras have a microphone inside the camera. I removed the microphone from that, and then just pinched that -- like I just made a clip out of the microphone -- and clipped that to a piece of paper, any paper that you found around. So now the sound of the touch is getting me when exactly I'm touching the paper. But the camera is actually tracking where my fingers are moving.
You can of course watch movies. ("Good afternoon. My name is Russell ... and I am a Wilderness Explorer in Tribe 54.")
And you can of course play games. (Car engine) Here, the camera is actually understanding how you're holding the paper and playing a car-racing game. (Applause)
Many of you already must have thought, OK, you can browse. Yeah. Of course you can browse to any websites or you can do all sorts of computing on a piece of paper wherever you need it. So, more interestingly, I'm interested in how we can take that in a more dynamic way. When I come back to my desk I can just pinch that information back to my desktop so I can use my full-size computer.
(Applause)
And why only computers? We can just play with papers. Paper world is interesting to play with. Here, I'm taking a part of a document and putting over here a second part from a second place -- and I'm actually modifying the information that I have over there. Yeah. And I say, "OK, this looks nice, let me print it out, that thing." So I now have a print-out of that thing, and now -- the workflow is more intuitive the way we used to do it maybe 20 years back, rather than now switching between these two worlds.
So, as a last thought, I think that integrating information to everyday objects will not only help us to get rid of the digital divide, the gap between these two worlds, but will also help us, in some way, to stay human, to be more connected to our physical world. And it will actually help us not end up being machines sitting in front of other machines.
That's all. Thank you.
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: So, Pranav, first of all, you're a genius. This is incredible, really. What are you doing with this? Is there a company being planned? Or is this research forever, or what?
Pranav Mistry: So, there are lots of companies -- actually sponsor companies of Media Lab -- interested in taking this ahead in one or another way. Companies like mobile phone operators want to take this in a different way than the NGOs in India, [who] are thinking, "Why can we only have 'Sixth Sense'? We should have a 'Fifth Sense' for missing-sense people who cannot speak. This technology can be used for them to speak out in a different way with maybe a speaker system."
CA: What are your own plans? Are you staying at MIT, or are you going to do something with this?
PM: I'm trying to make this more available to people so that anyone can develop their own SixthSense device, because the hardware is actually not that hard to manufacture or hard to make your own. We will provide all the open source software for them, maybe starting next month.
CA: Open source? Wow.
(Applause)
CA: Are you going to come back to India with some of this, at some point?
PM: Yeah. Yes, yes, of course.
CA: What are your plans? MIT? India? How are you going to split your time going forward?
PM: There is a lot of energy here. Lots of learning. All of this work that you have seen is all about my learning in India. And now, if you see, it's more about the cost-effectiveness: this system costs you $300 compared to the $20,000 surface tables, or anything like that. Or maybe even the $2 mouse gesture system at that time was costing around $5,000? So, we actually -- I showed that, at a conference, to President Abdul Kalam, at that time, and then he said, "OK, we should use this in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre for some use of that." So I'm excited about how I can bring the technology to the masses rather than just keeping that technology in the lab environment.
(Applause)
CA: Based on the people we've seen at TED, I would say you're truly one of the two or three best inventors in the world right now. It's an honor to have you at TED. Thank you so much. That's fantastic.
(Applause) |
Cartoons are basically short stories. I tried to find one that didn't have a whole lot of words. Not all of them have happy endings. So how did I get started cartooning? I doodled a lot as a kid, and if you spend enough time doodling, sooner or later, something happens: all your career options run out. So you have to make a living cartooning.
Actually, I fell in love with the ocean when I was a little boy, when I was about eight or nine. And I was particularly fascinated with sharks. This is some of my early work. Eventually, my mom took the red crayon away, so it was [unclear]. But I'd like to relay to you a childhood experience of mine that really made me see the ocean differently, and it's become the foundation of my work because, I feel like, if in a day, I can see the ocean differently, then I can evoke that same kind of change in others, especially kids. Before that day, this is how I saw the ocean. It's just a big blue surface. And this is how we've seen the ocean since the beginning of time. It's a mystery. There's been a lot of folklore developed around the ocean, mostly negative. And that prompted people to make maps like this, with all kinds of wonderful detail on the land, but when you get to the waters edge, the ocean looks like one giant puddle of blue paint. And this is the way I saw the ocean at school -- as if to say, "All geography and science lessons stop at water's edge. This part's not going to be on the test."
But that day I flew low over the islands -- it was a family trip to the Caribbean, and I flew in a small plane low over the islands. This is what I saw. I saw hills and valleys. I saw forests and meadows. I saw grottoes and secret gardens and places I'd love to hide as a kid, if I could only breathe underwater. And best of all, I saw the animals. I saw a manta ray that looked as big as the plane I was flying in. And I flew over a lagoon with a shark in it, and that was the day that my comic strip about a shark was born.
So from that day on, I was an ordinary kid walking around on dry land, but my head was down there, underwater. Up until that day, these were the animals that were most common in my life. These were the ones I'd like to draw -- all variations of four legs and fur. But when you got to the ocean, my imagination was no competition for nature. Every time I'd come up with a crazy cartoon character on the drawing board, I'd find a critter in the ocean that was even crazier. And the differences in scale between this tiny sea dragon and this enormous humpback whale was like something out of a science-fiction movie.
Whenever I talk to kids, I always like to tell them, the biggest animal that ever lived is still alive. It's not a dinosaur; it's a whale, animals as big as office buildings still swimming around out there in our ocean. Speaking of dinosaurs, sharks are basically the same fish they were 300 million years ago. So if you ever fantasize about going back in time and seeing what a dinosaur looked like, that's what a dinosaur looks like. So you have living dinosaurs and space aliens, animals that evolved in zero gravity in harsh conditions. It's just incredible; no Hollywood designer could come up with something more interesting than that. Or this fangtooth. The particles in the water make it look like it's floating in outer space. Could you image if we looked through the Hubble Telescope and we saw that? It would start a whole new space race. But instead, we stick a camera in the deep ocean, and we see a fish, and it doesn't capture our imagination as a society. We say to ourselves, "Maybe we can make fish sticks with it or something."
So, what I'd like to do now is try a little drawing. So, I'm going to try to draw this fangtooth here. I love to draw the deep sea fish, because they are so ugly, but beautiful in their own way. Maybe we can give him a little bioluminescence here -- give him a headlight, maybe a brake light, turn signals. But it's easy to see why these animals make such great cartoon characters, their shapes and sizes. So some of them actually seem to have powers like superheroes in a comic book. For instance, take these sea turtles. They kind of have a sixth sense like Superman's x-ray vision. They can sense the magnetic fields of the earth. And they can use that sense to navigate hundreds of miles of open ocean. I kind of give my turtle hands just to make them an easier cartoon character to work with. Or take this sea cucumber. It's not an animal we draw cartoons of or draw at all. He's like an underwater Spiderman. He shoots out these sticky webs to entangle his enemy. Of course, sea cucumbers shoot them out their rears, which, in my opinion, makes them much more interesting a superhero. (Laughter) He can't spin a web anytime; he's got to pull his pants down first.
(Laughter)
Or the blowfish. The blowfish is like the Incredible Hulk. It can change its body into a big, intimidating fish in a matter of seconds. I'm going to draw this blowfish uninflated. And then I'm going to attempt onscreen animation here. Let's see. Try and inflate it. (Laughter) "You talkin' to me?" See, he can inflate himself when he wants to be intimidating. Or take this swordfish. Could you imagine being born with a tool for a nose? Do you think he wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says, "Somebody's getting stabbed today." Or this lionfish for instance. Imagine trying to make friends covered with razor-sharp poisonous barbs. It's not something you want to put on your Facebook page, right?
My characters are -- my lead character's a shark named Sherman. He's a great white shark. And I kind of broke the mold with Sherman. I didn't want to go with this ruthless predator image. He's kind of just out there making a living. He's sort of a Homer Simpson with fins. And then his sidekick is a sea turtle, as I mentioned before, named Filmore. He uses his wonderful skills at navigation to wander the oceans, looking for a mate. And he does manage to find them, but great navigation skills, lousy pick-up lines. He never seems to settle on any particular girl. I have a hermit crab named Hawthorne, who doesn't get a lot of respect as a hermit crab, so he kind of wishes he were a great white shark. And then I'll introduce you to one more character, this guy, Ernest, who is basically a juvenile delinquent in a fish body.
So with characters, you can make stories. Sometimes making a story is as easy as putting two characters in a room and seeing what happens. So, imagine a great white shark and a giant squid in the same bathroom. (Laughter) Or, sometimes I take them to places that people have never heard of because they're underwater. For instance, I took them skiing in the Mid-Atlantic Range, which is this range of mountains in the middle of the Atlantic. I've taken them to the Sea of Japan, where they met giant jellyfish. I've taken them camping in the kelp forests of California.
This next one here, I did a story on the census of marine life. And that was a lot of fun because, as most of you know, it's a real project we've heard about. But it was a chance for me to introduce readers to a lot of crazy undersea characters. So we start off the story with Ernest, who volunteers as a census taker. He goes down and he meets this famous anglerfish. Then he meets the yeti crab, the famous vampire squid -- elusive, hard to find -- and the Dumbo octopus, which looks so much like a cartoon in real life that really didn't have to change a thing when I drew it.
I did another story on marine debris. I was speaking to a lot of my friends in the conservation business, and they -- I asked them, "So what's one issue you would like everyone to know more about?" And they said -- this one friend of mine said, "I've got one word for you: plastic." And I told him, "Well, I need something a little sexier than that. Plastic just is not going to do it." We sort of worked things out. He wanted me to use words like polyvinyl chloride, which doesn't really work in voice balloons very well. I couldn't fit them in. So what I did was I made an adventure strip.
Basically, this bottle travels a long way. What I'm trying to tell readers is that plastic doesn't really go away; it just continues to wash downstream. And a lot of it ends up washing into the ocean, which is a great story if you attach a couple characters to it, especially if they can't stand each other, like these two. So, I sent them to Boise, Idaho, where they dropped a plastic bottle into the Boise sewer system. And it ended up in the Boise River and then on to the Columbia River and then to the mouth of the Columbia and to the Pacific Ocean and then on to this place called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch -- which is this giant Pacific gyre in the North Pacific, where a lot of this plastic ends up floating around -- and then back onto the lagoon. So that was basically a buddy story with a plastic bottle following along. So a lot of people remember the plastic bottle anyway, but we really talked about marine debris and plastic in the course of that one.
The third storyline I did about a year and a half ago was probably my most difficult. It was on shark finning, and I felt really strongly about this issue. And I felt like, since my main character was a shark, the comic strip was a perfect vehicle for telling the public about this. Now, finning is the act of taking a shark, cutting the valuable fins off and throwing the live animal back in the water. It's cruel, it's wasteful. There's nothing funny or entertaining about it, but I really wanted to take this issue on. I had to kill my main character, who is a shark.
We start with Sherman in a Chinese restaurant, who gets a fortune that he's about to get caught by a trawler, which he does. And then he dies. He gets finned, and then he gets thrown overboard. Ostensibly, he's dead now. And so I killed a character that's been in the newspaper for 15 years. So I got a lot of reader feedback on that one. Meanwhile, the other characters are talking about shark fin soup. I do three or four strips after that where we explore the finning issue and the shark fin soup issue. Sherman's up in shark heaven. This is what I love about comic strips, you know. You really don't have to worry about the audience suspending its sense of disbelief because, if you start with a talking shark, readers pretty much check their disbelief at the door. You can kind of do anything. It becomes a near-death experience for Sherman. Meanwhile, Ernest finds his fins on the internet. There was a real website based in China that actually sold shark fins, so I kind of exposed that. And he clicks the "buy now" button. And voila, next-day air, they show up, and they surgically reattach them. I ended that series with a kind of a mail-in petition that encouraged our National Marine Fishery Service, to force other countries to have a stronger stance with shark management.
(Applause)
Thanks. I'd like to end with a little metaphor here. I've been trying to think of a metaphor to represent Mission Blue, and this is what I came up with. Imagine you're in an enormous room, and it's as dark as a cave. And you can have anything in that room, anything you want, but you can't see anything. You've been given one tool, a hammer. So you wander around in the darkness, and you bump into something, and it feels like it's made of stone. It's big, it's heavy. You can't carry it away, so you bang it with your hammer, and you break off a piece. And you take the piece out into the daylight. And you see you have a beautiful piece of white alabaster. So you say to yourself, "Well, that's worth something." So you go back into the room, and you break this thing to pieces, and you haul it away. And you find other things, and you break that up, and you haul those away. And you're getting all kinds of cool stuff. And you hear other people doing the same thing. So you get this sense of urgency, like you need to find as much stuff as possible as soon as possible. And then some yells, "Stop!" And they turn up the lights. And you realize where you are; you're in the Louvre. And you've taken all this complexity and beauty, and you've turned it into a cheap commodity.
And that's what we're doing with the ocean. And part of what Mission Blue is about is yelling, "Stop!" so that each of us -- explorer, scientist, cartoonist, singer, chef -- can turn up the lights in their own way. And that's what I hope my comic strip does in a small way. That's why I like what I do.
Thanks for listening.
(Applause) |
There's a group of people in Kenya. People cross oceans to go see them. These people are tall. They jump high. They wear red. And they kill lions. You might be wondering, who are these people? These are the Maasais. And you know what's cool? I'm actually one of them.
The Maasais, the boys are brought up to be warriors. The girls are brought up to be mothers. When I was five years old, I found out that I was engaged to be married as soon as I reached puberty. My mother, my grandmother, my aunties, they constantly reminded me that your husband just passed by. (Laughter) Cool, yeah? And everything I had to do from that moment was to prepare me to be a perfect woman at age 12. My day started at 5 in the morning, milking the cows, sweeping the house, cooking for my siblings, collecting water, firewood. I did everything that I needed to do to become a perfect wife.
I went to school not because the Maasais' women or girls were going to school. It's because my mother was denied an education, and she constantly reminded me and my siblings that she never wanted us to live the life she was living. Why did she say that? My father worked as a policeman in the city. He came home once a year. We didn't see him for sometimes even two years. And whenever he came home, it was a different case. My mother worked hard in the farm to grow crops so that we can eat. She reared the cows and the goats so that she can care for us. But when my father came, he would sell the cows, he would sell the products we had, and he went and drank with his friends in the bars. Because my mother was a woman, she was not allowed to own any property, and by default, everything in my family anyway belongs to my father, so he had the right. And if my mother ever questioned him, he beat her, abused her, and really it was difficult.
When I went to school, I had a dream. I wanted to become a teacher. Teachers looked nice. They wear nice dresses, high-heeled shoes. I found out later that they are uncomfortable, but I admired it. (Laughter) But most of all, the teacher was just writing on the board -- not hard work, that's what I thought, compared to what I was doing in the farm. So I wanted to become a teacher.
I worked hard in school, but when I was in eighth grade, it was a determining factor. In our tradition, there is a ceremony that girls have to undergo to become women, and it's a rite of passage to womanhood. And then I was just finishing my eighth grade, and that was a transition for me to go to high school. This was the crossroad. Once I go through this tradition, I was going to become a wife. Well, my dream of becoming a teacher will not come to pass. So I talked -- I had to come up with a plan to figure these things out. I talked to my father. I did something that most girls have never done. I told my father, "I will only go through this ceremony if you let me go back to school." The reason why, if I ran away, my father will have a stigma, people will be calling him the father of that girl who didn't go through the ceremony. It was a shameful thing for him to carry the rest of his life. So he figured out. "Well," he said, "okay, you'll go to school after the ceremony."
I did. The ceremony happened. It's a whole week long of excitement. It's a ceremony. People are enjoying it. And the day before the actual ceremony happens, we were dancing, having excitement, and through all the night we did not sleep. The actual day came, and we walked out of the house that we were dancing in. Yes, we danced and danced. We walked out to the courtyard, and there were a bunch of people waiting. They were all in a circle. And as we danced and danced, and we approached this circle of women, men, women, children, everybody was there. There was a woman sitting in the middle of it, and this woman was waiting to hold us. I was the first. There were my sisters and a couple of other girls, and as I approached her, she looked at me, and I sat down. And I sat down, and I opened my legs. As I opened my leg, another woman came, and this woman was carrying a knife. And as she carried the knife, she walked toward me and she held the clitoris, and she cut it off.
As you can imagine, I bled. I bled. After bleeding for a while, I fainted thereafter. It's something that so many girls -- I'm lucky, I never died -- but many die. It's practiced, it's no anesthesia, it's a rusty old knife, and it was difficult. I was lucky because one, also, my mom did something that most women don't do. Three days later, after everybody has left the home, my mom went and brought a nurse. We were taken care of. Three weeks later, I was healed, and I was back in high school. I was so determined to be a teacher now so that I could make a difference in my family.
Well, while I was in high school, something happened. I met a young gentleman from our village who had been to the University of Oregon. This man was wearing a white t-shirt, jeans, camera, white sneakers -- and I'm talking about white sneakers. There is something about clothes, I think, and shoes. They were sneakers, and this is in a village that doesn't even have paved roads. It was quite attractive.
I told him, "Well, I want to go to where you are," because this man looked very happy, and I admired that.
And he told me, "Well, what do you mean, you want to go? Don't you have a husband waiting for you?"
And I told him, "Don't worry about that part. Just tell me how to get there."
This gentleman, he helped me. While I was in high school also, my dad was sick. He got a stroke, and he was really, really sick, so he really couldn't tell me what to do next. But the problem is, my father is not the only father I have. Everybody who is my dad's age, male in the community, is my father by default -- my uncles, all of them -- and they dictate what my future is.
So the news came, I applied to school and I was accepted to Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia, and I couldn't come without the support of the village, because I needed to raise money to buy the air ticket. I got a scholarship but I needed to get myself here. But I needed the support of the village, and here again, when the men heard, and the people heard that a woman had gotten an opportunity to go to school, they said, "What a lost opportunity. This should have been given to a boy. We can't do this."
So I went back and I had to go back to the tradition. There's a belief among our people that morning brings good news. So I had to come up with something to do with the morning, because there's good news in the morning. And in the village also, there is one chief, an elder, who if he says yes, everybody will follow him. So I went to him very early in the morning, as the sun rose. The first thing he sees when he opens his door is, it's me.
"My child, what are you doing here?"
"Well, Dad, I need help. Can you support me to go to America?" I promised him that I would be the best girl, I will come back, anything they wanted after that, I will do it for them.
He said, "Well, but I can't do it alone." He gave me a list of another 15 men that I went -- 16 more men -- every single morning I went and visited them. They all came together. The village, the women, the men, everybody came together to support me to come to get an education.
I arrived in America. As you can imagine, what did I find? I found snow! I found Wal-Marts, vacuum cleaners, and lots of food in the cafeteria. I was in a land of plenty.
I enjoyed myself, but during that moment while I was here, I discovered a lot of things. I learned that that ceremony that I went through when I was 13 years old, it was called female genital mutilation. I learned that it was against the law in Kenya. I learned that I did not have to trade part of my body to get an education. I had a right. And as we speak right now, three million girls in Africa are at risk of going through this mutilation. I learned that my mom had a right to own property. I learned that she did not have to be abused because she is a woman. Those things made me angry. I wanted to do something. As I went back, every time I went, I found that my neighbors' girls were getting married. They were getting mutilated, and here, after I graduated from here, I worked at the U.N., I went back to school to get my graduate work, the constant cry of these girls was in my face. I had to do something.
As I went back, I started talking to the men, to the village, and mothers, and I said, "I want to give back the way I had promised you that I would come back and help you. What do you need?"
As I spoke to the women, they told me, "You know what we need? We really need a school for girls." Because there had not been any school for girls. And the reason they wanted the school for girls is because when a girl is raped when she's walking to school, the mother is blamed for that. If she got pregnant before she got married, the mother is blamed for that, and she's punished. She's beaten. They said, "We wanted to put our girls in a safe place."
As we moved, and I went to talk to the fathers, the fathers, of course, you can imagine what they said: "We want a school for boys."
And I said, "Well, there are a couple of men from my village who have been out and they have gotten an education. Why can't they build a school for boys, and I'll build a school for girls?" That made sense. And they agreed. And I told them, I wanted them to show me a sign of commitment. And they did. They donated land where we built the girls' school. We have.
I want you to meet one of the girls in that school. Angeline came to apply for the school, and she did not meet any criteria that we had. She's an orphan. Yes, we could have taken her for that. But she was older. She was 12 years old, and we were taking girls who were in fourth grade. Angeline had been moving from one place -- because she's an orphan, she has no mother, she has no father -- moving from one grandmother's house to another one, from aunties to aunties. She had no stability in her life. And I looked at her, I remember that day, and I saw something beyond what I was seeing in Angeline. And yes, she was older to be in fourth grade. We gave her the opportunity to come to the class. Five months later, that is Angeline. A transformation had begun in her life. Angeline wants to be a pilot so she can fly around the world and make a difference. She was not the top student when we took her. Now she's the best student, not just in our school, but in the entire division that we are in. That's Sharon. That's five years later. That's Evelyn. Five months later, that is the difference that we are making.
As a new dawn is happening in my school, a new beginning is happening. As we speak right now, 125 girls will never be mutilated. One hundred twenty-five girls will not be married when they're 12 years old. One hundred twenty-five girls are creating and achieving their dreams. This is the thing that we are doing, giving them opportunities where they can rise. As we speak right now, women are not being beaten because of the revolutions we've started in our community.
(Applause)
I want to challenge you today. You are listening to me because you are here, very optimistic. You are somebody who is so passionate. You are somebody who wants to see a better world. You are somebody who wants to see that war ends, no poverty. You are somebody who wants to make a difference. You are somebody who wants to make our tomorrow better. I want to challenge you today that to be the first, because people will follow you. Be the first. People will follow you. Be bold. Stand up. Be fearless. Be confident. Move out, because as you change your world, as you change your community, as we believe that we are impacting one girl, one family, one village, one country at a time. We are making a difference, so if you change your world, you are going to change your community, you are going to change your country, and think about that. If you do that, and I do that, aren't we going to create a better future for our children, for your children, for our grandchildren? And we will live in a very peaceful world. Thank you very much.
(Applause) |
I have a story, a story that I would like to share with you. And it's an African story. It is a story of hope, resilience and glamour.
There was Hollywood. Then came Bollywood. Today we have Nollywood, the third-largest film industry in the world. In 2006 alone, almost 2,000 films were made in Nigeria. Now, try to imagine 40, 50 films wrapped, distributed, every week in the streets of Lagos, Nigeria and West Africa. Some estimates put the value of this industry at 250 million dollars. It has created thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs. And it's expanding. But keep in mind that this was a grassroots movement. This is something that happened without foreign investment, without government aid, and actually, it happened against all odds, in one of the most difficult moments in Nigerian economy. The industry is 15 years old.
And so maybe you're thinking now, why, how, an Italian filmmaker based in Boston is so interested in this story? And so I think I have to tell you just a few words, a few things about my personal life, because I think there is a connection. My grandfather lived most of his life and is buried in Zambia. My father also lived most of his adult life in East Africa. And I was born in Zambia. Even though I left when I was only three years old, I really felt that Africa was this big part of my life. And it really was a place where I learned to walk. I think I uttered the first words, and my family bought their first home. So when we came back to Italy, and one of the things that I remember the most is my family having this hard time to share stories. It seemed that for our neighbors and friends, Africa was either this exotic place, this imaginary land that probably exists only in their imagination, or the place of horror, famine. And so we were always caught in this stereotype. And I remember really this desire to talk about Africa as a place where we lived and people live and go about their lives, and have dreams like we all have. So when I read in a newspaper in the business page the story of Nollywood, I really felt this is an incredible opportunity to tell a story that goes against all these preconceived notions.
Here I can tell a story of Africans making movies like I do, and actually I felt this was an inspiration for me. I have the good fortune of being a filmmaker-in-residence at the Center of Digital Imaging Arts at Boston University. And we really look how digital technology is changing, and how young, independent filmmakers can make movies at a fraction of the cost. So when I proposed the story, I really had all the support to make this film. And not only had the support, I found two wonderful partners in crime in this adventure. Aimee Corrigan, a very talented and young photographer, and Robert Caputo, a friend and a mentor, who is a veteran of National Geographic, and told me, "You know, Franco, in 25 years of covering Africa, I don't know if I have come across a story that is so full of hope and so fun."
So we went to Lagos in October 2005. And we went to Lagos to meet Bond Emeruwa, a wonderful, talented film director who is with us tonight. The plan was to give you a portrait of Nollywood, of this incredible film industry, following Bond in his quest to make an action movie that deals with the issue of corruption, called "Checkpoint." Police corruption. And he had nine days to make it. We thought this was a good story.
In the meantime, we had to cover Nollywood, and we talked to a lot of filmmakers. But I don't want to create too many expectations. I would like to show you six minutes. And these are six minutes they really prepared for the TED audience. There are several themes from the documentary, but they are re-edited and made for you, OK? So I guess it's a world premier.
(Video) Man: Action. Milverton Nwokedi: You cut a nice movie with just 10,000 dollars in Nigeria here. And you shoot in seven days. Peace Piberesima: We're doing films for the masses. We're not doing films for the elite and the people in their glass houses. They can afford to watch their "Robocop" and whatever. Mahmood Ali Balogun: I think filmmaking in Nigeria, for those who work in it, is a kind of subsistence filmmaking -- what they do to make a living. It's not the fancy filmmaking where you say, oh, you want to put all the razzmatazz of Hollywood, and where you have big budgets.
Here is that you make these films, it sells, you jump onto the location again to make another film, because if you don't make the next film, you're not going to feed. Bond Emeruwa: So while we're entertaining, we should be able to educate.
I believe in the power of audiovisuals. I mean, 90 percent of the population will watch Nollywood. I think it's the most viable vehicle right now to pass information across a dedicated cable. So if you're making a movie, no matter what your topic is, put in a message in there. Woman: You still have to report the incident. He needs proper medical attention. PP: I keep trying to explain to people, it's not about the quality at the moment -- the quality is coming. I mean, there are those films that people are making for quality, but the first thing you have to remember about this society is that Africa still has people that live on one dollar a day, and these are the people that really watch these films.
Sonny McDon W: Nollywood is a fantastic industry that has just been born in this part of the world. Because nobody believed that Nollywood can come out of Africa. Lancelot Imasen: But our films, they are stories that our people can relate to themselves. They are stories about our people, for our people. And consistently, they are glued to their screen whenever they see the story. Narrator: Suspense, fun and intrigue. It's the blockbuster comedy. You'll crack your ribs.
Bernard Pinayon Agbaosi: We have been so deep into the foreign movies. It's all about the foreign movies. But we can do something too. We can do something, something that when the world sees it, they say, wow, this is Nigeria. Man: Just arrest yourself, sergeant. Don't embarrass yourself. Come on. Don't run away. Come back. Come back.
SMW: You can now walk the street and see a role model. It’s not just what you see in picture. You see the person live. You see how he talks. You see how he lives. He influences you really good, you know. It’s not just what you see in the picture. It is not what you hear, you know, from the Western press. Man: See you. Bye. Action.
Saint Obi: I was so fascinated, you know, with those cowboy movies. But then when I discovered the situation in my country, at that time there was so much corruption. For a young man to really make it out here, you got to think of some negative things and all that, or some kind of vices. And I didn't want that, you know. And I discovered that I could be successful in life as an actor, without doing crime, without cheating nobody, without telling no lies. Just me and God-given talent. Man: Let's go. OK, it's time to kick some ass. Cover this. It's your own. Move it.
Roboger Animadu: In big countries, when they do the movies, they have all these things in place. But here, we improvise these items, like the gunshots. Like they go, here, now, now, you see the gun there, but you won't see any guns shot, we use knock-out. Kevin Books Ikeduba: What I'm scared of is just the explosion will come up in my face. Woman: That's why I use enough masking tape. The masking tape will hold it. Wat, wait. Just hold this for me. KBI: I'm just telling her to make sure she places it well so that it won't affect my face -- the explosion, you know. But she's a professional. She knows what she’s doing. I'm trying to protect my face too. This ain't going to be my last movie. You know, this is Nollywood, where the magic lives.
RA: So now you're about to see how we do our own movies here, with or without any assistance from anybody. Man: Action. Cut. (Applause)
Franco Sacchi: So many things to say, so little time. So many themes in this story. I just can't tell you -- there’s one thing I want to tell you. I spent, you know, several weeks with all these actors, producers, and the problems they have to go through are unimaginable for, you know, a Westerner, a filmmaker who works in America or in Europe. But always with a smile, always with an enthusiasm, that is incredible.
Werner Herzog, the German filmmaker said, "I need to make movies like you need oxygen." And I think they’re breathing. The Nigerian filmmakers really, really, are doing what they like. And so it's a very, very important thing for them, and for their audiences. A woman told me, "When I see a Nollywood film, I can relax, I really -- I can breathe better."
There is also another very important thing that I hope will resonate with this audience. It’s technology. I’m very interested in it and I really think that the digital non-linear editing has slashed, you know, the cost now is a fraction of what it used to be. Incredible cameras cost under 5,000 dollars. And this has unleashed tremendous energy. And guess what? We didn’t have to tell to the Nigerian filmmakers. They understood it, they embraced the technology and they run with it, and they’re successful. I hope that the Nollywood phenomenon will go both ways. I hope it will inspire other African nations to embrace the technology, look at the Nigerian model, make their films, create jobs, create a narrative for the population, something to identify, something positive, something that really is psychological relief and it's part of the culture. But I really think this is a phenomenon that can inspire us. I really think it goes both ways.
Filmmakers, friends of mine, they look at Nollywood and they say, "Wow, they are doing what we really want to do, and make a buck and live with this job." So I really think it’s a lesson that we're actually learning from them. And there's one thing, one small challenge that I have for you, and should make us reflect on the importance of storytelling. And I think this is really the theme of this session. Try to imagine a world where the only goal is food and a shelter, but no stories. No stories around the campfire. No legends, no fairytales. Nothing. No novels. Difficult, eh? It's meaningless.
So this is what I really think. I think that the key to a healthy society is a thriving community of storytellers, and I think that the Nigerian filmmakers really have proved this. I would like you to hear their voices. Just a few moments. It’s not an added sequence, just some voices from Nollywood.
(Video) Toyin Alousa: Nollywood is the best thing that can happen to them. If you have an industry that puts a smile on people's face, that’s Nollywood. SO: I believe very soon, we’re not only going to have better movies, we'll have that original Nigerian movie. BE: It’s still the same basic themes. Love, action. But we're telling it our own way, our own Nigerian way, African way. We have diverse cultures, diverse cultures, there are so many, that in the natal lifetimes, I don't see us exhausting the stories we have.
FS: My job ends here, and the Nollywood filmmakers really have now to work. And I really hope that there will be many, many collaborations, where we teach each other things. And I really hope that this will happen. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Chris Anderson: Stop. I've got two questions. Franco, you described this as the world's third largest film industry. What does that translate to in terms of numbers of films, really?
FS: Oh, yes. I think I mentioned briefly -- it's close to 2,000 films. There is scientific data on this.
CA: 2,000 films a year? FS: 2,000 films a year. 2005 or 6, the censor board has censored 1,600 films alone. And we know that there are more. So it’s safe to say that there are 2,000 films. So imagine 45 films per week. There are challenges. There are challenges. There is a glut of film, the quality has to be raised, they need to go to the next level, but I’m optimistic.
CA: And these aren’t films that are primarily seen in cinemas?
FS: Oh yes, of course. This is very important. Maybe, you know, for you to try to imagine this, these are films that are distributed directly in markets. They are bought in video shops. They can be rented for pennies.
CA: On what format?
FS: Oh, the format -- thank you for the question. Yes, it's VCDs. It's a CD, it's a little bit more compressed image. They started with VHS. They actually didn't wait for, you know, the latest technology. They started in '92, '94. So there are 57 million VCRs in Nigeria that play, you know, VHS and these VCDs. It's a CD basically. It's a compact disc.
CA: So on the streets, are film casts ... ?
FS: You can be in a Lagos traffic jam and you can buy a movie or some bananas or some water. Yes. (Laughter) And I have to say, this really proves that storytelling, it's a commodity, it's a staple. There is no life without stories.
CA: Franco, thank you so much. |
We are at a remarkable moment in time. We face over the next two decades two fundamental transformations that will determine whether the next 100 years is the best of centuries or the worst of centuries.
Let me illustrate with an example. I first visited Beijing 25 years ago to teach at the People's University of China. China was getting serious about market economics and about university education, so they decided to call in the foreign experts. Like most other people, I moved around Beijing by bicycle. Apart from dodging the occasional vehicle, it was a safe and easy way to get around. Cycling in Beijing now is a completely different prospect. The roads are jammed by cars and trucks. The air is dangerously polluted from the burning of coal and diesel. When I was there last in the spring, there was an advisory for people of my age — over 65 — to stay indoors and not move much.
How did this come about? It came from the way in which Beijing has grown as a city. It's doubled over those 25 years, more than doubled, from 10 million to 20 million. It's become a sprawling urban area dependent on dirty fuel, dirty energy, particularly coal. China burns half the world's coal each year, and that's why, it is a key reason why, it is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. At the same time, we have to recognize that in that period China has grown remarkably. It has become the world's second largest economy. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. That's really important. But at the same time, the people of China are asking the question: What's the value of this growth if our cities are unlivable? They've analyzed, diagnosed that this is an unsustainable path of growth and development. China's planning to scale back coal. It's looking to build its cities in different ways.
Now, the growth of China is part of a dramatic change, fundamental change, in the structure of the world economy. Just 25 years ago, the developing countries, the poorer countries of the world, were, notwithstanding being the vast majority of the people, they accounted for only about a third of the world's output. Now it's more than half; 25 years from now, it will probably be two thirds from the countries that we saw 25 years ago as developing. That's a remarkable change. It means that most countries around the world, rich or poor, are going to be facing the two fundamental transformations that I want to talk about and highlight.
Now, the first of these transformations is the basic structural change of the economies and societies that I've already begun to illustrate through the description of Beijing. Fifty percent now in urban areas. That's going to go to 70 percent in 2050. Over the next two decades, we'll see the demand for energy rise by 40 percent, and the growth in the economy and in the population is putting increasing pressure on our land, on our water and on our forests.
This is profound structural change. If we manage it in a negligent or a shortsighted way, we will create waste, pollution, congestion, destruction of land and forests. If we think of those three areas that I have illustrated with my numbers — cities, energy, land — if we manage all that badly, then the outlook for the lives and livelihoods of the people around the world would be poor and damaged. And more than that, the emissions of greenhouse gases would rise, with immense risks to our climate. Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are already higher than they've been for millions of years. If we go on increasing those concentrations, we risk temperatures over the next century or so that we have not seen on this planet for tens of millions of years. We've been around as Homo sapiens — that's a rather generous definition, sapiens — for perhaps a quarter of a million years, a quarter of a million. We risk temperatures we haven't seen for tens of millions of years over a century. That would transform the relationship between human beings and the planet. It would lead to changing deserts, changing rivers, changing patterns of hurricanes, changing sea levels, hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions of people who would have to move, and if we've learned anything from history, that means severe and extended conflict.
And we couldn't just turn it off. You can't make a peace treaty with the planet. You can't negotiate with the laws of physics. You're in there. You're stuck. Those are the stakes we're playing for, and that's why we have to make this second transformation, the climate transformation, and move to a low-carbon economy. Now, the first of these transformations is going to happen anyway. We have to decide whether to do it well or badly, the economic, or structural, transformation. But the second of the transformations, the climate transformations, we have to decide to do. Those two transformations face us in the next two decades. The next two decades are decisive for what we have to do. Now, the more I've thought about this, the two transformations coming together, the more I've come to realize that this is an enormous opportunity. It's an opportunity which we can use or it's an opportunity which we can lose. And let me explain through those three key areas that I've identified: cities, energy and land. And let me start with cities. I've already described the problems of Beijing: pollution, congestion, waste and so on. Surely we recognize that in many of our cities around the world.
Now, with cities, like life but particularly cities, you have to think ahead. The cities that are going to be built — and there are many, and many big ones — we have to think of how to design them in a compact way so we can save travel time and we can save energy. The cities that already are there, well established, we have to think about renewal and investment in them so that we can connect ourselves much better within those cities, and make it easier, encourage more people, to live closer to the center. We've got examples building around the world of the kinds of ways in which we can do that. The bus rapid transport system in Bogotá in Colombia is a very important case of how to move around safely and quickly in a non-polluting way in a city: very frequent buses, strongly protected routes, the same service, really, as an underground railway system, but much, much cheaper and can be done much more quickly, a brilliant idea in many more cities around the world that's developing.
Now, some things in cities do take time. Some things in cities can happen much more quickly. Take my hometown, London. In 1952, smog in London killed 4,000 people and badly damaged the lives of many, many more. And it happened all the time. For those of you live outside London in the U.K. will remember it used to be called The Smoke. That's the way London was. By regulating coal, within a few years the problems of smog were rapidly reduced. I remember the smogs well. When the visibility dropped to [less] than a few meters, they stopped the buses and I had to walk. This was the 1950s. I had to walk home three miles from school. Again, breathing was a hazardous activity. But it was changed. It was changed by a decision. Good decisions can bring good results, striking results, quickly.
We've seen more: In London, we've introduced the congestion charge, actually quite quickly and effectively, and we've seen great improvements in the bus system, and cleaned up the bus system. You can see that the two transformations I've described, the structural and the climate, come very much together. But we have to invest. We have to invest in our cities, and we have to invest wisely, and if we do, we'll see cleaner cities, quieter cities, safer cities, more attractive cities, more productive cities, and stronger community in those cities — public transport, recycling, reusing, all sorts of things that bring communities together. We can do that, but we have to think, we have to invest, we have to plan.
Let me turn to energy. Now, energy over the last 25 years has increased by about 50 percent. Eighty percent of that comes from fossil fuels. Over the next 20 years, perhaps it will increase by another 40 percent or so. We have to invest strongly in energy, we have to use it much more efficiently, and we have to make it clean. We can see how to do that. Take the example of California. It would be in the top 10 countries in the world if it was independent. I don't want to start any — (Laughter) California's a big place. (Laughter) In the next five or six years, they will likely move from around 20 percent in renewables — wind, solar and so on — to over 33 percent, and that would bring California back to greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to where they were in 1990, a period when the economy in California would more or less have doubled. That's a striking achievement. It shows what can be done. Not just California — the incoming government of India is planning to get solar technology to light up the homes of 400 million people who don't have electricity in India. They've set themselves a target of five years. I think they've got a good chance of doing that. We'll see, but what you're seeing now is people moving much more quickly. Four hundred million, more than the population of the United States. Those are the kinds of ambitions now people are setting themselves in terms of rapidity of change. Again, you can see good decisions can bring quick results, and those two transformations, the economy and the structure and the climate and the low carbon, are intimately intertwined. Do the first one well, the structural, the second one on the climate becomes much easier.
Look at land, land and particularly forests. Forests are the hosts to valuable plant and animal species. They hold water in the soil and they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, fundamental to the tackling of climate change. But we're losing our forests. In the last decade, we've lost a forest area the size of Portugal, and much more has been degraded. But we're already seeing that we can do so much about that. We can recognize the problem, but we can also understand how to tackle it. In Brazil, the rate of deforestation has been reduced by 70 percent over the last 10 years. How? By involving local communities, investing in their agriculture and their economies, by monitoring more carefully, by enforcing the law more strictly.
And it's not just stopping deforestation. That's of course of first and fundamental importance, but it's also regrading degraded land, regenerating, rehabilitating degraded land. I first went to Ethiopia in 1967. It was desperately poor. In the following years, it suffered devastating famines and profoundly destructive social conflict. Over the last few years, actually more than a few, Ethiopia has been growing much more rapidly. It has ambitions to be a middle-income country 15 years from now and to be carbon neutral. Again, I think it's a strong ambition but it is a plausible one. You're seeing that commitment there. You're seeing what can be done. Ethiopia is investing in clean energy. It's working in the rehabilitation of land. In Humbo, in southwest Ethiopia, a wonderful project to plant trees on degraded land and work with local communities on sustainable forest management has led to big increases in living standards.
So we can see, from Beijing to London, from California to India, from Brazil to Ethiopia, we do understand how to manage those two transformations, the structural and the climate. We do understand how to manage those well. And technology is changing very rapidly. I don't have to list all those things to an audience like this, but you can see the electric cars, you can see the batteries using new materials. You can see that we can manage remotely now our household appliances on our mobile phones when we're away. You can see better insulation. And there's much more coming.
But, and it's a big but, the world as a whole is moving far too slowly. We're not cutting emissions in the way we should. We're not managing those structural transformations as we can. The depth of understanding of the immense risks of climate change are not there yet. The depth of understanding of the attractiveness of what we can do is not there yet. We need political pressure to build. We need leaders to step up. We can have better growth, better climate, a better world. We can make, by managing those two transformations well, the next 100 years the best of centuries. If we make a mess of it, we, you and me, if we make a mess of it, if we don't manage those transformations properly, it will be, the next 100 years will be the worst of centuries. That's the major conclusion of the report on the economy and climate chaired by ex-President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, and I co-chaired that with him, and we handed that report yesterday here in New York, in the United Nations Building to the Secretary-General of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon. We know that we can do this.
Now, two weeks ago, I became a grandfather for the fourth time. Our daughter — (Baby cries) (Laughter) (Applause) — Our daughter gave birth to Rosa here in New York two weeks ago. Here are Helen and Rosa. (Applause) Two weeks old. Are we going to look our grandchildren in the eye and tell them that we understood the issues, that we recognized the dangers and the opportunities, and still we failed to act? Surely not. Let's make the next 100 years the best of centuries.
(Applause) |
Alright. I'm going to show you a couple of images from a very diverting paper in The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that it is the most diverting paper ever published in The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. The title is "Observations of In-Utero Masturbation." (Laughter) Okay. Now on the left you can see the hand -- that's the big arrow -- and the penis on the right. The hand hovering. And over here we have, in the words of radiologist Israel Meisner, "The hand grasping the penis in a fashion resembling masturbation movements." Bear in mind this was an ultrasound, so it would have been moving images.
Orgasm is a reflex of the autonomic nervous system. Now this is the part of the nervous system that deals with the things that we don't consciously control, like digestion, heart rate and sexual arousal. And the orgasm reflex can be triggered by a surprisingly broad range of input. Genital stimulation. Duh. But also Kinsey interviewed a woman who could be brought to orgasm by having someone stroke her eyebrow. People with spinal cord injuries, like paraplegias, quadriplegias, will often develop a very, very sensitive area right above the level of their injury, wherever that is. There is such a thing as a knee orgasm in the literature.
I think the most curious one that I came across was a case report of a woman who had an orgasm every time she brushed her teeth. (Laughter) This was something in the complex sensory-motor action of brushing her teeth was triggering orgasm. And she went to a neurologist who was fascinated. He checked to see if it was something in the toothpaste, but no -- it happened with any brand. They stimulated her gums with a toothpick, to see if that was doing it. No. It was the whole, you know, motion. And the amazing thing to me is that now you would think this woman would like have excellent oral hygiene. (Laughter) Sadly she -- this is what it said in the journal paper -- "She believed that she was possessed by demons and switched to mouthwash for her oral care." It's so sad.
(Laughter)
I interviewed, when I was working on the book, I interviewed a woman who can think herself to orgasm. She was part of a study at Rutgers University. You gotta love that. Rutgers. So I interviewed her in Oakland, in a sushi restaurant. And I said, "So, could you do it right here?" And she said, "Yeah, but you know I'd rather finish my meal if you don't mind." (Laughter) But afterwards she was kind enough to demonstrate on a bench outside. It was remarkable. It took about one minute. And I said to her, "Are you just doing this all the time?" (Laughter) She said, "No. Honestly when I get home I'm usually too tired." (Laughter) She said that the last time she had done it was on the Disneyland tram.
(Laughter)
The headquarters for orgasm, along the spinal nerve, is something called the sacral nerve root, which is back here. And if you trigger, if you stimulate with an electrode, the precise spot, you will trigger an orgasm. And it is a fact that you can trigger spinal reflexes in dead people -- a certain kind of dead person, a beating-heart cadaver. Now this is somebody who is brain-dead, legally dead, definitely checked out, but is being kept alive on a respirator, so that their organs will be oxygenated for transplantation. Now in one of these brain-dead people, if you trigger the right spot, you will see something every now and then. There is a reflex called the Lazarus reflex. And this is -- I'll demonstrate as best I can, not being dead. It's like this. You trigger the spot. The dead guy, or gal, goes ... like that. Very unsettling for people working in pathology labs.
(Laughter)
Now if you can trigger the Lazarus reflex in a dead person, why not the orgasm reflex? I asked this question to a brain death expert, Stephanie Mann, who was foolish enough to return my emails. (Laughter) I said, "So, could you conceivably trigger an orgasm in a dead person?" She said, "Yes, if the sacral nerve is being oxygenated, you conceivably could." Obviously it wouldn't be as much fun for the person. But it would be an orgasm -- (Laughter) nonetheless. I actually suggested to -- there is a researcher at the University of Alabama who does orgasm research. I said to her, "You should do an experiment. You know? You can get cadavers if you work at a university." I said, "You should actually do this." She said, "You get the human subjects review board approval for this one."
(Laughter)
According to 1930s marriage manual author, Theodoor van de Velde, a slight seminal odor can be detected on the breath of a woman within about an hour after sexual intercourse. Theodoor van de Velde was something of a semen connoisseur. (Laughter) This is a guy writing a book, "Ideal Marriage," you know. Very heavy hetero guy. But he wrote in this book, "Ideal Marriage" -- he said that he could differentiate between the semen of a young man, which he said had a fresh, exhilarating smell, and the semen of mature men, whose semen smelled quote, "Remarkably like that of the flowers of the Spanish chestnut. Sometimes quite freshly floral, and then again sometimes extremely pungent."
(Laughter)
Okay. In 1999, in the state of Israel, a man began hiccupping. And this was one of those cases that went on and on. He tried everything his friends suggested. Nothing seemed to help. Days went by. At a certain point, the man, still hiccupping, had sex with his wife. And lo and behold, the hiccups went away. He told his doctor, who published a case report in a Canadian medical journal under the title, "Sexual Intercourse as a Potential Treatment for Intractable Hiccups." I love this article because at a certain point they suggested that unattached hiccuppers could try masturbation. (Laughter) I love that because there is like a whole demographic: unattached hiccuppers. (Laughter) Married, single, unattached hiccupper.
In the 1900s, early 1900s gynecologists, a lot of gynecologists believed that when a woman has an orgasm the contractions serve to suck the semen up through the cervix and sort of deliver it really quickly to the egg, thereby upping the odds of conception. It was called the "upsuck" theory. (Laughter) If you go all the way back to Hippocrates, physicians believed that orgasm in women was not just helpful for conception, but necessary. Doctors back then were routinely telling men the importance of pleasuring their wives. Marriage-manual author and semen-sniffer Theodoor van de Velde -- (Laughter) has a line in his book. I loved this guy. I got a lot of mileage out of Theodoor van de Velde. He had this line in his book that supposedly comes from the Habsburg Monarchy, where there was an empress Maria Theresa, who was having trouble conceiving. And apparently the royal court physician said to her, "I am of the opinion that the vulva of your most sacred majesty be titillated for some time prior to intercourse." (Laughter) It's apparently, I don't know, on the record somewhere.
Masters and Johnson: now we're moving forward to the 1950s. Masters and Johnson were upsuck skeptics, which is also really fun to say. They didn't buy it. And they decided, being Masters and Johnson, that they would get to the bottom of it. They brought women into the lab -- I think it was five women -- and outfitted them with cervical caps containing artificial semen. And in the artificial semen was a radio-opaque substance, such that it would show up on an X-ray. This is the 1950s. Anyway these women sat in front of an X-ray device. And they masturbated. And Masters and Johnson looked to see if the semen was being sucked up. Did not find any evidence of upsuck. You may be wondering, "How do you make artificial semen?" (Laughter) I have an answer for you. I have two answers. You can use flour and water, or cornstarch and water. I actually found three separate recipes in the literature. (Laughter) My favorite being the one that says -- you know, they have the ingredients listed, and then in a recipe it will say, for example, "Yield: two dozen cupcakes." This one said, "Yield: one ejaculate."
(Laughter)
There's another way that orgasm might boost fertility. This one involves men. Sperm that sit around in the body for a week or more start to develop abnormalities that make them less effective at head-banging their way into the egg. British sexologist Roy Levin has speculated that this is perhaps why men evolved to be such enthusiastic and frequent masturbators. He said, "If I keep tossing myself off I get fresh sperm being made." Which I thought was an interesting idea, theory. So now you have an evolutionary excuse.
(Laughter)
Okay.
(Laughter)
Alrighty. There is considerable evidence for upsuck in the animal kingdom -- pigs, for instance. In Denmark, the Danish National Committee for Pig Production found out that if you sexually stimulate a sow while you artificially inseminate her, you will see a six-percent increase in the farrowing rate, which is the number of piglets produced. So they came up with this plan, this five-point stimulation plan for the sows. And they had the farmers -- there is posters they put in the barn, and they have a DVD. And I got a copy of this DVD. (Laughter) This is my unveiling, because I am going to show you a clip.
(Laughter)
So uh, okay. Now here we go in to the -- la la la, off to work. It all looks very innocent. He's going to be doing things with his hands that the boar would use his snout, lacking hands. Okay. (Laughter) This is it. The boar has a very odd courtship repertoire. (Laughter) This is to mimic the weight of the boar. (Laughter) You should know, the clitoris of the pig, inside the vagina. So this may be sort of titillating for her. Here we go. (Laughter) And the happy result. (Applause) I love this video. There is a point in this video, towards the beginning where they zoom in for a close up of his hand with his wedding ring, as if to say, "It's okay, it's just his job. He really does like women."
(Laughter)
Okay. Now I said -- when I was in Denmark, my host was named Anne Marie. And I said, "So why don't you just stimulate the clitoris of the pig? Why don't you have the farmers do that? That's not one of your five steps." She said -- I have to read you what she said, because I love it. She said, "It was a big hurdle just to get farmers to touch underneath the vulva. So we thought, let's not mention the clitoris right now." (Laughter) Shy but ambitious pig farmers, however, can purchase a -- this is true -- a sow vibrator, that hangs on the sperm feeder tube to vibrate. Because, as I mentioned, the clitoris is inside the vagina. So possibly, you know, a little more arousing than it looks. And I also said to her, "Now these sows. I mean, you may have noticed there, The sow doesn't look to be in the throes of ecstasy." And she said, you can't make that conclusion, because animals don't register pain or pleasure on their faces in the same way that we do. They tend to -- pigs, for example, are more like dogs. They use the upper half of the face; the ears are very expressive. So you're not really sure what's going on with the pig.
Primates, on the other hand, we use our mouths more. This is the ejaculation face of the stump-tailed macaque. (Laughter) And, interestingly, this has been observed in female macaques, but only when mounting another female.
(Laughter)
Masters and Johnson, in the 1950s, they decided, okay, we're going to figure out the entire human sexual response cycle, from arousal, all the way through orgasm, in men and women -- everything that happens in the human body. Okay, with women, a lot of this is happening inside. This did not stop Masters and Johnson. They developed an artificial coition machine. This is basically a penis camera on a motor. There is a phallus, clear acrylic phallus, with a camera and a light source, attached to a motor that is kind of going like this. And the woman would have sex with it. That is what they would do. Pretty amazing. Sadly, this device has been dismantled. This just kills me, not because I wanted to use it -- I wanted to see it.
(Laughter)
One fine day Alfred Kinsey decided to calculate the average distance traveled by ejaculated semen. This was not idle curiosity. Doctor Kinsey had heard -- and there was a theory kind of going around at the time, this being the 1940s -- that the force with which semen is thrown against the cervix was a factor in fertility. Kinsey thought it was bunk, so he got to work. He got together in his lab 300 men, a measuring tape, and a movie camera. (Laughter) And in fact he found that in three quarters of the men the stuff just kind of slopped out. It wasn't spurted or thrown or ejected under great force. However, the record holder landed just shy of the eight-foot mark, which is impressive. (Laughter) (Applause) Yes. Exactly. (Laughter) Sadly, he's anonymous. His name is not mentioned.
In his write-up, in his write-up of this experiment in his book, Kinsey wrote, "Two sheets were laid down to protect the oriental carpets." (Laughter) Which is my second favorite line in the entire oeuvre of Alfred Kinsey. My favorite being, "Cheese crumbs spread before a pair of copulating rats will distract the female, but not the male."
(Laughter)
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Thanks! |