Datasets:

vietgpt
/

ted_talks_iwslt_en

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions

Split (1)

train · 2.29k rows

text stringlengths 991 34.9k
One thing the world needs, one thing this country desperately needs is a better way of conducting our political debates. We need to rediscover the lost art of democratic argument. (Applause) If you think about the arguments we have, most of the time it's shouting matches on cable television, ideological food fights on the floor of Congress. I have a suggestion. Look at all the arguments we have these days over health care, over bonuses and bailouts on Wall Street, over the gap between rich and poor, over affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Lying just beneath the surface of those arguments, with passions raging on all sides, are big questions of moral philosophy, big questions of justice. But we too rarely articulate and defend and argue about those big moral questions in our politics. So what I would like to do today is have something of a discussion. First, let me take a famous philosopher who wrote about those questions of justice and morality, give you a very short lecture on Aristotle of ancient Athens, Aristotle's theory of justice, and then have a discussion here to see whether Aristotle's ideas actually inform the way we think and argue about questions today. So, are you ready for the lecture? According to Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve. That's it; that's the lecture. (Laughter) Now, you may say, well, that's obvious enough. The real questions begin when it comes to arguing about who deserves what and why. Take the example of flutes. Suppose we're distributing flutes. Who should get the best ones? Let's see what people -- What would you say? Who should get the best flute? You can just call it out. (Audience: Random.) Michael Sandel: At random. You would do it by lottery. Or by the first person to rush into the hall to get them. Who else? (Audience: The best flute players.) MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.) MS: The worst flute players. How many say the best flute players? Why? Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too. (Laughter) But here's a harder question. Why do you think, those of you who voted this way, that the best flutes should go to the best flute players? Peter: The greatest benefit to all. MS: The greatest benefit to all. We'll hear better music if the best flutes should go to the best flute players. That's Peter? (Audience: Peter.) MS: All right. Well, it's a good reason. We'll all be better off if good music is played rather than terrible music. But Peter, Aristotle doesn't agree with you that that's the reason. That's all right. Aristotle had a different reason for saying the best flutes should go to the best flute players. He said, that's what flutes are for -- to be played well. He says that to reason about just distribution of a thing, we have to reason about, and sometimes argue about, the purpose of the thing, or the social activity -- in this case, musical performance. And the point, the essential nature, of musical performance is to produce excellent music. It'll be a happy byproduct that we'll all benefit. But when we think about justice, Aristotle says, what we really need to think about is the essential nature of the activity in question and the qualities that are worth honoring and admiring and recognizing. One of the reasons that the best flute players should get the best flutes is that musical performance is not only to make the rest of us happy, but to honor and recognize the excellence of the best musicians. Now, flutes may seem ... the distribution of flutes may seem a trivial case. Let's take a contemporary example of the dispute about justice. It had to do with golf. Casey Martin -- a few years ago, Casey Martin -- did any of you hear about him? He was a very good golfer, but he had a disability. He had a bad leg, a circulatory problem, that made it very painful for him to walk the course. In fact, it carried risk of injury. He asked the PGA, the Professional Golfers' Association, for permission to use a golf cart in the PGA tournaments. They said, "No. Now that would give you an unfair advantage." He sued, and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, believe it or not, the case over the golf cart, because the law says that the disabled must be accommodated, provided the accommodation does not change the essential nature of the activity. He says, "I'm a great golfer. I want to compete. But I need a golf cart to get from one hole to the next." Suppose you were on the Supreme Court. Suppose you were deciding the justice of this case. How many here would say that Casey Martin does have a right to use a golf cart? And how many say, no, he doesn't? All right, let's take a poll, show of hands. How many would rule in favor of Casey Martin? And how many would not? How many would say he doesn't? All right, we have a good division of opinion here. Someone who would not grant Casey Martin the right to a golf cart, what would be your reason? Raise your hand, and we'll try to get you a microphone. What would be your reason? (Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.) MS: It would be an unfair advantage if he gets to ride in a golf cart. All right, those of you, I imagine most of you who would not give him the golf cart worry about an unfair advantage. What about those of you who say he should be given a golf cart? How would you answer the objection? Yes, all right. Audience: The cart's not part of the game. MS: What's your name? (Audience: Charlie.) MS: Charlie says -- We'll get Charlie a microphone in case someone wants to reply. Tell us, Charlie, why would you say he should be able to use a golf cart? Charlie: The cart's not part of the game. MS: But what about walking from hole to hole? Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game. MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf? Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't. MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie. (Laughter) Who has an answer for Charlie? All right, who has an answer for Charlie? What would you say? Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game, walking all those holes. MS: Walking all those holes? That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.) MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.) MS: Warren. Charlie, what do you say to Warren? Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis. (Laughter) MS: Warren, are you a golfer? Warren: I am not a golfer. Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.) (Laughter) (Applause) You know, it's interesting. In the case, in the lower court, they brought in golfing greats to testify on this very issue. Is walking the course essential to the game? And they brought in Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer. And what do you suppose they all said? Yes. They agreed with Warren. They said, yes, walking the course is strenuous physical exercise. The fatigue factor is an important part of golf. And so it would change the fundamental nature of the game to give him the golf cart. Now, notice, something interesting -- Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first. The Supreme Court decided. What do you suppose they said? They said yes, that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart. Seven to two, they ruled. What was interesting about their ruling and about the discussion we've just had is that the discussion about the right, the justice, of the matter depended on figuring out what is the essential nature of golf. And the Supreme Court justices wrestled with that question. And Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, said he had read all about the history of golf, and the essential point of the game is to get very small ball from one place into a hole in as few strokes as possible, and that walking was not essential, but incidental. Now, there were two dissenters, one of whom was Justice Scalia. He wouldn't have granted the cart, and he had a very interesting dissent. It's interesting because he rejected the Aristotelian premise underlying the majority's opinion. He said it's not possible to determine the essential nature of a game like golf. Here's how he put it. "To say that something is essential is ordinarily to say that it is necessary to the achievement of a certain object. But since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except amusement, (Laughter) that is, what distinguishes games from productive activity, (Laughter) it is quite impossible to say that any of a game's arbitrary rules is essential." So there you have Justice Scalia taking on the Aristotelian premise of the majority's opinion. Justice Scalia's opinion is questionable for two reasons. First, no real sports fan would talk that way. (Laughter) If we had thought that the rules of the sports we care about are merely arbitrary, rather than designed to call forth the virtues and the excellences that we think are worthy of admiring, we wouldn't care about the outcome of the game. It's also objectionable on a second ground. On the face of it, it seemed to be -- this debate about the golf cart -- an argument about fairness, what's an unfair advantage. But if fairness were the only thing at stake, there would have been an easy and obvious solution. What would it be? (Audience: Let everyone use the cart.) Let everyone ride in a golf cart if they want to. Then the fairness objection goes away. But letting everyone ride in a cart would have been, I suspect, more anathema to the golfing greats and to the PGA, even than making an exception for Casey Martin. Why? Because what was at stake in the dispute over the golf cart was not only the essential nature of golf, but, relatedly, the question: What abilities are worthy of honor and recognition as athletic talents? Let me put the point as delicately as possible: Golfers are a little sensitive about the athletic status of their game. (Laughter) After all, there's no running or jumping, and the ball stands still. (Laughter) So if golfing is the kind of game that can be played while riding around in a golf cart, it would be hard to confer on the golfing greats the status that we confer, the honor and recognition that goes to truly great athletes. That illustrates that with golf, as with flutes, it's hard to decide the question of what justice requires, without grappling with the question, "What is the essential nature of the activity in question, and what qualities, what excellences connected with that activity, are worthy of honor and recognition?" Let's take a final example that's prominent in contemporary political debate: same-sex marriage. There are those who favor state recognition only of traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and there are those who favor state recognition of same-sex marriage. How many here favor the first policy: the state should recognize traditional marriage only? And how many favor the second, same-sex marriage? Now, put it this way: What ways of thinking about justice and morality underlie the arguments we have over marriage? The opponents of same-sex marriage say that the purpose of marriage, fundamentally, is procreation, and that's what's worthy of honoring and recognizing and encouraging. And the defenders of same-sex marriage say no, procreation is not the only purpose of marriage; what about a lifelong, mutual, loving commitment? That's really what marriage is about. So with flutes, with golf carts, and even with a fiercely contested question like same-sex marriage, Aristotle has a point. Very hard to argue about justice without first arguing about the purpose of social institutions and about what qualities are worthy of honor and recognition. So let's step back from these cases and see how they shed light on the way we might improve, elevate, the terms of political discourse in the United States, and for that matter, around the world. There is a tendency to think that if we engage too directly with moral questions in politics, that's a recipe for disagreement, and for that matter, a recipe for intolerance and coercion. So better to shy away from, to ignore, the moral and the religious convictions that people bring to civic life. It seems to me that our discussion reflects the opposite, that a better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral convictions citizens bring to public life, rather than to require that people leave their deepest moral convictions outside politics before they enter. That, it seems to me, is a way to begin to restore the art of democratic argument. Thank you very much. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Chris. Thanks, Chris. Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses to same-sex marriage -- that was a genius link. Now look, you're a pioneer of open education. Your lecture series was one of the first to do it big. What's your vision for the next phase of this? MS: Well, I think that it is possible. In the classroom, we have arguments on some of the most fiercely held moral convictions that students have about big public questions. And I think we can do that in public life more generally. And so my real dream would be to take the public television series that we've created of the course -- it's available now, online, free for everyone anywhere in the world -- and to see whether we can partner with institutions, at universities in China, in India, in Africa, around the world, to try to promote civic education and also a richer kind of democratic debate. CA: So you picture, at some point, live, in real time, you could have this kind of conversation, inviting questions, but with people from China and India joining in? MS: Right. We did a little bit of it here with 1,500 people in Long Beach, and we do it in a classroom at Harvard with about 1,000 students. Wouldn't it be interesting to take this way of thinking and arguing, engaging seriously with big moral questions, exploring cultural differences and connect through a live video hookup, students in Beijing and Mumbai and in Cambridge, Massachusetts and create a global classroom. That's what I would love to do. (Applause) CA: So, I would imagine that there are a lot of people who would love to join you in that endeavor. Michael Sandel. Thank you so much. (MS: Thanks so much.)
At the break, I was asked by several people about my comments about the aging debate. And this will be my only comment on it. And that is, I understand that optimists greatly outlive pessimists. (Laughter) What I'm going to tell you about in my 18 minutes is how we're about to switch from reading the genetic code to the first stages of beginning to write the code ourselves. It's only 10 years ago this month when we published the first sequence of a free-living organism, that of haemophilus influenzae. That took a genome project from 13 years down to four months. We can now do that same genome project in the order of two to eight hours. So in the last decade, a large number of genomes have been added: most human pathogens, a couple of plants, several insects and several mammals, including the human genome. Genomics at this stage of the thinking from a little over 10 years ago was, by the end of this year, we might have between three and five genomes sequenced; it's on the order of several hundred. We just got a grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to sequence 130 genomes this year, as a side project from environmental organisms. So the rate of reading the genetic code has changed. But as we look, what's out there, we've barely scratched the surface on what is available on this planet. Most people don't realize it, because they're invisible, but microbes make up about a half of the Earth's biomass, whereas all animals only make up about one one-thousandth of all the biomass. And maybe it's something that people in Oxford don't do very often, but if you ever make it to the sea, and you swallow a mouthful of seawater, keep in mind that each milliliter has about a million bacteria and on the order of 10 million viruses. Less than 5,000 microbial species have been characterized as of two years ago, and so we decided to do something about it. And we started the Sorcerer II Expedition, where we were, as with great oceanographic expeditions, trying to sample the ocean every 200 miles. We started in Bermuda for our test project, then moved up to Halifax, working down the U.S. East Coast, the Caribbean Sea, the Panama Canal, through to the Galapagos, then across the Pacific, and we're in the process now of working our way across the Indian Ocean. It's very tough duty; we're doing this on a sailing vessel, in part to help excite young people about going into science. The experiments are incredibly simple. We just take seawater and we filter it, and we collect different size organisms on different filters, and then take their DNA back to our lab in Rockville, where we can sequence a hundred million letters of the genetic code every 24 hours. And with doing this, we've made some amazing discoveries. For example, it was thought that the visual pigments that are in our eyes -- there was only one or two organisms in the environment that had these same pigments. It turns out, almost every species in the upper parts of the ocean in warm parts of the world have these same photoreceptors, and use sunlight as the source of their energy and communication. From one site, from one barrel of seawater, we discovered 1.3 million new genes and as many as 50,000 new species. We've extended this to the air now with a grant from the Sloan Foundation. We're measuring how many viruses and bacteria all of us are breathing in and out every day, particularly on airplanes or closed auditoriums. (Laughter) We filter through some simple apparatuses; we collect on the order of a billion microbes from just a day filtering on top of a building in New York City. And we're in the process of sequencing all that at the present time. Just on the data collection side, just where we are through the Galapagos, we're finding that almost every 200 miles, we see tremendous diversity in the samples in the ocean. Some of these make logical sense, in terms of different temperature gradients. So this is a satellite photograph based on temperatures -- red being warm, blue being cold -- and we found there's a tremendous difference between the warm water samples and the cold water samples, in terms of abundant species. The other thing that surprised us quite a bit is these photoreceptors detect different wavelengths of light, and we can predict that based on their amino acid sequence. And these vary tremendously from region to region. Maybe not surprisingly, in the deep ocean, where it's mostly blue, the photoreceptors tend to see blue light. When there's a lot of chlorophyll around, they see a lot of green light. But they vary even more, possibly moving towards infrared and ultraviolet in the extremes. Just to try and get an assessment of what our gene repertoire was, we assembled all the data -- including all of ours thus far from the expedition, which represents more than half of all the gene data on the planet -- and it totaled around 29 million genes. And we tried to put these into gene families to see what these discoveries are: Are we just discovering new members of known families, or are we discovering new families? And it turns out we have about 50,000 major gene families, but every new sample we take in the environment adds in a linear fashion to these new families. So we're at the earliest stages of discovery about basic genes, components and life on this planet. When we look at the so-called evolutionary tree, we're up on the upper right-hand corner with the animals. Of those roughly 29 million genes, we only have around 24,000 in our genome. And if you take all animals together, we probably share less than 30,000 and probably maybe a dozen or more thousand different gene families. I view that these genes are now not only the design components of evolution. And we think in a gene-centric view -- maybe going back to Richard Dawkins' ideas -- than in a genome-centric view, which are different constructs of these gene components. Synthetic DNA, the ability to synthesize DNA, has changed at sort of the same pace that DNA sequencing has over the last decade or two, and is getting very rapid and very cheap. Our first thought about synthetic genomics came when we sequenced the second genome back in 1995, and that from mycoplasma genitalium. And we have really nice T-shirts that say, you know, "I heart my genitalium." This is actually just a microorganism. But it has roughly 500 genes. Haemophilus had 1,800 genes. And we simply asked the question, if one species needs 800, another 500, is there a smaller set of genes that might comprise a minimal operating system? So we started doing transposon mutagenesis. Transposons are just small pieces of DNA that randomly insert in the genetic code. And if they insert in the middle of the gene, they disrupt its function. So we made a map of all the genes that could take transposon insertions and we called those "non-essential genes." But it turns out the environment is very critical for this, and you can only define an essential or non-essential gene based on exactly what's in the environment. We also tried to take a more directly intellectual approach with the genomes of 13 related organisms, and we tried to compare all of those, to see what they had in common. And we got these overlapping circles. And we found only 173 genes common to all 13 organisms. The pool expanded a little bit if we ignored one intracellular parasite; it expanded even more when we looked at core sets of genes of around 310 or so. So we think that we can expand or contract genomes, depending on your point of view here, to maybe 300 to 400 genes from the minimal of 500. The only way to prove these ideas was to construct an artificial chromosome with those genes in them, and we had to do this in a cassette-based fashion. We found that synthesizing accurate DNA in large pieces was extremely difficult. Ham Smith and Clyde Hutchison, my colleagues on this, developed an exciting new method that allowed us to synthesize a 5,000-base pair virus in only a two-week period that was 100 percent accurate, in terms of its sequence and its biology. It was a quite exciting experiment -- when we just took the synthetic piece of DNA, injected it in the bacteria and all of a sudden, that DNA started driving the production of the virus particles that turned around and then killed the bacteria. This was not the first synthetic virus -- a polio virus had been made a year before -- but it was only one ten-thousandth as active and it took three years to do. This is a cartoon of the structure of phi X 174. This is a case where the software now builds its own hardware, and that's the notions that we have with biology. People immediately jump to concerns about biological warfare, and I had recent testimony before a Senate committee, and a special committee the U.S. government has set up to review this area. And I think it's important to keep reality in mind, versus what happens with people's imaginations. Basically, any virus that's been sequenced today -- that genome can be made. And people immediately freak out about things about Ebola or smallpox, but the DNA from this organism is not infective. So even if somebody made the smallpox genome, that DNA itself would not cause infections. The real concern that security departments have is designer viruses. And there's only two countries, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, that had major efforts on trying to create biological warfare agents. If that research is truly discontinued, there should be very little activity on the know-how to make designer viruses in the future. I think single-cell organisms are possible within two years. And possibly eukaryotic cells, those that we have, are possible within a decade. So we're now making several dozen different constructs, because we can vary the cassettes and the genes that go into this artificial chromosome. The key is, how do you put all of the others? We start with these fragments, and then we have a homologous recombination system that reassembles those into a chromosome. This is derived from an organism, deinococcus radiodurans, that can take three million rads of radiation and not be killed. It reassembles its genome after this radiation burst in about 12 to 24 hours, after its chromosomes are literally blown apart. This organism is ubiquitous on the planet, and exists perhaps now in outer space due to all our travel there. This is a glass beaker after about half a million rads of radiation. The glass started to burn and crack, while the microbes sitting in the bottom just got happier and happier. Here's an actual picture of what happens: the top of this shows the genome after 1.7 million rads of radiation. The chromosome is literally blown apart. And here's that same DNA automatically reassembled 24 hours later. It's truly stunning that these organisms can do that, and we probably have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of different species on this planet that are capable of doing that. After these genomes are synthesized, the first step is just transplanting them into a cell without a genome. So we think synthetic cells are going to have tremendous potential, not only for understanding the basis of biology but for hopefully environmental and society issues. For example, from the third organism we sequenced, Methanococcus jannaschii -- it lives in boiling water temperatures; its energy source is hydrogen and all its carbon comes from CO2 it captures back from the environment. So we know lots of different pathways, thousands of different organisms now that live off of CO2, and can capture that back. So instead of using carbon from oil for synthetic processes, we have the chance of using carbon and capturing it back from the atmosphere, converting that into biopolymers or other products. We have one organism that lives off of carbon monoxide, and we use as a reducing power to split water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Also, there's numerous pathways that can be engineered metabolizing methane. And DuPont has a major program with Statoil in Norway to capture and convert the methane from the gas fields there into useful products. Within a short while, I think there's going to be a new field called "Combinatorial Genomics," because with these new synthesis capabilities, these vast gene array repertoires and the homologous recombination, we think we can design a robot to make maybe a million different chromosomes a day. And therefore, as with all biology, you get selection through screening, whether you're screening for hydrogen production, or chemical production, or just viability. To understand the role of these genes is going to be well within reach. We're trying to modify photosynthesis to produce hydrogen directly from sunlight. Photosynthesis is modulated by oxygen, and we have an oxygen-insensitive hydrogenase that we think will totally change this process. We're also combining cellulases, the enzymes that break down complex sugars into simple sugars and fermentation in the same cell for producing ethanol. Pharmaceutical production is already under way in major laboratories using microbes. The chemistry from compounds in the environment is orders of magnitude more complex than our best chemists can produce. I think future engineered species could be the source of food, hopefully a source of energy, environmental remediation and perhaps replacing the petrochemical industry. Let me just close with ethical and policy studies. We delayed the start of our experiments in 1999 until we completed a year-and-a-half bioethical review as to whether we should try and make an artificial species. Every major religion participated in this. It was actually a very strange study, because the various religious leaders were using their scriptures as law books, and they couldn't find anything in them prohibiting making life, so it must be OK. The only ultimate concerns were biological warfare aspects of this, but gave us the go ahead to start these experiments for the reasons we were doing them. Right now the Sloan Foundation has just funded a multi-institutional study on this, to work out what the risk and benefits to society are, and the rules that scientific teams such as my own should be using in this area, and we're trying to set good examples as we go forward. These are complex issues. Except for the threat of bio-terrorism, they're very simple issues in terms of, can we design things to produce clean energy, perhaps revolutionizing what developing countries can do and provide through various simple processes. Thank you very much.
Pat Mitchell: So I was thinking about female friendship a lot, and by the way, these two women, I'm very honored to say, have been my friends for a very long time, too. Jane Fonda: Yes we have. PM: And one of the things that I read about female friendship is something that Cervantes said. He said, "You can tell a lot about someone," in this case a woman, "by the company that she keeps." So let's start with -- (Laughter) JF: We're in big trouble. Lily Tomlin: Hand me one of those waters, I'm extremely dry. (Laughter) JF: You're taking up our time. We have a very limited -- LT: Just being with her sucks the life out of me. (Laughter) JF: You ain't seen nothing yet. Anyway -- sorry. PM: So tell me, what do you look for in a friend? LT: I look for someone who has a sense of fun, who's audacious, who's forthcoming, who has politics, who has even a small scrap of passion for the planet, someone who's decent, has a sense of justice and who thinks I'm worthwhile. (Laughter) (Applause) JF: You know, I was thinking this morning, I don't even know what I would do without my women friends. I mean it's, "I have my friends, therefore I am." LT: (Laughter) JF: No, it's true. I exist because I have my women friends. They -- You're one of them. I don't know about you. But anyway -- (Laughter) You know, they make me stronger, they make me smarter, they make me braver. They tap me on the shoulder when I might be in need of course-correcting. And most of them are a good deal younger than me, too. You know? I mean, it's nice -- LT: Thank you. (Laughter) JF: No, I do, I include you in that, because listen, you know -- it's nice to have somebody still around to play with and learn from when you're getting toward the end. I'm approaching -- I'll be there sooner than you. LT: No, I'm glad to have you parallel aging alongside me. (Laughter) JF: I'm showing you the way. (Laughter) LT: Well, you are and you have. PM: Well, as we grow older, and as we go through different kinds of life's journeys, what do you do to keep your friendships vital and alive? LT: Well you have to use a lot of -- JF: She doesn't invite me over much, I'll tell you that. LT: I have to use a lot of social media -- You be quiet now. And so -- (Laughter) LT: And I look through my emails, I look through my texts to find my friends, so I can answer them as quickly as possible, because I know they need my counsel. (Laughter) They need my support, because most of my friends are writers, or activists, or actors, and you're all three ... and a long string of other descriptive phrases, and I want to get to you as soon as possible, I want you to know that I'm there for you. JF: Do you do emojis? LT: Oh ... JF: No? LT: That's embarrassing. JF: I'm really into emojis. LT: No, I spell out my -- I spell out my words of happiness and congratulations, and sadness. JF: You spell it right out -- LT: I spell it, every letter. (Laughter) JF: Such a purist. You know, as I've gotten older, I've understood more the importance of friendships, and so, I really make an effort to reach out and make play dates -- not let too much time go by. I read a lot so, as Lily knows all too well, my books that I like, I send to my friends. LT: When we knew we would be here today you sent me a lot of books about women, female friendships, and I was so surprised to see how many books, how much research has been done recently -- JF: And were you grateful? LT: I was grateful. (Laughter) PM: And -- LT: Wait, no, it's really important because this is another example of how women are overlooked, put aside, marginalized. There's been very little research done on us, even though we volunteered lots of times. JF: That's for sure. (Laughter) LT: This is really exciting, and you all will be interested in this. The Harvard Medical School study has shown that women who have close female friendships are less likely to develop impairments -- physical impairments as they age, and they are likely to be seen to be living much more vital, exciting -- JF: And longer -- LT: Joyful lives. JF: We live five years longer than men. LT: I think I'd trade the years for joy. (Laughter) LT: But the most important part is they found -- the results were so exciting and so conclusive -- the researchers found that not having close female friends is detrimental to your health, as much as smoking or being overweight. JF: And there's something else, too -- LT: I've said my part, so ... (Laughter) JF: OK, well, listen to my part, because there's an additional thing. Because they only -- for years, decades -- they only researched men when they were trying to understand stress, only very recently have they researched what happens to women when we're stressed, and it turns out that when we're stressed -- women, our bodies get flooded by oxytocin. Which is a feel-good, calming, stress-reducing hormone. Which is also increased when we're with our women friends. And I do think that's one reason why we live longer. And I feel so bad for men because they don't have that. Testosterone in men diminishes the effects of oxytocin. LT: Well, when you and I and Dolly made "9 to 5" ... JF: Oh -- LT: We laughed, we did, we laughed so much, we found we had so much in common and we're so different. Here she is, like Hollywood royalty, I'm like a tough kid from Detroit, [Dolly's] a Southern kid from a poor town in Tennessee, and we found we were so in sync as women, and we must have -- we laughed -- we must have added at least a decade onto our lifespans. JF: I think -- we sure crossed our legs a lot. (Laughter) If you know what I mean. LT: I think we all know what you mean. (Laughter) PM: You're adding decades to our lives right now. So among the books that Jane sent us both to read on female friendship was one by a woman we admire greatly, Sister Joan Chittister, who said about female friendship that women friends are not just a social act, they're a spiritual act. Do you think of your friends as spiritual? Do they add something spiritual to your lives? LT: Spiritual -- I absolutely think that. Because -- especially people you've known a long time, people you've spent time with -- I can see the spiritual essence inside them, the tenderness, the vulnerability. There's actually kind of a love, an element of love in the relationship. I just see deeply into your soul. PM: Do you think that, Jane -- LT: But I have special powers. JF: Well, there's all kinds of friends. There's business friends, and party friends, I've got a lot of those. (Laughter) But the oxytocin-producing friendships have ... They feel spiritual because it's a heart opening, right? You know, we go deep. And -- I find that I shed tears a lot with my intimate friends. Not because I'm sad but because I'm so touched and inspired by them. LT: And you know one of you is going to go soon. (Laughter) PM: Well, two of us are sitting here, Lily, which one are you talking about? (Laughter) And I always think, when women talk about their friendships, that men always look a little mystified. What are the differences, in your opinion, between men friendships and women friendships? JF: There's a lot of difference, and I think we have to have a lot of empathy for men -- (Laughter) that they don't have what we have. Which I think may be why they die sooner. (Laughter) I have a lot of compassion for men, because women, no kidding, we -- women's relationships, our friendships are full disclosure, we go deep. They're revelatory. We risk vulnerability -- this is something men don't do. I mean how many times have I asked you, "Am I doing OK?" "Did I really screw up there?" PM: You're doing great. (Laughter) JF: But I mean, we ask questions like that of our women friends, and men don't. You know, people describe women's relationships as face-to-face, whereas men's friendships are more side-by-side. LT: I mean most of the time men don't want to reveal their emotions, they want to bury deeper feelings. I mean, that's the general, conventional thought. They would rather go off in their man cave and watch a game or hit golf balls, or talk about sports, or hunting, or cars or have sex. I mean, it's just the kind of -- it's a more manly behavior. JF: You meant -- LT: They talk about sex. I meant they might have sex if they could get somebody in their man cave to -- (Laughter) JF: You know something, though, that I find very interesting -- and again, psychologists didn't know this until relatively recently -- is that men are born every bit as relational as women are. If you look at films of newborn baby boys and girls, you'll see the baby boys just like the girls, gazing into their mother's eyes, you know, needing that relational exchange of energy. When the mother looks away, they could see the dismay on the child, even the boy would cry. They need relationship. So the question is why, as they grow older, does that change? And the answer is patriarchal culture, which says to boys and young men that to be needing of relationship, to be emotional with someone is girly. That a real man doesn't ask directions or express a need, they don't go to doctors if they feel bad. They don't ask for help. There's a quote that I really like, "Men fear that becoming 'we' will erase his 'I'." You know, his sense of self. Whereas women's sense of self has always been kind of porous. But our "we" is our saving grace, it's what makes us strong. It's not that we're better than men, we just don't have our masculinity to prove. LT: And, well -- JF: That's a Gloria Steinem quote. So we can express our humanity -- LT: I know who Gloria Steinem is. JF: I know you know who she is, but I think it's a -- (Laughter) No, but it's a great quote, I think. We're not better than men, we just don't have our masculinity to prove. And that's really important. LT: But men are so inculcated in the culture to be comfortable in the patriarchy. And we've got to make something different happen. JF: Women's friendships are like a renewable source of power. LT: Well, that's what's exciting about this subject. It's because our friendships -- female friendships are just a hop to our sisterhood, and sisterhood can be a very powerful force, to give the world -- to make it what it should be -- the things that humans desperately need. PM: It is why we're talking about it, because women's friendships are, as you said, Jane, a renewable source of power. So how do we use that power? JF: Well, women are the fastest growing demographic in the world, especially older women. And if we harness our power, we can change the world. And guess what? We need to. (Applause) And we need to do it soon. And one of the things that we need to do -- and we can do it as women -- for one thing, we kind of set the consumer standards. We need to consume less. We in the Western world need to consume less and when we buy things, we need to buy things that are made locally, when we buy food, we need to buy food that's grown locally. We are the ones that need to get off the grid. We need to make ourselves independent from fossil fuels. And the fossil fuel companies -- the Exxons and the Shell Oils and those bad guys -- cause they are -- are going to tell us that we can't do it without going back to the Stone Age. You know, that the alternatives just aren't quite there yet, and that's not true. There are countries in the world right now that are living mostly on renewable energy and doing just fine. And they tell us that if we do wean ourselves from fossil fuel that we're going to be back in the Stone Age, and in fact, if we begin to use renewable energy, and not drill in the Arctic, and not drill -- LT: Oh, boy. JF: And not drill in the Alberta tar sands -- Right. That we will be -- there will be more democracy and more jobs and more well-being, and it's women that are going to lead the way. LT: Maybe we have the momentum to start a third-wave feminist movement with our sisterhood around the world, with women we don't see, women we may never meet, but we join together that way, because -- Aristotle said -- most people -- people would die without male friendships. And the operative word here was "male." Because they thought that friendships should be between equals and women were not considered equal -- JF: They didn't think we had souls even, the Greeks. LT: No, exactly. That shows you just how limited Aristotle was. (Laughter) And wait, no, here's the best part. It's like, you know, men do need women now. The planet needs women. The US Constitution needs women. We are not even in the Constitution. JF: You're talking about the Equal Rights Amendment. LT: Right. Justice Ginsberg said something like -- every constitution that's been written since the end of World War II included a provision that made women citizens of equal stature, but ours does not. So that would be a good place to start. Very, very mild -- JF: Right. (Applause) And gender equality, it's like a tide, it would lift all boats, not just women. PM: Needing new role models on how to do that. How to be friends, how to think about our power in different ways, as consumers, as citizens of the world, and this is what makes Jane and Lily a role model of how women can be friends -- for a very long time, and even if they occasionally disagree. Thank you. Thank you both. (Applause) JF: Thanks. LT: Thank you. JF: Thank you. (Applause)
For much of the past century, architecture was under the spell of a famous doctrine. "Form follows function" had become modernity's ambitious manifesto and detrimental straitjacket, as it liberated architecture from the decorative, but condemned it to utilitarian rigor and restrained purpose. Of course, architecture is about function, but I want to remember a rewriting of this phrase by Bernard Tschumi, and I want to propose a completely different quality. If form follows fiction, we could think of architecture and buildings as a space of stories -- stories of the people that live there, of the people that work in these buildings. And we could start to imagine the experiences our buildings create. In this sense, I'm interested in fiction not as the implausible but as the real, as the reality of what architecture means for the people that live in it and with it. Our buildings are prototypes, ideas for how the space of living or how the space of working could be different, and what a space of culture or a space of media could look like today. Our buildings are real; they're being built. They're an explicit engagement in physical reality and conceptual possibility. I think of our architecture as organizational structures. At their core is indeed structural thinking, like a system: How can we arrange things in both a functional and experiential way? How can we create structures that generate a series of relationships and narratives? And how can fictive stories of the inhabitants and users of our buildings script the architecture, while the architecture scripts those stories at the same time? And here comes the second term into play, what I call "narrative hybrids" -- structures of multiple simultaneous stories that unfold throughout the buildings we create. So we could think of architecture as complex systems of relationships, both in a programmatic and functional way and in an experiential and emotive or social way. This is the headquarters for China's national broadcaster, which I designed together with Rem Koolhaas at OMA. When I first arrived in Beijing in 2002, the city planners showed us this image: a forest of several hundred skyscrapers to emerge in the central business district, except at that time, only a handful of them existed. So we had to design in a context that we knew almost nothing about, except one thing: it would all be about verticality. Of course, the skyscraper is vertical -- it's a profoundly hierarchical structure, the top always the best, the bottom the worst, and the taller you are, the better, so it seems. And we wanted to ask ourselves, could a building be about a completely different quality? Could it undo this hierarchy, and could it be about a system that is more about collaboration, rather than isolation? So we took this needle and bent it back into itself, into a loop of interconnected activities. Our idea was to bring all aspects of television-making into one single structure: news, program production, broadcasting, research and training, administration -- all into a circuit of interconnected activities where people would meet in a process of exchange and collaboration. I still very much like this image. It reminds one of biology classes, if you remember the human body with all its organs and circulatory systems, like at school. And suddenly you think of architecture no longer as built substance, but as an organism, as a life form. And as you start to dissect this organism, you can identify a series of primary technical clusters -- program production, broadcasting center and news. Those are tightly intertwined with social clusters: meeting rooms, canteens, chat areas -- informal spaces for people to meet and exchange. So the organizational structure of this building was a hybrid between the technical and the social, the human and the performative. And of course, we used the loop of the building as a circulatory system, to thread everything together and to allow both visitors and staff to experience all these different functions in a great unity. With 473,000 square meters, it is one of the largest buildings ever built in the world. It has a population of over 10,000 people, and of course, this is a scale that exceeds the comprehension of many things and the scale of typical architecture. So we stopped work for a while and sat down and cut 10,000 little sticks and glued them onto a model, just simply to confront ourselves with what that quantity actually meant. But of course, it's not a number, it is the people, it is a community that inhabits the building, and in order to both comprehend this, but also script this architecture, we identified five characters, hypothetical characters, and we followed them throughout their day in a life in this building, thought of where they would meet, what they would experience. So it was a way to script and design the building, but of course, also to communicate its experiences. This was part of an exhibition with the Museum of Modern Art in both New York and Beijing. This is the main broadcast control room, a technical installation so large, it can broadcast over 200 channels simultaneously. And this is how the building stands in Beijing today. Its first broadcast live was the London Olympics 2012, after it had been completed from the outside for the Beijing Olympics. And you can see at the very tip of this 75-meter cantilever, those three little circles. And they're indeed part of a public loop that goes through the building. They're a piece of glass that you can stand on and watch the city pass by below you in slow motion. The building has become part of everyday life in Beijing. It is there. It has also become a very popular backdrop for wedding photography. (Laughter) But its most important moment is maybe sill this one. "That's Beijing" is similar to "Time Out," a magazine that broadcasts what is happening in town during the week, and suddenly you see the building portrayed no longer as physical matter, but actually as an urban actor, as part of a series of personas that define the life of the city. So architecture suddenly assumes the quality of a player, of something that writes stories and performs stories. And I think that could be one of its primary meanings that we believe in. But of course, there's another story to this building. It is the story of the people that made it -- 400 engineers and architects that I was guiding over almost a decade of collaborative work that we spent together in scripting this building, in imagining its reality and ultimately getting it built in China. This is a residential development in Singapore, large scale. If we look at Singapore like most of Asia and more and more of the world, of course, it is dominated by the tower, a typology that indeed creates more isolation than connectedness, and I wanted to ask, how could we think about living, not only in terms of the privacy and individuality of ourselves and our apartment, but in an idea of a collective? How could we think about creating a communal environment in which sharing things was as great as having your own? The typical answer to the question -- we had to design 1,040 apartments -- would have looked like this: 24-story height limit given by the planning authorities, 12 towers with nothing but residual in between -- a very tight system that, although the tower isolates you, it doesn't even give you privacy, because you're so close to the next one, that it is very questionable what the qualities of this would be. So I proposed to topple the towers, throw the vertical into the horizontal and stack them up, and what looks a bit random from the side, if you look from the viewpoint of the helicopter, you can see its organizational structure is actually a hexagonal grid, in which these horizontal building blocks are stacked up to create huge outdoor courtyards -- central spaces for the community, programmed with a variety of amenities and functions. And you see that these courtyards are not hermetically sealed spaces. They're open, permeable; they're interconnected. We called the project "The Interlace," thinking that we interlace and interconnect the human beings and the spaces alike. And the detailed quality of everything we designed was about animating the space and giving the space to the inhabitants. And, in fact, it was a system where we would layer primarily communal spaces, stacked to more and more individual and private spaces. So we would open up a spectrum between the collective and the individual. A little piece of math: if we count all the green that we left on the ground, minus the footprint of the buildings, and we would add back the green of all the terraces, we have 112 percent green space, so more nature than not having built a building. And of course this little piece of math shows you that we are multiplying the space available to those who live there. This is, in fact, the 13th floor of one of these terraces. So you see new datum planes, new grounds planes for social activity. We paid a lot of attention to sustainability. In the tropics, the sun is the most important thing to pay attention to, and, in fact, it is seeking protection from the sun. We first proved that all apartments would have sufficient daylight through the year. We then went on to optimize the glazing of the facades to minimize the energy consumption of the building. But most importantly, we could prove that through the geometry of the building design, the building itself would provide sufficient shading to the courtyards so that those would be usable throughout the entire year. We further placed water bodies along the prevailing wind corridors, so that evaporative cooling would create microclimates that, again, would enhance the quality of those spaces available for the inhabitants. And it was the idea of creating this variety of choices, of freedom to think where you would want to be, where you would want to escape, maybe, within the own complexity of the complex in which you live. But coming from Asia to Europe: a building for a German media company based in Berlin, transitioning from the traditional print media to the digital media. And its CEO asked a few very pertinent questions: Why would anyone today still want to go to the office, because you can actually work anywhere? And how could a digital identity of a company be embodied in a building? We created not only an object, but at the center of this object we created a giant space, and this space was about the experience of a collective, the experience of collaboration and of togetherness. Communication, interaction as the center of a space that in itself would float, like what we call the collaborative cloud, in the middle of the building, surrounded by an envelope of standard modular offices. So with only a few steps from your quiet work desk, you could participate in the giant collective experience of the central space. Finally, we come to London, a project commissioned by the London Legacy Development Corporation of the Mayor of London. We were asked to undertake a study and investigate the potential of a site out in Stratford in the Olympic Park. In the 19th century, Prince Albert had created Albertopolis. And Boris Johnson thought of creating Olympicopolis. The idea was to bring together some of Britain's greatest institutions, some international ones, and to create a new system of synergies. Prince Albert, as yet, created Albertopolis in the 19th century, thought of showcasing all achievements of mankind, bringing arts and science closer together. And he built Exhibition Road, a linear sequence of those institutions. But of course, today's society has moved on from there. We no longer live in a world in which everything is as clearly delineated or separated from each other. We live in a world in which boundaries start to blur between the different domains, and in which collaboration and interaction becomes far more important than keeping separations. So we wanted to think of a giant culture machine, a building that would orchestrate and animate the various domains, but allow them to interact and collaborate. At the base of it is a very simple module, a ring module. It can function as a double-loaded corridor, has daylight, has ventilation. It can be glazed over and turned into a giant exhibitional performance space. These modules were stacked together with the idea that almost any function could, over time, occupy any of these modules. So institutions could shrink or contract, as, of course, the future of culture is, in a way, the most uncertain of all. This is how the building sits, adjacent to the Aquatics Centre, opposite the Olympic Stadium. And you can see how its cantilevering volumes project out and engage the public space and how its courtyards animate the public inside. The idea was to create a complex system in which institutional entities could maintain their own identity, in which they would not be subsumed in a singular volume. Here's a scale comparison to the Centre Pompidou in Paris. It both shows the enormous scale and potential of the project, but also the difference: here, it is a multiplicity of a heterogeneous structure, in which different entities can interact without losing their own identity. And it was this thought: to create an organizational structure that would allow for multiple narratives to be scripted -- for those in the educational parts that create and think culture; for those that present the visual arts, the dance; and for the public to be admitted into all of this with a series of possible trajectories, to script their own reading of these narratives and their own experience. And I want to end on a project that is very small, in a way, very different: a floating cinema in the ocean of Thailand. Friends of mine had founded a film festival, and I thought, if we think of the stories and narratives of movies, we should also think of the narratives of the people that watch them. So I designed a small modular floating platform, based on the techniques of local fishermen, how they built their lobster and fish farms. We collaborated with the local community and built, out of recycled materials of their own, this fantastical floating platform that gently moved in the ocean as we watched films from the British film archive, 1904 "Alice in Wonderland," for example. The most primordial experiences of the audience merged with the stories of the movies. So I believe that architecture exceeds the domain of physical matter, of the built environment, but is really about how we want to live our lives, how we script our own stories and those of others. Thank you. (Applause)
Election night 2008 was a night that tore me in half. It was the night that Barack Obama was elected. [One hundred and forty-three] years after the end of slavery, and [43] years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, an African-American was elected president. Many of us never thought that this was possible until the moment that it happened. And in many ways, it was the climax of the black civil rights movement in the United States. I was in California that night, which was ground zero at the time for another movement: the marriage equality movement. Gay marriage was on the ballot in the form of Proposition 8, and as the election returns started to come in, it became clear that the right for same sex couples to marry, which had recently been granted by the California courts, was going to be taken away. So on the same night that Barack Obama won his historic presidency, the lesbian and gay community suffered one of our most painful defeats. And then it got even worse. Pretty much immediately, African-Americans started to be blamed for the passage of Proposition 8. This was largely due to an incorrect poll that said that blacks had voted for the measure by something like 70 percent. This turned out not to be true, but this idea of pervasive black homophobia set in, and was grabbed on by the media. I couldn't tear myself away from the coverage. I listened to some gay commentator say that the African-American community was notoriously homophobic, and now that civil rights had been achieved for us, we wanted to take away other people's rights. There were even reports of racist epithets being thrown at some of the participants of the gay rights rallies that took place after the election. And on the other side, some African-Americans dismissed or ignored homophobia that was indeed real in our community. And others resented this comparison between gay rights and civil rights, and once again, the sinking feeling that two minority groups of which I'm both a part of were competing with each other instead of supporting each other overwhelmed and, frankly, pissed me off. Now, I'm a documentary filmmaker, so after going through my pissed off stage and yelling at the television and radio, my next instinct was to make a movie. And what guided me in making this film was, how was this happening? How was it that the gay rights movement was being pitted against the civil rights movement? And this wasn't just an abstract question. I'm a beneficiary of both movements, so this was actually personal. But then something else happened after that election in 2008. The march towards gay equality accelerated at a pace that surprised and shocked everyone, and is still reshaping our laws and our policies, our institutions and our entire country. And so it started to become increasingly clear to me that this pitting of the two movements against each other actually didn't make sense, and that they were in fact much, much more interconnected, and that, in fact, some of the way that the gay rights movement has been able to make such incredible gains so quickly is that it's used some of the same tactics and strategies that were first laid down by the civil rights movement. Let's just look at a few of these strategies. First off, it's really interesting to see, to actually visually see, how quick the gay rights movement has made its gains, if you look at a few of the major events on a timeline of both freedom movements. Now, there are tons of milestones in the civil rights movement, but the first one we're going to start with is the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott. This was a protest campaign against Montgomery, Alabama's segregation on their public transit system, and it began when a woman named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white person. The campaign lasted a year, and it galvanized the civil rights movement like nothing had before it. And I call this strategy the "I'm tired of your foot on my neck" strategy. So gays and lesbians have been in society since societies began, but up until the mid-20th century, homosexual acts were still illegal in most states. So just 14 years after the Montgomery bus boycott, a group of LGBT folks took that same strategy. It's known as Stonewall, in 1969, and it's where a group of LGBT patrons fought back against police beatings at a Greenwich Village bar that sparked three days of rioting. Incidentally, black and latino LGBT folks were at the forefront of this rebellion, and it's a really interesting example of the intersection of our struggles against racism, homophobia, gender identity and police brutality. After Stonewall happened, gay liberation groups sprang up all over the country, and the modern gay rights movement as we know it took off. So the next moment to look at on the timeline is the 1963 March on Washington. This was a seminal event in the civil rights movement and it's where African-Americans called for both civil and economic justice. And it's of course where Martin Luther King delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech, but what's actually less known is that this march was organized by a man named Bayard Rustin. Bayard was an out gay man, and he's considered one of the most brilliant strategists of the civil rights movement. He later in his life became a fierce advocate of LGBT rights as well, and his life is testament to the intersection of the struggles. The March on Washington is one of the high points of the movement, and it's where there was a fervent belief that African-Americans too could be a part of American democracy. I call this strategy the "We are visible and many in numbers" strategy. Some early gay activists were actually directly inspired by the march, and some had taken part. Gay pioneer Jack Nichols said, "We marched with Martin Luther King, seven of us from the Mattachine Society" -- which was an early gay rights organization — "and from that moment on, we had our own dream about a gay rights march of similar proportions." Several years later, a series of marches took place, each one gaining the momentum of the gay freedom struggle. The first one was in 1979, and the second one took place in 1987. The third one was held in 1993. Almost a million people showed up, and people were so energized and excited by what had taken place, they went back to their own communities and started their own political and social organizations, further increasing the visibility of the movement. The day of that march, October 11, was then declared National Coming Out Day, and is still celebrated all over the world. These marches set the groundwork for the historic changes that we see happening today in the United States. And lastly, the "Loving" strategy. The name speaks for itself. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, and invalidated all laws that prohibited interracial marriage. This is considered one of the Supreme Court's landmark civil rights cases. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, and that made the federal government only have to recognize marriages between a man and a woman. In United States v. Windsor, a 79-year-old lesbian named Edith Windsor sued the federal government when she was forced to pay estate taxes on her deceased wife's property, something that heterosexual couples don't have to do. And as the case wound its way through the lower courts, the Loving case was repeatedly cited as precedent. When it got to the Supreme Court in 2013, the Supreme Court agreed, and DOMA was thrown out. It was incredible. But the gay marriage movement has been making gains for years now. To date, 17 states have passed laws allowing marriage equality. It's become the de facto battle for gay equality, and it seems like daily, laws prohibiting it are being challenged in the courts, even in places like Texas and Utah, which no one saw coming. So a lot has changed since that night in 2008 when I felt torn in half. I did go on to make that film. It's a documentary film, and it's called "The New Black," and it looks at how the African-American community is grappling with the gay rights issue in light of the gay marriage movement and this fight over the meaning of civil rights. And I wanted to capture some of this incredible change that was happening, and as luck or politics would have it, another marriage battle started gearing up, this time in Maryland, where African-Americans make up 30 percent of the electorate. So this tension between gay rights and civil rights started to bubble up once again, and I was lucky enough to capture how some people were making the connection between the movements this time. This is a clip of Karess Taylor-Hughes and Samantha Masters, two characters in the film, as they hit the streets of Baltimore and try to convince potential voters. (Video) Samantha Masters: That's what's up, man, this is a righteous man over here. Okay, are you registered to vote? Man: No. Karess Taylor-Hughes: Okay. How old are you? Man: 21. KTH: 21? You gotta get registered to vote. We got to get you registered to vote. Man: I ain't voting on no gay shit. SM: Okay, why? What's up? Man: I ain't with that. SM: That's not cool. Man: What made you be gay? SM: So what made you be straight? So what made you be straight? Man 2: You can't answer that question. (Laughter) KSM: I used to not have the same rights as you, but I know that because a black man like yourself stood up for a woman like me, I know that I've got the same opportunities. So you, as a black man, have the opportunity to stand up for somebody else. Whether you're gay or not, these are your brothers and sisters out here, and they need you to represent. Man 2: Who is you to tell somebody who they can't have sex with, who they can't be with? They ain't got that power. Nobody has that power to say, you can't marry that young lady. Who has that power? Nobody. SM: But you know what? Our state has put the power in your hands, and so what we need you to do is vote for, you gonna vote for 6. Man 2: I got you. SM: Vote for 6, okay? Man 2: I got you. KSM: All right, do y'all need community service hours? You do? All right, you can always volunteer with us to get community service hours. Y'all want to do that? We feed you. We bring you pizza. (Laughter) (Applause) Yoruba Richen: Thank you. What's amazing to me about that clip that we just captured as we were filming is, it really shows how Karess understands the history of the civil rights movement, but she's not restricted by it. She doesn't just limit it to black people. She sees it as a blueprint for expanding rights to gays and lesbians. Maybe because she's younger, she's like 25, she's able to do this a little bit more easily, but the fact is that Maryland voters did pass that marriage equality amendment, and in fact it was the first time that marriage equality was directly voted on and passed by the voters. African-Americans supported it at a higher level than had ever been recorded. It was a complete turnaround from that night in 2008 when Proposition 8 was passed. It was, and feels, monumental. We in the LGBT community have gone from being a pathologized and reviled and criminalized group to being seen as part of the great human quest for dignity and equality. We've gone from having to hide our sexuality in order to maintain our jobs and our families to literally getting a place at the table with the president and a shout out at his second inauguration. I just want to read what he said at that inauguration: "We the people declare today that the most evident of truths, that all of us are created equal. It is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall." Now we know that everything is not perfect, especially when you look at what's happening with the LGBT rights issue internationally, but it says something about how far we've come when our president puts the gay freedom struggle in the context of the other great freedom struggles of our time: the women's rights movement and the civil rights movement. His statement demonstrates not only the interconnectedness of those movements, but how each one borrowed and was inspired by the other. So just as Martin Luther King learned from and borrowed from Gandhi's tactics of civil disobedience and nonviolence, which became a bedrock of the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement saw what worked in the civil rights movement, and they used some of those same strategies and tactics to make gains at an even quicker pace. Maybe one more other reason for the relative quick progress of the gay rights movement. Whereas a lot of us continue to still live in racially segregated spaces, LGBT folks, we are everywhere. We are in urban communities and rural communities, communities of color, immigrant communities, churches and mosques and synagogues. We are your mothers and brothers and sisters and sons. And when someone that you love or a family member comes out, it may be easier to support their quest for equality. And in fact, the gay rights movement asks us to support justice and equality from a space of love. That may be the biggest, greatest gift that the movement has given us. It calls on us to access that which is most universal and most intimate: a love of our brother and our sister and our neighbor. I just want to end with a quote by one of our greatest freedom fighters who's no longer with us, Nelson Mandela of South Africa. Nelson Mandela led South Africa after the dark and brutal days of Apartheid, and out of the ashes of that legalized racial discrimination, he led South Africa to become the first country in the world to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation within its constitution. Mandela said, "For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others." So as these movements continue on, and as freedom struggles around the world continue on, let's remember that not only are they interconnected, but they must support and enhance each other for us to be truly victorious. Thank you. (Applause)
I am a plant geneticist. I study genes that make plants resistant to disease and tolerant of stress. In recent years, millions of people around the world have come to believe that there's something sinister about genetic modification. Today, I am going to provide a different perspective. First, let me introduce my husband, Raoul. He's an organic farmer. On his farm, he plants a variety of different crops. This is one of the many ecological farming practices he uses to keep his farm healthy. Imagine some of the reactions we get: "Really? An organic farmer and a plant geneticist? Can you agree on anything?" Well, we can, and it's not difficult, because we have the same goal. We want to help nourish the growing population without further destroying the environment. I believe this is the greatest challenge of our time. Now, genetic modification is not new; virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified in some manner. Let me give you a few examples. On the left is an image of the ancient ancestor of modern corn. You see a single roll of grain that's covered in a hard case. Unless you have a hammer, teosinte isn't good for making tortillas. Now, take a look at the ancient ancestor of banana. You can see the large seeds. And unappetizing brussel sprouts, and eggplant, so beautiful. Now, to create these varieties, breeders have used many different genetic techniques over the years. Some of them are quite creative, like mixing two different species together using a process called grafting to create this variety that's half tomato and half potato. Breeders have also used other types of genetic techniques, such as random mutagenesis, which induces uncharacterized mutations into the plants. The rice in the cereal that many of us fed our babies was developed using this approach. Now, today, breeders have even more options to choose from. Some of them are extraordinarily precise. I want to give you a couple examples from my own work. I work on rice, which is a staple food for more than half the world's people. Each year, 40 percent of the potential harvest is lost to pest and disease. For this reason, farmers plant rice varieties that carry genes for resistance. This approach has been used for nearly 100 years. Yet, when I started graduate school, no one knew what these genes were. It wasn't until the 1990s that scientists finally uncovered the genetic basis of resistance. In my laboratory, we isolated a gene for immunity to a very serious bacterial disease in Asia and Africa. We found we could engineer the gene into a conventional rice variety that's normally susceptible, and you can see the two leaves on the bottom here are highly resistant to infection. Now, the same month that my laboratory published our discovery on the rice immunity gene, my friend and colleague Dave Mackill stopped by my office. He said, "Seventy million rice farmers are having trouble growing rice." That's because their fields are flooded, and these rice farmers are living on less than two dollars a day. Although rice grows well in standing water, most rice varieties will die if they're submerged for more than three days. Flooding is expected to be increasingly problematic as the climate changes. He told me that his graduate student Kenong Xu and himself were studying an ancient variety of rice that had an amazing property. It could withstand two weeks of complete submergence. He asked if I would be willing to help them isolate this gene. I said yes -- I was very excited, because I knew if we were successful, we could potentially help millions of farmers grow rice even when their fields were flooded. Kenong spent 10 years looking for this gene. Then one day, he said, "Come look at this experiment. You've got to see it." I went to the greenhouse and I saw that the conventional variety that was flooded for 18 days had died, but the rice variety that we had genetically engineered with a new gene we had discovered, called Sub1, was alive. Kenong and I were amazed and excited that a single gene could have this dramatic effect. But this is just a greenhouse experiment. Would this work in the field? Now, I'm going to show you a four-month time lapse video taken at the International Rice Research Institute. Breeders there developed a rice variety carrying the Sub1 gene using another genetic technique called precision breeding. On the left, you can see the Sub1 variety, and on the right is the conventional variety. Both varieties do very well at first, but then the field is flooded for 17 days. You can see the Sub1 variety does great. In fact, it produces three and a half times more grain than the conventional variety. I love this video because it shows the power of plant genetics to help farmers. Last year, with the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, three and a half million farmers grew Sub1 rice. (Applause) Thank you. Now, many people don't mind genetic modification when it comes to moving rice genes around, rice genes in rice plants, or even when it comes to mixing species together through grafting or random mutagenesis. But when it comes to taking genes from viruses and bacteria and putting them into plants, a lot of people say, "Yuck." Why would you do that? The reason is that sometimes it's the cheapest, safest, and most effective technology for enhancing food security and advancing sustainable agriculture. I'm going to give you three examples. First, take a look at papaya. It's delicious, right? But now, look at this papaya. This papaya is infected with papaya ringspot virus. In the 1950s, this virus nearly wiped out the entire production of papaya on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. Many people thought that the Hawaiian papaya was doomed, but then, a local Hawaiian, a plant pathologist named Dennis Gonsalves, decided to try to fight this disease using genetic engineering. He took a snippet of viral DNA and he inserted it into the papaya genome. This is kind of like a human getting a vaccination. Now, take a look at his field trial. You can see the genetically engineered papaya in the center. It's immune to infection. The conventional papaya around the outside is severely infected with the virus. Dennis' pioneering work is credited with rescuing the papaya industry. Today, 20 years later, there's still no other method to control this disease. There's no organic method. There's no conventional method. Eighty percent of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered. Now, some of you may still feel a little queasy about viral genes in your food, but consider this: The genetically engineered papaya carries just a trace amount of the virus. If you bite into an organic or conventional papaya that is infected with the virus, you will be chewing on tenfold more viral protein. Now, take a look at this pest feasting on an eggplant. The brown you see is frass, what comes out the back end of the insect. To control this serious pest, which can devastate the entire eggplant crop in Bangladesh, Bangladeshi farmers spray insecticides two to three times a week, sometimes twice a day, when pest pressure is high. But we know that some insecticides are very harmful to human health, especially when farmers and their families cannot afford proper protection, like these children. In less developed countries, it's estimated that 300,000 people die every year because of insecticide misuse and exposure. Cornell and Bangladeshi scientists decided to fight this disease using a genetic technique that builds on an organic farming approach. Organic farmers like my husband Raoul spray an insecticide called B.T., which is based on a bacteria. This pesticide is very specific to caterpillar pests, and in fact, it's nontoxic to humans, fish and birds. It's less toxic than table salt. But this approach does not work well in Bangladesh. That's because these insecticide sprays are difficult to find, they're expensive, and they don't prevent the insect from getting inside the plants. In the genetic approach, scientists cut the gene out of the bacteria and insert it directly into the eggplant genome. Will this work to reduce insecticide sprays in Bangladesh? Definitely. Last season, farmers reported they were able to reduce their insecticide use by a huge amount, almost down to zero. They're able to harvest and replant for the next season. Now, I've given you a couple examples of how genetic engineering can be used to fight pests and disease and to reduce the amount of insecticides. My final example is an example where genetic engineering can be used to reduce malnutrition. In less developed countries, 500,000 children go blind every year because of lack of Vitamin A. More than half will die. For this reason, scientists supported by the Rockefeller Foundation genetically engineered a golden rice to produce beta-carotene, which is the precursor of Vitamin A. This is the same pigment that we find in carrots. Researchers estimate that just one cup of golden rice per day will save the lives of thousands of children. But golden rice is virulently opposed by activists who are against genetic modification. Just last year, activists invaded and destroyed a field trial in the Philippines. When I heard about the destruction, I wondered if they knew that they were destroying much more than a scientific research project, that they were destroying medicines that children desperately needed to save their sight and their lives. Some of my friends and family still worry: How do you know genes in the food are safe to eat? I explained the genetic engineering, the process of moving genes between species, has been used for more than 40 years in wines, in medicine, in plants, in cheeses. In all that time, there hasn't been a single case of harm to human health or the environment. But I say, look, I'm not asking you to believe me. Science is not a belief system. My opinion doesn't matter. Let's look at the evidence. After 20 years of careful study and rigorous peer review by thousands of independent scientists, every major scientific organization in the world has concluded that the crops currently on the market are safe to eat and that the process of genetic engineering is no more risky than older methods of genetic modification. These are precisely the same organizations that most of us trust when it comes to other important scientific issues such as global climate change or the safety of vaccines. Raoul and I believe that, instead of worrying about the genes in our food, we must focus on how we can help children grow up healthy. We must ask if farmers in rural communities can thrive, and if everyone can afford the food. We must try to minimize environmental degradation. What scares me most about the loud arguments and misinformation about plant genetics is that the poorest people who most need the technology may be denied access because of the vague fears and prejudices of those who have enough to eat. We have a huge challenge in front of us. Let's celebrate scientific innovation and use it. It's our responsibility to do everything we can to help alleviate human suffering and safeguard the environment. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. Chris Anderson: Powerfully argued. The people who argue against GMOs, as I understand it, the core piece comes from two things. One, complexity and unintended consequence. Nature is this incredibly complex machine. If we put out these brand new genes that we've created, that haven't been challenged by years of evolution, and they started mixing up with the rest of what's going on, couldn't that trigger some kind of cataclysm or problem, especially when you add in the commercial incentive that some companies have to put them out there? The fear is that those incentives mean that the decision is not made on purely scientific grounds, and even if it was, that there would be unintended consequences. How do we know that there isn't a big risk of some unintended consequence? Often our tinkerings with nature do lead to big, unintended consequences and chain reactions. Pamela Ronald: Okay, so on the commercial aspects, one thing that's really important to understand is that, in the developed world, farmers in the United States, almost all farmers, whether they're organic or conventional, they buy seed produced by seed companies. So there's definitely a commercial interest to sell a lot of seed, but hopefully they're selling seed that the farmers want to buy. It's different in the less developed world. Farmers there cannot afford the seed. These seeds are not being sold. These seeds are being distributed freely through traditional kinds of certification groups, so it is very important in less developed countries that the seed be freely available. CA: Wouldn't some activists say that this is actually part of the conspiracy? This is the heroin strategy. You seed the stuff, and people have no choice but to be hooked on these seeds forever? PR: There are a lot of conspiracy theories for sure, but it doesn't work that way. For example, the seed that's being distributed, the flood-tolerant rice, this is distributed freely through Indian and Bangladeshi seed certification agencies, so there's no commercial interest at all. The golden rice was developed through support of the Rockefeller Foundation. Again, it's being freely distributed. There are no commercial profits in this situation. And now to address your other question about, well, mixing genes, aren't there some unintended consequences? Absolutely -- every time we do something different, there's an unintended consequence, but one of the points I was trying to make is that we've been doing kind of crazy things to our plants, mutagenesis using radiation or chemical mutagenesis. This induces thousands of uncharacterized mutations, and this is even a higher risk of unintended consequence than many of the modern methods. And so it's really important not to use the term GMO because it's scientifically meaningless. I feel it's very important to talk about a specific crop and a specific product, and think about the needs of the consumer. CA: So part of what's happening here is that there's a mental model in a lot of people that nature is nature, and it's pure and pristine, and to tinker with it is Frankensteinian. It's making something that's pure dangerous in some way, and I think you're saying that that whole model just misunderstands how nature is. Nature is a much more chaotic interplay of genetic changes that have been happening all the time anyway. PR: That's absolutely true, and there's no such thing as pure food. I mean, you could not spray eggplant with insecticides or not genetically engineer it, but then you'd be stuck eating frass. So there's no purity there. CA: Pam Ronald, thank you. That was powerfully argued. PR: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. (Applause)
Over the last two decades, India has become a global hub for software development and offshoring of back office services, as we call it, and what we were interested in finding out was that because of this huge industry that has started over the last two decades in India, offshoring software development and back office services, there's been a flight of white collar jobs from the developed world to India. When this is combined with the loss of manufacturing jobs to China, it has, you know, led to considerable angst amongst the Western populations. In fact, if you look at polls, they show a declining trend for support for free trade in the West. Now, the Western elites, however, have said this fear is misplaced. For example, if you have read — I suspect many of you have done so — read the book by Thomas Friedman called "The World Is Flat," he said, basically, in his book that, you know, this fear for free trade is wrong because it assumes, it's based on a mistaken assumption that everything that can be invented has been invented. In fact, he says, it's innovation that will keep the West ahead of the developing world, with the more sophisticated, innovative tasks being done in the developed world, and the less sophisticated, shall we say, drudge work being done in the developing world. Now, what we were trying to understand was, is this true? Could India become a source, or a global hub, of innovation, just like it's become a global hub for back office services and software development? And for the last four years, my coauthor Phanish Puranam and I spent investigating this topic. Initially, or, you know, as people would say, you know, in fact the more aggressive people who are supporting the Western innovative model, say, "Where are the Indian Googles, iPods and Viagras, if the Indians are so bloody smart?" (Laughter) So initially, when we started our research, we went and met several executives, and we asked them, "What do you think? Will India go from being a favored destination for software services and back office services to a destination for innovation?" They laughed. They dismissed us. They said, "You know what? Indians don't do innovation." The more polite ones said, "Well, you know, Indians make good software programmers and accountants, but they can't do the creative stuff." Sometimes, it took a more, took a veneer of sophistication, and people said, "You know, it's nothing to do with Indians. It's really the rule-based, regimented education system in India that is responsible for killing all creativity." They said, instead, if you want to see real creativity, go to Silicon Valley, and look at companies like Google, Microsoft, Intel. So we started examining the R&D and innovation labs of Silicon Valley. Well, interestingly, what you find there is, usually you are introduced to the head of the innovation lab or the R&D center as they may call it, and more often than not, it's an Indian. (Laughter) So I immediately said, "Well, but you could not have been educated in India, right? You must have gotten your education here." It turned out, in every single case, they came out of the Indian educational system. So we realized that maybe we had the wrong question, and the right question is, really, can Indians based out of India do innovative work? So off we went to India. We made, I think, about a dozen trips to Bangalore, Mumbai, Gurgaon, Delhi, Hyderabad, you name it, to examine what is the level of corporate innovation in these cities. And what we found was, as we progressed in our research, was, that we were asking really the wrong question. When you ask, "Where are the Indian Googles, iPods and Viagras?" you are taking a particular perspective on innovation, which is innovation for end users, visible innovation. Instead, innovation, if you remember, some of you may have read the famous economist Schumpeter, he said, "Innovation is novelty in how value is created and distributed." It could be new products and services, but it could also be new ways of producing products. It could also be novel ways of organizing firms and industries. Once you take this, there's no reason to restrict innovation, the beneficiaries of innovation, just to end users. When you take this broader conceptualization of innovation, what we found was, India is well represented in innovation, but the innovation that is being done in India is of a form we did not anticipate, and what we did was we called it "invisible innovation." And specifically, there are four types of invisible innovation that are coming out of India. The first type of invisible innovation out of India is what we call innovation for business customers, which is led by the multinational corporations, which have -- in the last two decades, there have been 750 R&D centers set up in India by multinational companies employing more than 400,000 professionals. Now, when you consider the fact that, historically, the R&D center of a multinational company was always in the headquarters, or in the country of origin of that multinational company, to have 750 R&D centers of multinational corporations in India is truly a remarkable figure. When we went and talked to the people in those innovation centers and asked them what are they working on, they said, "We are working on global products." They were not working on localizing global products for India, which is the usual role of a local R&D. They were working on truly global products, and companies like Microsoft, Google, AstraZeneca, General Electric, Philips, have already answered in the affirmative the question that from their Bangalore and Hyderabad R&D centers they are able to produce products and services for the world. But of course, as an end user, you don't see that, because you only see the name of the company, not where it was developed. The other thing we were told then was, "Yes, but, you know, the kind of work that is coming out of the Indian R&D center cannot be compared to the kind of work that is coming out of the U.S. R&D centers." So my coauthor Phanish Puranam, who happens to be one of the smartest people I know, said he's going to do a study. What he did was he looked at those companies that had an R&D center in USA and in India, and then he looked at a patent that was filed out of the U.S. and a similar patent filed out of the same company's subsidiary in India, so he's now comparing the patents of R&D centers in the U.S. with R&D centers in India of the same company to find out what is the quality of the patents filed out of the Indian centers and how do they compare with the quality of the patents filed out of the U.S. centers? Interestingly, what he finds is — and by the way, the way we look at the quality of a patent is what we call forward citations: How many times does a future patent reference the older patent? — he finds something very interesting. What we find is that the data says that the number of forward citations of a patent filed out of a U.S. R&D subsidiary is identical to the number of forward citations of a patent filed by an Indian subsidiary of the same company within that company. So within the company, there's no difference in the forward citation rates of their Indian subsidiaries versus their U.S. subsidiaries. So that's the first kind of invisible innovation coming out of India. The second kind of invisible innovation coming out of India is what we call outsourcing innovation to Indian companies, where many companies today are contracting Indian companies to do a major part of their product development work for their global products which are going to be sold to the entire world. For example, in the pharma industry, a lot of the molecules are being developed, but you see a major part of that work is being sent to India. For example, XCL Technologies, they developed two of the mission critical systems for the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, one to avoid collisions in the sky, and another to allow landing in zero visibility. But of course, when you climb onto the Boeing 787, you are not going to know that this is invisible innovation out of India. The third kind of invisible innovation coming out of India is what we call process innovations, because of an injection of intelligence by Indian firms. Process innovation is different from product innovation. It's about how do you create a new product or develop a new product or manufacture a new product, but not a new product itself? Only in India do millions of young people dream of working in a call center. What happens — You know, it's a dead end job in the West, what high school dropouts do. What happens when you put hundreds of thousands of smart, young, ambitious kids on a call center job? Very quickly, they get bored, and they start innovating, and they start telling the boss how to do this job better, and out of this process innovation comes product innovations, which are then marketed around the world. For example, 24/7 Customer, traditional call center company, used to be a traditional call center company. Today they're developing analytical tools to do predictive modeling so that before you pick up the phone, you can guess or predict what this phone call is about. It's because of an injection of intelligence into a process which was considered dead for a long time in the West. And the last kind of innovation, invisible innovation coming out of India is what we call management innovation. It's not a new product or a new process but a new way to organize work, and the most significant management innovation to come out of India, invented by the Indian offshoring industry is what we call the global delivery model. What the global delivery model allows is, it allows you to take previously geographically core-located tasks, break them up into parts, send them around the world where the expertise and the cost structure exists, and then specify the means for reintegrating them. Without that, you could not have any of the other invisible innovations today. So, what I'm trying to say is, what we are finding in our research is, that if products for end users is the visible tip of the innovation iceberg, India is well represented in the invisible, large, submerged portion of the innovation iceberg. Now, this has, of course, some implications, and so we developed three implications of this research. The first is what we called sinking skill ladder, and now I'm going to go back to where I started my conversation with you, which was about the flight of jobs. Now, of course, when we first, as a multinational company, decide to outsource jobs to India in the R&D, what we are going to do is we are going to outsource the bottom rung of the ladder to India, the least sophisticated jobs, just like Tom Friedman would predict. Now, what happens is, when you outsource the bottom rung of the ladder to India for innovation and for R&D work, at some stage in the very near future you are going to have to confront a problem, which is where does the next step of the ladder people come from within your company? So you have two choices then: Either you bring the people from India into the developed world to take positions in the next step of the ladder — immigration — or you say, there's so many people in the bottom step of the ladder waiting to take the next position in India, why don't we move the next step to India? What we are trying to say is that once you outsource the bottom end of the ladder, you -- it's a self-perpetuating act, because of the sinking skill ladder, and the sinking skill ladder is simply the point that you can't be an investment banker without having been an analyst once. You can't be a professor without having been a student. You can't be a consultant without having been a research associate. So, if you outsource the least sophisticated jobs, at some stage, the next step of the ladder has to follow. The second thing we bring up is what we call the browning of the TMT, the top management teams. If the R&D talent is going to be based out of India and China, and the largest growth markets are going to be based out of India and China, you have to confront the problem that your top management of the future is going to have to come out of India and China, because that's where the product leadership is, that's where the important market leadership is. Right? And the last thing we point out in this slide, which is, you know, that to this story, there's one caveat. India has the youngest growing population in the world. This demographic dividend is incredible, but paradoxically, there's also the mirage of mighty labor pools. Indian institutes and educational system, with a few exceptions, are incapable of producing students in the quantity and quality needed to keep this innovation engine going, so companies are finding innovative ways to overcome this, but in the end it does not absolve the government of the responsibility for creating this educational structure. So finally, I want to conclude by showing you the profile of one company, IBM. As many of you know, IBM has always been considered for the last hundred years to be one of the most innovative companies. In fact, if you look at the number of patents filed over history, I think they are in the top or the top two or three companies in the world of all patents filed in the USA as a private company. Here is the profile of employees of IBM over the last decade. In 2003, they had 300,000 employees, or 330,000 employees, out of which, 135,000 were in America, 9,000 were in India. In 2009, they had 400,000 employees, by which time the U.S. employees had moved to 105,000, whereas the Indian employees had gone to 100,000. Well, in 2010, they decided they're not going to reveal this data anymore, so I had to make some estimates based on various sources. Here are my best guesses. Okay? I'm not saying this is the exact number, it's my best guess. It gives you a sense of the trend. There are 433,000 people now at IBM, out of which 98,000 are remaining in the U.S., and 150,000 are in India. So you tell me, is IBM an American company, or an Indian company? (Laughter) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. (Applause)
Beau Lotto: So, this game is very simple. All you have to do is read what you see. Right? So, I'm going to count to you, so we don't all do it together. Okay, one, two, three.Audience: Can you read this? BL: Amazing. What about this one? One, two, three.Audience: You are not reading this. BL: All right. One, two, three. (Laughter) If you were Portuguese, right? How about this one? One, two, three. Audience: What are you reading? BL: What are you reading? There are no words there. I said, read what you're seeing. Right? It literally says, "Wat ar ou rea in?" (Laughter) Right? That's what you should have said. Right? Why is this? It's because perception is grounded in our experience. Right? The brain takes meaningless information and makes meaning out of it, which means we never see what's there, we never see information, we only ever see what was useful to see in the past. All right? Which means, when it comes to perception, we're all like this frog. (Laughter) Right? It's getting information. It's generating behavior that's useful. (Laughter) (Laughter) (Video) Man: Ow! Ow! (Laughter) (Applause) BL: And sometimes, when things don't go our way, we get a little bit annoyed, right? But we're talking about perception here, right? And perception underpins everything we think, we know, we believe, our hopes, our dreams, the clothes we wear, falling in love, everything begins with perception. Now if perception is grounded in our history, it means we're only ever responding according to what we've done before. But actually, it's a tremendous problem, because how can we ever see differently? Now, I want to tell you a story about seeing differently, and all new perceptions begin in the same way. They begin with a question. The problem with questions is they create uncertainty. Now, uncertainty is a very bad thing. It's evolutionarily a bad thing. If you're not sure that's a predator, it's too late. Okay? (Laughter) Even seasickness is a consequence of uncertainty. Right? If you go down below on a boat, your inner ears are you telling you you're moving. Your eyes, because it's moving in register with the boat, say I'm standing still. Your brain cannot deal with the uncertainty of that information, and it gets ill. The question "why?" is one of the most dangerous things you can do, because it takes you into uncertainty. And yet, the irony is, the only way we can ever do anything new is to step into that space. So how can we ever do anything new? Well fortunately, evolution has given us an answer, right? And it enables us to address even the most difficult of questions. The best questions are the ones that create the most uncertainty. They're the ones that question the things we think to be true already. Right? It's easy to ask questions about how did life begin, or what extends beyond the universe, but to question what you think to be true already is really stepping into that space. So what is evolution's answer to the problem of uncertainty? It's play. Now play is not simply a process. Experts in play will tell you that actually it's a way of being. Play is one of the only human endeavors where uncertainty is actually celebrated. Uncertainty is what makes play fun. Right? It's adaptable to change. Right? It opens possibility, and it's cooperative. It's actually how we do our social bonding, and it's intrinsically motivated. What that means is that we play to play. Play is its own reward. Now if you look at these five ways of being, these are the exact same ways of being you need in order to be a good scientist. Science is not defined by the method section of a paper. It's actually a way of being, which is here, and this is true for anything that is creative. So if you add rules to play, you have a game. That's actually what an experiment is. So armed with these two ideas, that science is a way of being and experiments are play, we asked, can anyone become a scientist? And who better to ask than 25 eight- to 10-year-old children? Because they're experts in play. So I took my bee arena down to a small school in Devon, and the aim of this was to not just get the kids to see science differently, but, through the process of science, to see themselves differently. Right? The first step was to ask a question. Now, I should say that we didn't get funding for this study because the scientists said small children couldn't make a useful contribution to science, and the teachers said kids couldn't do it. So we did it anyway. Right? Of course. So, here are some of the questions. I put them in small print so you wouldn't bother reading it. Point is that five of the questions that the kids came up with were actually the basis of science publication the last five to 15 years. Right? So they were asking questions that were significant to expert scientists. Now here, I want to share the stage with someone quite special. Right? She was one of the young people who was involved in this study, and she's now one of the youngest published scientists in the world. Right? She will now, once she comes onto stage, will be the youngest person to ever speak at TED. Right? Now, science and asking questions is about courage. Now she is the personification of courage, because she's going to stand up here and talk to you all. So Amy, would you please come up? (Applause) (Applause) So Amy's going to help me tell the story of what we call the Blackawton Bees Project, and first she's going to tell you the question that they came up with. So go ahead, Amy. Amy O'Toole: Thank you, Beau. We thought that it was easy to see the link between humans and apes in the way that we think, because we look alike. But we wondered if there's a possible link with other animals. It'd be amazing if humans and bees thought similar, since they seem so different from us. So we asked if humans and bees might solve complex problems in the same way. Really, we wanted to know if bees can also adapt themselves to new situations using previously learned rules and conditions. So what if bees can think like us? Well, it'd be amazing, since we're talking about an insect with only one million brain cells. But it actually makes a lot of sense they should, because bees, like us, can recognize a good flower regardless of the time of day, the light, the weather, or from any angle they approach it from. (Applause) BL: So the next step was to design an experiment, which is a game. So the kids went off and they designed this experiment, and so -- well, game -- and so, Amy, can you tell us what the game was, and the puzzle that you set the bees? AO: The puzzle we came up with was an if-then rule. We asked the bees to learn not just to go to a certain color, but to a certain color flower only when it's in a certain pattern. They were only rewarded if they went to the yellow flowers if the yellow flowers were surrounded by the blue, or if the blue flowers were surrounded by the yellow. Now there's a number of different rules the bees can learn to solve this puzzle. The interesting question is, which? What was really exciting about this project was we, and Beau, had no idea whether it would work. It was completely new, and no one had done it before, including adults. (Laughter) BL: Including the teachers, and that was really hard for the teachers. It's easy for a scientist to go in and not have a clue what he's doing, because that's what we do in the lab, but for a teacher not to know what's going to happen at the end of the day -- so much of the credit goes to Dave Strudwick, who was the collaborator on this project. Okay? So I'm not going to go through the whole details of the study because actually you can read about it, but the next step is observation. So here are some of the students doing the observations. They're recording the data of where the bees fly. (Video) Dave Strudwick: So what we're going to do —Student: 5C. Dave Strudwick: Is she still going up here?Student: Yeah. Dave Strudwick: So you keep track of each.Student: Henry, can you help me here? BL: "Can you help me, Henry?" What good scientist says that, right? Student: There's two up there. And three in here. BL: Right? So we've got our observations. We've got our data. They do the simple mathematics, averaging, etc., etc. And now we want to share. That's the next step. So we're going to write this up and try to submit this for publication. Right? So we have to write it up. So we go, of course, to the pub. All right? (Laughter) The one on the left is mine, okay? (Laughter) Now, I tell them, a paper has four different sections: an introduction, a methods, a results, a discussion. The introduction says, what's the question and why? Methods, what did you do? Results, what was the observation? And the discussion is, who cares? Right? That's a science paper, basically. (Laughter) So the kids give me the words, right? I put it into a narrative, which means that this paper is written in kidspeak. It's not written by me. It's written by Amy and the other students in the class. As a consequence, this science paper begins, "Once upon a time ... " (Laughter) The results section, it says: "Training phase, the puzzle ... duh duh duuuuuhhh." Right? (Laughter) And the methods, it says, "Then we put the bees into the fridge (and made bee pie)," smiley face. Right? (Laughter) This is a science paper. We're going to try to get it published. So here's the title page. We have a number of authors there. All the ones in bold are eight to 10 years old. The first author is Blackawton Primary School, because if it were ever referenced, it would be "Blackawton et al," and not one individual. So we submit it to a public access journal, and it says this. It said many things, but it said this. "I'm afraid the paper fails our initial quality control checks in several different ways." (Laughter) In other words, it starts off "once upon a time," the figures are in crayon, etc. (Laughter) So we said, we'll get it reviewed. So I sent it to Dale Purves, who is at the National Academy of Science, one of the leading neuroscientists in the world, and he says, "This is the most original science paper I have ever read" — (Laughter) — "and it certainly deserves wide exposure." Larry Maloney, expert in vision, says, "The paper is magnificent. The work would be publishable if done by adults." So what did we do? We send it back to the editor. They say no. So we asked Larry and Natalie Hempel to write a commentary situating the findings for scientists, right, putting in the references, and we submit it to Biology Letters. And there, it was reviewed by five independent referees, and it was published. Okay? (Applause) (Applause) It took four months to do the science, two years to get it published. (Laughter) Typical science, actually, right? So this makes Amy and her friends the youngest published scientists in the world. What was the feedback like? Well, it was published two days before Christmas, downloaded 30,000 times in the first day, right? It was the Editors' Choice in Science, which is a top science magazine. It's forever freely accessible by Biology Letters. It's the only paper that will ever be freely accessible by this journal. Last year, it was the second-most downloaded paper by Biology Letters, and the feedback from not just scientists and teachers but the public as well. And I'll just read one. "I have read 'Blackawton Bees' recently. I don't have words to explain exactly how I am feeling right now. What you guys have done is real, true and amazing. Curiosity, interest, innocence and zeal are the most basic and most important things to do science. Who else can have these qualities more than children? Please congratulate your children's team from my side." So I'd like to conclude with a physical metaphor. Can I do it on you? (Laughter) Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, come on. Yeah yeah. Okay. Now, science is about taking risks, so this is an incredible risk, right? (Laughter) For me, not for him. Right? Because we've only done this once before. (Laughter) And you like technology, right? Shimon Schocken: Right, but I like myself. BL: This is the epitome of technology. Right. Okay. Now ... (Laughter) Okay. (Laughter) Now, we're going to do a little demonstration, right? You have to close your eyes, and you have to point where you hear me clapping. All right? (Clapping) (Clapping) Okay, how about if everyone over there shouts. One, two, three? Audience: (Shouts) (Laughter) (Shouts) (Laughter) Brilliant. Now, open your eyes. We'll do it one more time. Everyone over there shout. (Shouts) Where's the sound coming from? (Laughter) (Applause) Thank you very much. (Applause) What's the point? The point is what science does for us. Right? We normally walk through life responding, but if we ever want to do anything different, we have to step into uncertainty. When he opened his eyes, he was able to see the world in a new way. That's what science offers us. It offers the possibility to step on uncertainty through the process of play, right? Now, true science education I think should be about giving people a voice and enabling to express that voice, so I've asked Amy to be the last voice in this short story. So, Amy? AO: This project was really exciting for me, because it brought the process of discovery to life, and it showed me that anyone, and I mean anyone, has the potential to discover something new, and that a small question can lead into a big discovery. Changing the way a person thinks about something can be easy or hard. It all depends on the way the person feels about change. But changing the way I thought about science was surprisingly easy. Once we played the games and then started to think about the puzzle, I then realized that science isn't just a boring subject, and that anyone can discover something new. You just need an opportunity. My opportunity came in the form of Beau, and the Blackawton Bee Project. Thank you.BL: Thank you very much. (Applause) (Applause)
Over the last two decades, India has become a global hub for software development and offshoring of back office services, as we call it, and what we were interested in finding out was that because of this huge industry that has started over the last two decades in India, offshoring software development and back office services, there's been a flight of white collar jobs from the developed world to India. When this is combined with the loss of manufacturing jobs to China, it has, you know, led to considerable angst amongst the Western populations. In fact, if you look at polls, they show a declining trend for support for free trade in the West. Now, the Western elites, however, have said this fear is misplaced. For example, if you have read — I suspect many of you have done so — read the book by Thomas Friedman called "The World Is Flat," he said, basically, in his book that, you know, this fear for free trade is wrong because it assumes, it's based on a mistaken assumption that everything that can be invented has been invented. In fact, he says, it's innovation that will keep the West ahead of the developing world, with the more sophisticated, innovative tasks being done in the developed world, and the less sophisticated, shall we say, drudge work being done in the developing world. Now, what we were trying to understand was, is this true? Could India become a source, or a global hub, of innovation, just like it's become a global hub for back office services and software development? And for the last four years, my coauthor Phanish Puranam and I spent investigating this topic. Initially, or, you know, as people would say, you know, in fact the more aggressive people who are supporting the Western innovative model, say, "Where are the Indian Googles, iPods and Viagras, if the Indians are so bloody smart?" (Laughter) So initially, when we started our research, we went and met several executives, and we asked them, "What do you think? Will India go from being a favored destination for software services and back office services to a destination for innovation?" They laughed. They dismissed us. They said, "You know what? Indians don't do innovation." The more polite ones said, "Well, you know, Indians make good software programmers and accountants, but they can't do the creative stuff." Sometimes, it took a more, took a veneer of sophistication, and people said, "You know, it's nothing to do with Indians. It's really the rule-based, regimented education system in India that is responsible for killing all creativity." They said, instead, if you want to see real creativity, go to Silicon Valley, and look at companies like Google, Microsoft, Intel. So we started examining the R&D and innovation labs of Silicon Valley. Well, interestingly, what you find there is, usually you are introduced to the head of the innovation lab or the R&D center as they may call it, and more often than not, it's an Indian. (Laughter) So I immediately said, "Well, but you could not have been educated in India, right? You must have gotten your education here." It turned out, in every single case, they came out of the Indian educational system. So we realized that maybe we had the wrong question, and the right question is, really, can Indians based out of India do innovative work? So off we went to India. We made, I think, about a dozen trips to Bangalore, Mumbai, Gurgaon, Delhi, Hyderabad, you name it, to examine what is the level of corporate innovation in these cities. And what we found was, as we progressed in our research, was, that we were asking really the wrong question. When you ask, "Where are the Indian Googles, iPods and Viagras?" you are taking a particular perspective on innovation, which is innovation for end users, visible innovation. Instead, innovation, if you remember, some of you may have read the famous economist Schumpeter, he said, "Innovation is novelty in how value is created and distributed." It could be new products and services, but it could also be new ways of producing products. It could also be novel ways of organizing firms and industries. Once you take this, there's no reason to restrict innovation, the beneficiaries of innovation, just to end users. When you take this broader conceptualization of innovation, what we found was, India is well represented in innovation, but the innovation that is being done in India is of a form we did not anticipate, and what we did was we called it "invisible innovation." And specifically, there are four types of invisible innovation that are coming out of India. The first type of invisible innovation out of India is what we call innovation for business customers, which is led by the multinational corporations, which have -- in the last two decades, there have been 750 R&D centers set up in India by multinational companies employing more than 400,000 professionals. Now, when you consider the fact that, historically, the R&D center of a multinational company was always in the headquarters, or in the country of origin of that multinational company, to have 750 R&D centers of multinational corporations in India is truly a remarkable figure. When we went and talked to the people in those innovation centers and asked them what are they working on, they said, "We are working on global products." They were not working on localizing global products for India, which is the usual role of a local R&D. They were working on truly global products, and companies like Microsoft, Google, AstraZeneca, General Electric, Philips, have already answered in the affirmative the question that from their Bangalore and Hyderabad R&D centers they are able to produce products and services for the world. But of course, as an end user, you don't see that, because you only see the name of the company, not where it was developed. The other thing we were told then was, "Yes, but, you know, the kind of work that is coming out of the Indian R&D center cannot be compared to the kind of work that is coming out of the U.S. R&D centers." So my coauthor Phanish Puranam, who happens to be one of the smartest people I know, said he's going to do a study. What he did was he looked at those companies that had an R&D center in USA and in India, and then he looked at a patent that was filed out of the U.S. and a similar patent filed out of the same company's subsidiary in India, so he's now comparing the patents of R&D centers in the U.S. with R&D centers in India of the same company to find out what is the quality of the patents filed out of the Indian centers and how do they compare with the quality of the patents filed out of the U.S. centers? Interestingly, what he finds is — and by the way, the way we look at the quality of a patent is what we call forward citations: How many times does a future patent reference the older patent? — he finds something very interesting. What we find is that the data says that the number of forward citations of a patent filed out of a U.S. R&D subsidiary is identical to the number of forward citations of a patent filed by an Indian subsidiary of the same company within that company. So within the company, there's no difference in the forward citation rates of their Indian subsidiaries versus their U.S. subsidiaries. So that's the first kind of invisible innovation coming out of India. The second kind of invisible innovation coming out of India is what we call outsourcing innovation to Indian companies, where many companies today are contracting Indian companies to do a major part of their product development work for their global products which are going to be sold to the entire world. For example, in the pharma industry, a lot of the molecules are being developed, but you see a major part of that work is being sent to India. For example, XCL Technologies, they developed two of the mission critical systems for the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, one to avoid collisions in the sky, and another to allow landing in zero visibility. But of course, when you climb onto the Boeing 787, you are not going to know that this is invisible innovation out of India. The third kind of invisible innovation coming out of India is what we call process innovations, because of an injection of intelligence by Indian firms. Process innovation is different from product innovation. It's about how do you create a new product or develop a new product or manufacture a new product, but not a new product itself? Only in India do millions of young people dream of working in a call center. What happens — You know, it's a dead end job in the West, what high school dropouts do. What happens when you put hundreds of thousands of smart, young, ambitious kids on a call center job? Very quickly, they get bored, and they start innovating, and they start telling the boss how to do this job better, and out of this process innovation comes product innovations, which are then marketed around the world. For example, 24/7 Customer, traditional call center company, used to be a traditional call center company. Today they're developing analytical tools to do predictive modeling so that before you pick up the phone, you can guess or predict what this phone call is about. It's because of an injection of intelligence into a process which was considered dead for a long time in the West. And the last kind of innovation, invisible innovation coming out of India is what we call management innovation. It's not a new product or a new process but a new way to organize work, and the most significant management innovation to come out of India, invented by the Indian offshoring industry is what we call the global delivery model. What the global delivery model allows is, it allows you to take previously geographically core-located tasks, break them up into parts, send them around the world where the expertise and the cost structure exists, and then specify the means for reintegrating them. Without that, you could not have any of the other invisible innovations today. So, what I'm trying to say is, what we are finding in our research is, that if products for end users is the visible tip of the innovation iceberg, India is well represented in the invisible, large, submerged portion of the innovation iceberg. Now, this has, of course, some implications, and so we developed three implications of this research. The first is what we called sinking skill ladder, and now I'm going to go back to where I started my conversation with you, which was about the flight of jobs. Now, of course, when we first, as a multinational company, decide to outsource jobs to India in the R&D, what we are going to do is we are going to outsource the bottom rung of the ladder to India, the least sophisticated jobs, just like Tom Friedman would predict. Now, what happens is, when you outsource the bottom rung of the ladder to India for innovation and for R&D work, at some stage in the very near future you are going to have to confront a problem, which is where does the next step of the ladder people come from within your company? So you have two choices then: Either you bring the people from India into the developed world to take positions in the next step of the ladder — immigration — or you say, there's so many people in the bottom step of the ladder waiting to take the next position in India, why don't we move the next step to India? What we are trying to say is that once you outsource the bottom end of the ladder, you -- it's a self-perpetuating act, because of the sinking skill ladder, and the sinking skill ladder is simply the point that you can't be an investment banker without having been an analyst once. You can't be a professor without having been a student. You can't be a consultant without having been a research associate. So, if you outsource the least sophisticated jobs, at some stage, the next step of the ladder has to follow. The second thing we bring up is what we call the browning of the TMT, the top management teams. If the R&D talent is going to be based out of India and China, and the largest growth markets are going to be based out of India and China, you have to confront the problem that your top management of the future is going to have to come out of India and China, because that's where the product leadership is, that's where the important market leadership is. Right? And the last thing we point out in this slide, which is, you know, that to this story, there's one caveat. India has the youngest growing population in the world. This demographic dividend is incredible, but paradoxically, there's also the mirage of mighty labor pools. Indian institutes and educational system, with a few exceptions, are incapable of producing students in the quantity and quality needed to keep this innovation engine going, so companies are finding innovative ways to overcome this, but in the end it does not absolve the government of the responsibility for creating this educational structure. So finally, I want to conclude by showing you the profile of one company, IBM. As many of you know, IBM has always been considered for the last hundred years to be one of the most innovative companies. In fact, if you look at the number of patents filed over history, I think they are in the top or the top two or three companies in the world of all patents filed in the USA as a private company. Here is the profile of employees of IBM over the last decade. In 2003, they had 300,000 employees, or 330,000 employees, out of which, 135,000 were in America, 9,000 were in India. In 2009, they had 400,000 employees, by which time the U.S. employees had moved to 105,000, whereas the Indian employees had gone to 100,000. Well, in 2010, they decided they're not going to reveal this data anymore, so I had to make some estimates based on various sources. Here are my best guesses. Okay? I'm not saying this is the exact number, it's my best guess. It gives you a sense of the trend. There are 433,000 people now at IBM, out of which 98,000 are remaining in the U.S., and 150,000 are in India. So you tell me, is IBM an American company, or an Indian company? (Laughter) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. (Applause)
This cell phone started its trajectory in an artisanal mine in the Eastern Congo. It's mined by armed gangs using slaves, child slaves, what the U.N. Security Council calls "blood minerals," then traveled into some components and ended up in a factory in Shinjin in China. That factory -- over a dozen people have committed suicide already this year. One man died after working a 36-hour shift. We all love chocolate. We buy it for our kids. Eighty percent of the cocoa comes from Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana and it's harvested by children. Cote d'Ivoire, we have a huge problem of child slaves. Children have been trafficked from other conflict zones to come and work on the coffee plantations. Heparin -- a blood thinner, a pharmaceutical product -- starts out in artisanal workshops like this in China, because the active ingredient comes from pigs' intestines. Your diamond -- you've all heard, probably seen the movie "Blood Diamond." This is a mine in Zimbabwe right now. Cotton: Uzbekistan is the second biggest exporter of cotton on Earth. Every year when it comes to the cotton harvest, the government shuts down the schools, puts the kids in buses, buses them to the cotton fields to spend three weeks harvesting the cotton. It's forced child labor on an institutional scale. And all of those products probably end their lives in a dump like this one in Manila. These places, these origins, represent governance gaps. That's the politest description I have for them. These are the dark pools where global supply chains begin -- the global supply chains, which bring us our favorite brand name products. Some of these governance gaps are run by rogue states. Some of them are not states anymore at all. They're failed states. Some of them are just countries who believe that deregulation or no regulation is the best way to attract investment, promote trade. Either way, they present us with a huge moral and ethical dilemma. I know that none of us want to be accessories after the fact of a human rights abuse in a global supply chain. But right now, most of the companies involved in these supply chains don't have any way of assuring us that nobody had to mortgage their future, nobody had to sacrifice their rights to bring us our favorite brand name product. Now, I didn't come here to depress you about the state of the global supply chain. We need a reality check. We need to recognize just how serious a deficit of rights we have. This is an independent republic, probably a failed state. It's definitely not a democratic state. And right now, that independent republic of the supply chain is not being governed in a way that would satisfy us, that we can engage in ethical trade or ethical consumption. Now, that's not a new story. You've seen the documentaries of sweatshops making garments all over the world, even in developed countries. You want to see the classic sweatshop, meet me at Madison Square Garden, I'll take you down the street, and I'll show you a Chinese sweatshop. But take the example of heparin. It's a pharmaceutical product. You expect that the supply chain that gets it to the hospital, probably squeaky clean. The problem is that the active ingredient in there -- as I mentioned earlier -- comes from pigs. The main American manufacturer of that active ingredient decided a few years ago to relocate to China because it's the world's biggest supplier of pigs. And their factory in China -- which probably is pretty clean -- is getting all of the ingredients from backyard abattoirs, where families slaughter pigs and extract the ingredient. So a couple of years ago, we had a scandal which killed about 80 people around the world, because of contaminants that crept into the heparin supply chain. Worse, some of the suppliers realized that they could substitute a product which mimicked heparin in tests. This substitute cost nine dollars a pound, whereas real heparin, the real ingredient, cost 900 dollars a pound. A no-brainer. The problem was that it killed more people. And so you're asking yourself, "How come the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed this to happen? How did the Chinese State Agency for Food and Drugs allow this to happen?" And the answer is quite simple: the Chinese define these facilities as chemical facilities, not pharmaceutical facilities, so they don't audit them. And the USFDA has a jurisdictional problem. This is offshore. They actually do conduct a few investigations overseas -- about a dozen a year -- maybe 20 in a good year. There are 500 of these facilities producing active ingredients in China alone. In fact, about 80 percent of the active ingredients in medicines now come from offshore, particularly China and India, and we don't have a governance system. We don't have a regulatory system able to ensure that that production is safe. We don't have a system to ensure that human rights, basic dignity, are ensured. So at a national level -- and we work in about 60 different countries -- at a national level we've got a serious breakdown in the ability of governments to regulate production on their own soil. And the real problem with the global supply chain is that it's supranational. So governments who are failing, who are dropping the ball at a national level, have even less ability to get their arms around the problem at an international level. And you can just look at the headlines. Take Copenhagen last year -- complete failure of governments to do the right thing in the face of an international challenge. Take the G20 meeting a couple of weeks ago -- stepped back from its commitments of just a few months ago. You can take any one of the major global challenges we've discussed this week and ask yourself, where is the leadership from governments to step up and come up with solutions, responses, to those international problems? And the simple answer is they can't. They're national. Their voters are local. They have parochial interests. They can't subordinate those interests to the greater global public good. So, if we're going to ensure the delivery of the key public goods at an international level -- in this case, in the global supply chain -- we have to come up with a different mechanism. We need a different machine. Fortunately, we have some examples. In the 1990s, there were a whole series of scandals concerning the production of brand name goods in the U.S. -- child labor, forced labor, serious health and safety abuses. And eventually President Clinton, in 1996, convened a meeting at the White House, invited industry, human rights NGOs, trade unions, the Department of Labor, got them all in a room and said, "Look, I don't want globalization to be a race to the bottom. I don't know how to prevent that, but I'm at least going to use my good offices to get you folks together to come up with a response." So they formed a White House task force, and they spent about three years arguing about who takes how much responsibility in the global supply chain. Companies didn't feel it was their responsibility. They don't own those facilities. They don't employ those workers. They're not legally liable. Everybody else at the table said, "Folks, that doesn't cut it. You have a custodial duty, a duty of care, to make sure that that product gets from wherever to the store in a way that allows us to consume it, without fear of our safety, or without having to sacrifice our conscience to consume that product." So they agreed, "Okay, what we'll do is we agree on a common set of standards, code of conduct. We'll apply that throughout our global supply chain regardless of ownership or control. We'll make it part of the contract." And that was a stroke of absolute genius, because what they did was they harnessed the power of the contract, private power, to deliver public goods. And let's face it, the contract from a major multinational brand to a supplier in India or China has much more persuasive value than the local labor law, the local environmental regulations, the local human rights standards. Those factories will probably never see an inspector. If the inspector did come along, it would be amazing if they were able to resist the bribe. Even if they did their jobs, and they cited those facilities for their violations, the fine would be derisory. But you lose that contract for a major brand name, that's the difference between staying in business or going bankrupt. That makes a difference. So what we've been able to do is we've been able to harness the power and the influence of the only truly transnational institution in the global supply chain, that of the multinational company, and get them to do the right thing, get them to use that power for good, to deliver the key public goods. Now of course, this doesn't come naturally to multinational companies. They weren't set up to do this. They're set up to make money. But they are extremely efficient organizations. They have resources, and if we can add the will, the commitment, they know how to deliver that product. Now, getting there is not easy. Those supply chains I put up on the screen earlier, they're not there. You need a safe space. You need a place where people can come together, sit down without fear of judgment, without recrimination, to actually face the problem, agree on the problem and come up with solutions. We can do it. The technical solutions are there. The problem is the lack of trust, the lack of confidence, the lack of partnership between NGOs, campaign groups, civil society organizations and multinational companies. If we can put those two together in a safe space, get them to work together, we can deliver public goods right now, or in extremely short supply. This is a radical proposition, and it's crazy to think that if you're a 15-year-old Bangladeshi girl leaving your rural village to go and work in a factory in Dhaka -- 22, 23, 24 dollars a month -- your best chance of enjoying rights at work is if that factory is producing for a brand name company which has got a code of conduct and made that code of conduct part of the contract. It's crazy. Multinationals are protecting human rights. I know there's going to be disbelief. You'll say, "How can we trust them?" Well, we don't. It's the old arms control phrase: "Trust, but verify." So we audit. We take their supply chain, we take all the factory names, we do a random sample, we send inspectors on an unannounced basis to inspect those facilities, and then we publish the results. Transparency is absolutely critical to this. You can call yourself responsible, but responsibility without accountability often doesn't work. So what we're doing is, we're not only enlisting the multinationals, we're giving them the tools to deliver this public good -- respect for human rights -- and we're checking. You don't need to believe me. You shouldn't believe me. Go to the website. Look at the audit results. Ask yourself, is this company behaving in a socially responsible way? Can I buy that product without compromising my ethics? That's the way the system works. I hate the idea that governments are not protecting human rights around the world. I hate the idea that governments have dropped this ball and I can't get used to the idea that somehow we can't get them to do their jobs. I've been at this for 30 years, and in that time I've seen the ability, the commitment, the will of government to do this decline, and I don't see them making a comeback right now. So we started out thinking this was a stopgap measure. We're now thinking that, in fact, this is probably the start of a new way of regulating and addressing international challenges. Call it network governance. Call it what you will. The private actors, companies and NGOs, are going to have to get together to face the major challenges we are going to face. Just look at pandemics -- swine flu, bird flu, H1N1. Look at the health systems in so many countries. Do they have the resources to face up to a serious pandemic? No. Could the private sector and NGOs get together and marshal a response? Absolutely. What they lack is that safe space to come together, agree and move to action. That's what we're trying to provide. I know as well that this often seems like an overwhelming level of responsibility for people to assume. "You want me to deliver human rights throughout my global supply chain. There are thousands of suppliers in there." It seems too daunting, too dangerous, for any company to take on. But there are companies. We have 4,000 companies who are members. Some of them are very, very large companies. The sporting goods industry, in particular, stepped up to the plate and have done it. The example, the role model, is there. And whenever we discuss one of these problems that we have to address -- child labor in cottonseed farms in India -- this year we will monitor 50,000 cottonseed farms in India. It seems overwhelming. The numbers just make you want to zone out. But we break it down to some basic realities. And human rights comes down to a very simple proposition: can I give this person their dignity back? Poor people, people whose human rights have been violated -- the crux of that is the loss of dignity, the lack of dignity. It starts with just giving people back their dignity. I was sitting in a slum outside Gurgaon just next to Delhi, one of the flashiest, brightest new cities popping up in India right now, and I was talking to workers who worked in garment sweatshops down the road, and I asked them what message they would like me to take to the brands. They didn't say money. They said, "The people who employ us treat us like we are less than human, like we don't exist. Please ask them to treat us like human beings." That's my simple understanding of human rights. That's my simple proposition to you, my simple plea to every decision-maker in this room, everybody out there. We can all make a decision to come together and pick up the balls and run with the balls that governments have dropped. If we don't do it, we're abandoning hope, we're abandoning our essential humanity, and I know that's not a place we want to be, and we don't have to be there. So I appeal to you. Join us, come into that safe space, and let's start to make this happen. Thank you very much. (Applause)
One morning, in the year 1957, the neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield saw himself like this, a weird freak with huge hands, huge mouth, and a tiny bottom. Actually this creature is the result of the Penfield research. He named it homunculus. Basically the homunculus is the visualization of a human being where each part of the body is proportional to the surface it takes in the brain. So, of course, homunculus is definitely not a freak. It's you. It's me. It's our invisible reality. This visualization could explain, for example, why newborns, or smokers, put, instinctively, their fingers in the mouth. Unfortunately it doesn't explain why so many designers remain mainly interested in designing chairs. So anyway, even if I do not understand science entirely, for my design I essentially refer to it. I'm fascinated by its ability to deeply investigate the human being, its way of working, its way of feeling. And it really helps me to understand how we see, how we hear, how we breathe, how our brain can inform or mislead us. It's a great tool for me to understand what could be our real needs. Marketing people have never been able to do that. Marketing reduces things. Marketing simplifies. Marketing creates user groups. And scientists, amidst complexity, amidst fluctuation and uniqueness. What could be our real needs? Maybe the silence. In our daily life we are continuously disturbed by aggressive sounds. And you know all those kind of sound puts us in a kind of stressful state, and prevent us from being quiet and focused. So I wanted to create a kind of sound filter, able to preserve ourselves from noise pollution. But I didn't want it to make it by isolating people, without any earmuffs or those kind of things. Or neither with including complex technology. I just wanted to, using the complexity and the technology of the brain, of the human brain. So I worked with white noise. dB is basically -- dB is the name of the product, basically a white noise diffuser. This is white noise. The white noise is the sum of all frequencies that are audible by the human being, brought to the same intensity. And this noise is like a "shhhhhhhhhhhhh," like that. And this noise is the most neutral. It is the perfect sound for our ears and our brain. So when you hear this sound you feel like a kind of shelter, preserved from noise pollution. And when you hear the white noise, your brain is immediately focused on it. And do not be disturbed any more by the other aggressive sound. It seems to be magic. But it is just physiology. It's just in your brain. And in mine, I hope. So in order to make this white noise a little bit active and reactive, I create a ball, a rolling ball able to analyze and find where does aggressive sound come from, and roll, at home or at work, towards aggressive noise, and emits white noise in order to neutralize it. (Laughter) It works. You feel the effect of the white noise? It's too in silence. If you make some noise you can feel the effect. So even if this object, even if this product includes some technology, it includes some speakers, it includes some microphones and some electronic devices, this object is not a very smart object. And I don't want to make a very smart object. I don't want to create a perfect object like a perfect robot. I want to create an object like you and me. So, definitely not perfect. So imagine, for instance, you are at home. A loving dispute with your girl or boyfriend. You shout. You say, "Blah blah blah, Blah blah blah. Who is this guy?" And dB will probably roll toward you. And turning around you is "shhhhhhh," like that. (Laughter) Definitely not perfect. So you would probably shut it, at this point. (Laughter) Anyway, in this same kind of approach, I designed K. K is a daylight receiver transmitter. So this object is supposed to be displayed on your desk, or on your piano, where you are supposed to spend most of your time in the day. And this object will be able to know exactly the quantity of light you receive during the day, and able to give you the quantity of light you need. This object is completely covered by fiber opticals. And the idea of those fiber opticals is to inform the object, for sure, but creates the idea of an eye sensibility of the object. I want, by this design feel, when you see it, you see, instinctively, this object seems to be very sensitive, very reactive. And this object knows, better than you and probably before you, what you really need. You have to know that the lack of daylight can provoke some problem of energy, or problem of libido. So, a huge problem. (Laughter) Most of the projects I work on -- I live in collaboration with scientists. I'm just a designer. So I need them. So there can be some biologists, psychiatrists, mathematicians, and so on. And I submit them, my intuitions, my hypothesis, my first ideas. And they react. They told me what is possible, what is impossible. And together we improve the original concept. And we build the project to the end. And this kind of relationship between designer and scientist started when I was at school. Indeed in my studies I was a guinea pig for a pharmaceutical industry. And the irony for me was of course, I didn't do that for the sake of science progress. I just do that to make money. Anyway, this project, or this experience, make me start a new project on the design of medicine. You have to know that today, roughly one or two every drug pills is not taken correctly. So even if the active constituents in pharmaceuticals made constant progress in terms of chemistry, target of stability, the behavior of the patients goes more and more unstable. So we took too many of them. We took irregular dosage. We do not follow instructions. And so on. So I wanted to create a new kind of medicine, in order to create a new kind of relationship between the patient and the treatment. So I turned traditional pills into this. I'm going to give you some example. This one is an antibiotic. And its purpose is to help patient to go to the end of the treatment. And the concept is to create a kind of onion, a kind of structure in layers. So, you start with the darkest one. And you are helped to visualize the duration of the treatment. And you are helped to visualize the decrease of the infection. So the first day, this is the big one. And you have to peel and eat one layer a day. And your antibiotic goes smaller and clearer. And you're waiting for recovery as you were waiting for the Christmas day. And you follow the treatment like that, to the end of the treatment. And here you can get the white core. And it means, right, you are in the recovery. (Applause) Thank you. This one is a "third lung," a pharmaceutical device for long-term asthma treatment. I designed it to help kids to follow the treatment. So the idea of this one is to create a relationship between the patient of the treatment but a relationship of dependency. But in this case it is not the medication that is dependent on the patient. This is, the kids will feel the therapeutic object needs him. So the idea is, all night long the elastic skin of the third lung will slowly inflate itself, including air and molecules, for sure. And when the kids wake up, he can see the object needs him. And he take him to his mouth, and breathe the air it contains. So by this way, the kid, to take care of himself, is to take care of this living object. And he does not feel anymore it's relies on asthma treatment, as the asthma treatment needs him. (Applause) In this guise of living object approach, I like the idea of a kind of invisible design, as if the function of the object exists in a kind of invisible field just around the objects themselves. We could talk about a kind of soul, of a ghost accompanying them. And almost a kind of poltergeist effect. So when a passive object like this one seems to be alive, because it is -- woosh -- starting to move. And I remember an exhibition design I made for John Maeda, and for the Fondation Cartier in Paris. And John Maeda was supposed to show several graphic animations in this exhibition. And my idea for this exhibition design was to create a real pong game, like this one. And the idea was to create some self-moving benches in the main exhibition room. So the living benches would be exactly like the ball. And John was so excited by this idea. He said to me, "Okay let's go." I remember the day of the opening. I was a little bit late. When I bring the 10 living and self-moving benches in the exhibition room, John was just beside me, and was like, "Hmm. Hmm." And he told me, after a long silence, "I wonder, Mathieu, if people won't be more fascinated by your benches than by my videos." (Laughter) It would be a great honor, a great compliment for me, if he hadn't decided to take all them off two hours before the opening. So, huge tragedy. I guess you won't be surprised if I tell you that Pinocchio is one of my great influences. Pinocchio is probably one of my best design products, my favorite one. Because it is a kind of object with a conscience, able to be modified by its surroundings, and able to modify it as well. The other great influence is the mine's canary. In coal mines, this canary was supposed to be close to the miners. And it was singing all day long. And when it stops it means that it just died. So this canary was a living alarm, and a very efficient one. A very natural technology, in order to say to the miners, "The air is too bad. You have to go. It's an emergency." So it's, for me, a great product. And I tried to design a kind of canary. Andrea is one. Andrea is a living air filter that absorbs toxic gasses from air, contaminated indoor air. So it uses some plants to do this job, selected for their gas-filtering ability. You have to know, or you probably already know, that indoor air pollution is more toxic than outdoor one. So while I'm talking to you, the seats you are sitting on are currently emitting some invisible and odorless toxic gas. Sorry for that. (Laughter) So you are currently breathing formaldehyde. It's the same for me with the carpet. And this is exactly the same at home. Because all the product we get constantly give away the volatile component of which they're made of. So let's have a look at your home. So your sofa, your plastic chair, your kid's toys give their own invisible reality. And this one is very toxic. This is the reason why I created, with David Edward, a scientist of Harvard University, an object able to absorb the toxic elements using those kind of plants. But the idea is to force the air to go in the effective part of the plants. Because the roots of the plant are not very effective. Bill Wolverton from NASA analyzed it cleverly in the '70s. So the idea is to create an object able to force the air, and to be in contact at the right speed at the right place, in all the effective parts of the plant. So this is the final object. It will be launched next September. (Applause) This one is kind of the same approach because I include, in a product like Andrea, some plants. And in this one, plants are used for the water filtration ability. And it includes some fishes as well. But here, unlike Andrea, here are supposed to be eaten. Indeed, this object is a domestic farm, for fishes and green. So the idea of this object is to be able to get at home very local food. The locavores used to get food taken in a radius of 100 miles. Local River is able to provide you food directly in your living room. So the principle of this object is to create an ecosystem called aquaponics. And the aquaponics is the dirty water of the fish, by a water pump, feeds the plants above. And the plants will filter, by the roots, the dirty water of the fish. After, it goes back into the fish tank. After that you have two options. Or you sit down in front of it like you would do in front your TV set. Amazing channel. Or you start fishing. And you make some sushis with a fish and the aromatic plants above. Because you can grow some potatoes. No, not potatoes, but tomatoes, aromatic plants and so on. So now we can breathe safely. Now we can eat local food. Now we can be treated by smart medicine. Now we can be well-balanced in our biorhythm with daylight. But it was important to create a perfect place, so I tried to, in order to work and create. So I designed, for an American scientist based in Paris, a very stimulative, brain-stimulative office. I wanted to create a perfect place where you can work and play, and where your body and your brain can work together. So, in this office, you do not work anymore at your desk, like a politician. Your seat, your sleep and your play on a big geodesic island made of leather. See, like this one? In this office you do not work and write and draw on a sheet of paper, but you draw directly on a kind of huge whiteboard cave, like a prehistoric scientist. So you, like that, can make some sport during your work. In this office you do not need to go out in order to be in contact with nature. You include, directly, the nature in the floor of the office. You can see it there. This is an inspiration image to lead this project of the office. It really helped me to design it. I never show it to my client. He would be so afraid. (Laughter) Just for my workshop. I guess it may be the revenge of the guinea pig I was. But it's maybe the conviction as monkey and homunculus we are. All of us need to be considered according to our real nature. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Well, good afternoon. How many of you took the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge? (Applause) Woo hoo! Well, I have to tell you, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you so very, very much. Do you know to date the ALS Association has raised 125 million dollars? Woo hoo! (Applause) It takes me back to the summer of 2011. My family, my kids had all grown up. We were officially empty nesters, and we decided, let's go on a family vacation. Jenn, my daughter, and my son-in-law came down from New York. My youngest, Andrew, he came down from his home in Charlestown where he was working in Boston, and my son Pete, who had played at Boston College, baseball, had played baseball professionally in Europe, and had now come home and was selling group insurance, he also joined us. And one night, I found myself having a beer with Pete, and Pete was looking at me and he just said, "You know, Mom, I don't know, selling group insurance is just not my passion." He said, "I just don't feel I'm living up to my potential. I don't feel this is my mission in life." And he said, "You know, oh by the way, Mom, I have to leave early from vacation because my inter-city league team that I play for made the playoffs, and I have to get back to Boston because I can't let my team down. I'm just not as passionate about my job as I am about baseball." So off Pete went, and left the family vacation — break a mother's heart — and he went, and we followed four days later to see the next playoff game. We're at the playoff game, Pete's at the plate, and a fastball's coming in, and it hits him on the wrist. Oh, Pete. His wrist went completely limp, like this. So for the next six months, Pete went back to his home in Southie, kept working that unpassionate job, and was going to doctors to see what was wrong with this wrist that never came back. Six months later, in March, he called my husband and me, and he said, "Oh, Mom and Dad, we have a doctor that found a diagnosis for that wrist. Do you want to come with the doctor's appointment with me?" I said, "Sure, we'll come in." That morning, Pete, John and I all got up, got dressed, got in our cars — three separate cars because we were going to go to work after the doctor's appointment to find out what happened to the wrist. We walked into the neurologist's office, sat down, four doctors walk in, and the head neurologist sits down. And he says, "Well, Pete, we've been looking at all the tests, and I have to tell you, it's not a sprained wrist, it's not a broken wrist, it's not nerve damage in the wrist, it's not an infection, it's not Lyme disease." And there was this deliberate elimination going up, and I was thinking to myself, where is he going with this? Then he put his hands on his knees, he looked right at my 27-year-old kid, and said, "I don't know how to tell a 27-year-old this: Pete, you have ALS." ALS? I had had a friend whose 80-year-old father had ALS. I looked at my husband, he looked at me, and then we looked at the doctor, and we said, "ALS? Okay, what treatment? Let's go. What do we do? Let's go." And he looked at us, and he said, "Mr. and Mrs. Frates, I'm sorry to tell you this, but there's no treatment and there's no cure." We were the worst culprits. We didn't even understand that it had been 75 years since Lou Gehrig and nothing had been done in the progress against ALS. So we all went home, and Jenn and Dan flew home from Wall Street, Andrew came home from Charlestown, and Pete went to B.C. to pick up his then-girlfriend Julie and brought her home, and six hours later after diagnosis, we're sitting around having a family dinner, and we're having small chat. I don't even remember cooking dinner that night. But then our leader, Pete, set the vision, and talked to us just like we were his new team. He said, "There will be no wallowing, people." He goes, "We're not looking back, we're looking forward. What an amazing opportunity we have to change the world. I'm going to change the face of this unacceptable situation of ALS. We're going to move the needle, and I'm going to get it in front of philanthropists like Bill Gates." And that was it. We were given our directive. So in the days and months that followed, within a week, we had our brothers and sisters and our family come to us, that they were already creating Team Frate Train. Uncle Dave, he was the webmaster; Uncle Artie, he was the accountant; Auntie Dana, she was the graphic artist; and my youngest son, Andrew, quit his job, left his apartment in Charlestown and says, "I'm going to take care of Pete and be his caregiver." Then all those people, classmates, teammates, coworkers that Pete had inspired throughout his whole life, the circles of Pete all started intersecting with one another, and made Team Frate Train. Six months after diagnosis, Pete was given an award at a research summit for advocacy. He got up and gave a very eloquent speech, and at the end of the speech, there was a panel, and on the panel were these pharmaceutical executives and biochemists and clinicians and I'm sitting there and I'm listening to them and most of the content went straight over my head. I avoided every science class I ever could. But I was watching these people, and I was listening to them, and they were saying, "I, I do this, I do that," and there was a real unfamiliarity between them. So at the end of their talk, the panel, they had questions and answers, and boom, my hand went right up, and I get the microphone, and I look at them and I say, "Thank you. Thank you so much for working in ALS. It means so very much to us." I said, "But I do have to tell you that I'm watching your body language and I'm listening to what you're saying. It just doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of collaboration going on here. And not only that, where's the flip chart with the action items and the follow-up and the accountability? What are you going to do after you leave this room?" And then I turned around and there was about 200 pairs of eyes just staring at me. And it was that point that I realized that I had talked about the elephant in the room. Thus my mission had begun. So over the next couple of years, Pete — we've had our highs and our lows. Pete was put on a compassionate use drug. It was hope in a bottle for the whole ALS community. It was in a phase III trial. Then six months later, the data comes back: no efficacy. We were supposed to have therapies overseas, and the rug was pulled out from under us. So for the next two years, we just watched my son be taken away from me, little by little every day. Two and a half years ago, Pete was hitting home runs at baseball fields. Today, Pete's completely paralyzed. He can't hold his head up any longer. He's confined to a motorized wheelchair. He can no longer swallow or eat. He has a feeding tube. He can't speak. He talks with eye gaze technology and a speech generating device, and we're watching his lungs, because his diaphragm eventually is going to give out and then the decision will be made to put him on a ventilator or not. ALS robs the human of all their physical parts, but the brain stays intact. So July 4th, 2014, 75th year of Lou Gehrig's inspirational speech comes, and Pete is asked by MLB.com to write an article in the Bleacher Report. And it was very significant, because he wrote it using his eye gaze technology. Twenty days later, the ice started to fall. On July 27th, Pete's roommate in New York City, wearing a Quinn For The Win shirt, signifying Pat Quinn, another ALS patient known in New York, and B.C. shorts said, "I'm taking the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge," picked up the ice, put it over his head. "And I'm nominating ..." And he sent it up to Boston. And that was on July 27th. Over the next couple of days, our news feed was full of family and friends. If you haven't gone back, the nice thing about Facebook is that you have the dates, you can go back. You've got to see Uncle Artie's human Bloody Mary. I'm telling you, it's one of the best ones, and that was probably in day two. By about day four, Uncle Dave, the webmaster, he isn't on Facebook, and I get a text from him, and it says, "Nancy, what the hell is going on?" Uncle Dave gets a hit every time Pete's website is gone onto, and his phone was blowing up. So we all sat down and we realized, money is coming in — how amazing. So we knew awareness would lead to funding, we just didn't know it would only take a couple of days. So we got together, put our best 501(c)(3)s on Pete's website, and off we went. So week one, Boston media. Week two, national media. It was during week two that our neighbor next door opened up our door and threw a pizza across the kitchen floor, saying, "I think you people might need food in there." (Laughter) Week three, celebrities — Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood. Week four, global — BBC, Irish Radio. Did anyone see "Lost In Translation"? My husband did Japanese television. It was interesting. (Laughter) And those videos, the popular ones. Paul Bissonnette's glacier video, incredible. How about the redemption nuns of Dublin? Who's seen that one? It's absolutely fantastic. J.T., Justin Timberlake. That's when we knew, that was a real A-list celebrity. I go back on my texts, and I can see "JT! JT!" My sister texting me. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. Incredible. And the ALS patients, you know what their favorite ones are, and their families'? All of them. Because this misunderstood and underfunded "rare" disease, they just sat and watched people saying it over and over: "ALS, ALS." It was unbelievable. And those naysayers, let's just talk a couple of stats, shall we? Okay, so the ALS Association, they think by year end, it'll be 160 million dollars. ALS TDI in Cambridge, they raised three million dollars. Well, guess what? They had a clinical trial for a drug that they've been developing. It was on a three-year track for funding. Two months. It's coming out starting in two months. (Applause) And YouTube has reported that over 150 countries have posted Ice Bucket Challenges for ALS. And Facebook, 2.5 million videos, and I had the awesome adventure visiting the Facebook campus last week, and I said to them, "I know what it was like in my house. I can't imagine what it was like around here." All she said was, "Jaw-dropping." And my family's favorite video? Bill Gates. Because the night Pete was diagnosed, he told us that he was going to get ALS in front of philanthropists like Bill Gates, and he did it. Goal number one, check. Now on to the treatment and cure. (Applause) So okay, after all of this ice, we know that it was much more than just pouring buckets of ice water over your head, and I really would like to leave you with a couple of things that I'd like you to remember. The first thing is, every morning when you wake up, you can choose to live your day in positivity. Would any of you blame me if I just was in the fetal position and pulled the covers over my head every day? No, I don't think anybody would blame me, but Pete has inspired us to wake up every morning and be positive and proactive. I actually had to ditch support groups because everybody was in there saying that spraying their lawns with chemicals, that's why they got ALS, and I was like, "I don't think so," but I had to get away from the negativity. The second thing I want to leave you with is the person at the middle of the challenge has to be willing to have the mental toughness to put themselves out there. Pete still goes to baseball games and he still sits with his teammates in the dugout, and he hangs his gravity feed bag right on the cages. You'll see the kids, they're up there hanging it up. "Pete, is that okay?" "Yup." And then they put it right into his stomach. Because he wants them to see what the reality of this is, and how he's never, ever going to give up. And the third thing I want to leave you with: If you ever come across a situation that you see as so unacceptable, I want you to dig down as deep as you can and find your best mother bear and go after it. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) I know that I'm running over, but I've got to leave you with this: the gifts that my son has given me. I have had 29 years of having the honor of being the mother of Pete Frates. Pete Frates has been inspiring and leading his whole life. He's thrown out kindness, and all that kindness has come back to him. He walks the face of the Earth right now and knows why he's here. What a gift. The second thing that my son has given me is he's given me my mission in life. Now I know why I'm here. I'm going to save my son, and if it doesn't happen in time for him, I'm going to work so that no other mother has to go through what I'm going through. And the third thing, and last but not least gift that my son has given me, as an exclamation point to the miraculous month of August 2014: That girlfriend that he went to get on the night of diagnosis is now his wife, and Pete and Julie have given me my granddaughter, Lucy Fitzgerald Frates. Lucy Fitzgerald Frates came two weeks early as the exclamation point on August 31st, 2014. And so — (Applause) — And so let me leave you with Pete's words of inspiration that he would use to classmates, coworkers and teammates. Be passionate. Be genuine. Be hardworking. And don't forget to be great. Thank you. (Applause)
Right now you have a movie playing inside your head. It's an amazing multi-track movie. It has 3D vision and surround sound for what you're seeing and hearing right now, but that's just the start of it. Your movie has smell and taste and touch. It has a sense of your body, pain, hunger, orgasms. It has emotions, anger and happiness. It has memories, like scenes from your childhood playing before you. And it has this constant voiceover narrative in your stream of conscious thinking. At the heart of this movie is you experiencing all this directly. This movie is your stream of consciousness, the subject of experience of the mind and the world. Consciousness is one of the fundamental facts of human existence. Each of us is conscious. We all have our own inner movie, you and you and you. There's nothing we know about more directly. At least, I know about my consciousness directly. I can't be certain that you guys are conscious. Consciousness also is what makes life worth living. If we weren't conscious, nothing in our lives would have meaning or value. But at the same time, it's the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe. Why are we conscious? Why do we have these inner movies? Why aren't we just robots who process all this input, produce all that output, without experiencing the inner movie at all? Right now, nobody knows the answers to those questions. I'm going to suggest that to integrate consciousness into science, some radical ideas may be needed. Some people say a science of consciousness is impossible. Science, by its nature, is objective. Consciousness, by its nature, is subjective. So there can never be a science of consciousness. For much of the 20th century, that view held sway. Psychologists studied behavior objectively, neuroscientists studied the brain objectively, and nobody even mentioned consciousness. Even 30 years ago, when TED got started, there was very little scientific work on consciousness. Now, about 20 years ago, all that began to change. Neuroscientists like Francis Crick and physicists like Roger Penrose said now is the time for science to attack consciousness. And since then, there's been a real explosion, a flowering of scientific work on consciousness. And this work has been wonderful. It's been great. But it also has some fundamental limitations so far. The centerpiece of the science of consciousness in recent years has been the search for correlations, correlations between certain areas of the brain and certain states of consciousness. We saw some of this kind of work from Nancy Kanwisher and the wonderful work she presented just a few minutes ago. Now we understand much better, for example, the kinds of brain areas that go along with the conscious experience of seeing faces or of feeling pain or of feeling happy. But this is still a science of correlations. It's not a science of explanations. We know that these brain areas go along with certain kinds of conscious experience, but we don't know why they do. I like to put this by saying that this kind of work from neuroscience is answering some of the questions we want answered about consciousness, the questions about what certain brain areas do and what they correlate with. But in a certain sense, those are the easy problems. No knock on the neuroscientists. There are no truly easy problems with consciousness. But it doesn't address the real mystery at the core of this subject: why is it that all that physical processing in a brain should be accompanied by consciousness at all? Why is there this inner subjective movie? Right now, we don't really have a bead on that. And you might say, let's just give neuroscience a few years. It'll turn out to be another emergent phenomenon like traffic jams, like hurricanes, like life, and we'll figure it out. The classical cases of emergence are all cases of emergent behavior, how a traffic jam behaves, how a hurricane functions, how a living organism reproduces and adapts and metabolizes, all questions about objective functioning. You could apply that to the human brain in explaining some of the behaviors and the functions of the human brain as emergent phenomena: how we walk, how we talk, how we play chess, all these questions about behavior. But when it comes to consciousness, questions about behavior are among the easy problems. When it comes to the hard problem, that's the question of why is it that all this behavior is accompanied by subjective experience? And here, the standard paradigm of emergence, even the standard paradigms of neuroscience, don't really, so far, have that much to say. Now, I'm a scientific materialist at heart. I want a scientific theory of consciousness that works, and for a long time, I banged my head against the wall looking for a theory of consciousness in purely physical terms that would work. But I eventually came to the conclusion that that just didn't work for systematic reasons. It's a long story, but the core idea is just that what you get from purely reductionist explanations in physical terms, in brain-based terms, is stories about the functioning of a system, its structure, its dynamics, the behavior it produces, great for solving the easy problems — how we behave, how we function — but when it comes to subjective experience — why does all this feel like something from the inside? — that's something fundamentally new, and it's always a further question. So I think we're at a kind of impasse here. We've got this wonderful, great chain of explanation, we're used to it, where physics explains chemistry, chemistry explains biology, biology explains parts of psychology. But consciousness doesn't seem to fit into this picture. On the one hand, it's a datum that we're conscious. On the other hand, we don't know how to accommodate it into our scientific view of the world. So I think consciousness right now is a kind of anomaly, one that we need to integrate into our view of the world, but we don't yet see how. Faced with an anomaly like this, radical ideas may be needed, and I think that we may need one or two ideas that initially seem crazy before we can come to grips with consciousness scientifically. Now, there are a few candidates for what those crazy ideas might be. My friend Dan Dennett, who's here today, has one. His crazy idea is that there is no hard problem of consciousness. The whole idea of the inner subjective movie involves a kind of illusion or confusion. Actually, all we've got to do is explain the objective functions, the behaviors of the brain, and then we've explained everything that needs to be explained. Well I say, more power to him. That's the kind of radical idea that we need to explore if you want to have a purely reductionist brain-based theory of consciousness. At the same time, for me and for many other people, that view is a bit too close to simply denying the datum of consciousness to be satisfactory. So I go in a different direction. In the time remaining, I want to explore two crazy ideas that I think may have some promise. The first crazy idea is that consciousness is fundamental. Physicists sometimes take some aspects of the universe as fundamental building blocks: space and time and mass. They postulate fundamental laws governing them, like the laws of gravity or of quantum mechanics. These fundamental properties and laws aren't explained in terms of anything more basic. Rather, they're taken as primitive, and you build up the world from there. Now sometimes, the list of fundamentals expands. In the 19th century, Maxwell figured out that you can't explain electromagnetic phenomena in terms of the existing fundamentals — space, time, mass, Newton's laws — so he postulated fundamental laws of electromagnetism and postulated electric charge as a fundamental element that those laws govern. I think that's the situation we're in with consciousness. If you can't explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals — space, time, mass, charge — then as a matter of logic, you need to expand the list. The natural thing to do is to postulate consciousness itself as something fundamental, a fundamental building block of nature. This doesn't mean you suddenly can't do science with it. This opens up the way for you to do science with it. What we then need is to study the fundamental laws governing consciousness, the laws that connect consciousness to other fundamentals: space, time, mass, physical processes. Physicists sometimes say that we want fundamental laws so simple that we could write them on the front of a t-shirt. Well I think something like that is the situation we're in with consciousness. We want to find fundamental laws so simple we could write them on the front of a t-shirt. We don't know what those laws are yet, but that's what we're after. The second crazy idea is that consciousness might be universal. Every system might have some degree of consciousness. This view is sometimes called panpsychism: pan for all, psych for mind, every system is conscious, not just humans, dogs, mice, flies, but even Rob Knight's microbes, elementary particles. Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent or thinking. It's not that a photon is wracked with angst because it's thinking, "Aww, I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light. I never get to slow down and smell the roses." No, not like that. But the thought is maybe photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling, some primitive precursor to consciousness. This may sound a bit kooky to you. I mean, why would anyone think such a crazy thing? Some motivation comes from the first crazy idea, that consciousness is fundamental. If it's fundamental, like space and time and mass, it's natural to suppose that it might be universal too, the way they are. It's also worth noting that although the idea seems counterintuitive to us, it's much less counterintuitive to people from different cultures, where the human mind is seen as much more continuous with nature. A deeper motivation comes from the idea that perhaps the most simple and powerful way to find fundamental laws connecting consciousness to physical processing is to link consciousness to information. Wherever there's information processing, there's consciousness. Complex information processing, like in a human, complex consciousness. Simple information processing, simple consciousness. A really exciting thing is in recent years a neuroscientist, Giulio Tononi, has taken this kind of theory and developed it rigorously with a mathematical theory. He has a mathematical measure of information integration which he calls phi, measuring the amount of information integrated in a system. And he supposes that phi goes along with consciousness. So in a human brain, incredibly large amount of information integration, high degree of phi, a whole lot of consciousness. In a mouse, medium degree of information integration, still pretty significant, pretty serious amount of consciousness. But as you go down to worms, microbes, particles, the amount of phi falls off. The amount of information integration falls off, but it's still non-zero. On Tononi's theory, there's still going to be a non-zero degree of consciousness. In effect, he's proposing a fundamental law of consciousness: high phi, high consciousness. Now, I don't know if this theory is right, but it's actually perhaps the leading theory right now in the science of consciousness, and it's been used to integrate a whole range of scientific data, and it does have a nice property that it is in fact simple enough you can write it on the front of a t-shirt. Another final motivation is that panpsychism might help us to integrate consciousness into the physical world. Physicists and philosophers have often observed that physics is curiously abstract. It describes the structure of reality using a bunch of equations, but it doesn't tell us about the reality that underlies it. As Stephen Hawking puts it, what puts the fire into the equations? Well, on the panpsychist view, you can leave the equations of physics as they are, but you can take them to be describing the flux of consciousness. That's what physics really is ultimately doing, describing the flux of consciousness. On this view, it's consciousness that puts the fire into the equations. On that view, consciousness doesn't dangle outside the physical world as some kind of extra. It's there right at its heart. This view, I think, the panpsychist view, has the potential to transfigure our relationship to nature, and it may have some pretty serious social and ethical consequences. Some of these may be counterintuitive. I used to think I shouldn't eat anything which is conscious, so therefore I should be vegetarian. Now, if you're a panpsychist and you take that view, you're going to go very hungry. So I think when you think about it, this tends to transfigure your views, whereas what matters for ethical purposes and moral considerations, not so much the fact of consciousness, but the degree and the complexity of consciousness. It's also natural to ask about consciousness in other systems, like computers. What about the artificially intelligent system in the movie "Her," Samantha? Is she conscious? Well, if you take the informational, panpsychist view, she certainly has complicated information processing and integration, so the answer is very likely yes, she is conscious. If that's right, it raises pretty serious ethical issues about both the ethics of developing intelligent computer systems and the ethics of turning them off. Finally, you might ask about the consciousness of whole groups, the planet. Does Canada have its own consciousness? Or at a more local level, does an integrated group like the audience at a TED conference, are we right now having a collective TED consciousness, an inner movie for this collective TED group which is distinct from the inner movies of each of our parts? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it's at least one worth taking seriously. Okay, so this panpsychist vision, it is a radical one, and I don't know that it's correct. I'm actually more confident about the first crazy idea, that consciousness is fundamental, than about the second one, that it's universal. I mean, the view raises any number of questions, has any number of challenges, like how do those little bits of consciousness add up to the kind of complex consciousness we know and love. If we can answer those questions, then I think we're going to be well on our way to a serious theory of consciousness. If not, well, this is the hardest problem perhaps in science and philosophy. We can't expect to solve it overnight. But I do think we're going to figure it out eventually. Understanding consciousness is a real key, I think, both to understanding the universe and to understanding ourselves. It may just take the right crazy idea. Thank you. (Applause)
Hey guys. It's funny, someone just mentioned MacGyver, because that was, like, I loved it, and when I was seven, I taped a fork to a drill and I was like, "Hey, Mom, I'm going to Olive Garden." And -- (Drilling noise) (Laughter) And it worked really well there. And you know, it had a profound effect on me. It sounds silly, but I thought, okay, the way the world works can be changed, and it can be changed by me in these small ways. And my relationship to especially human-made objects which someone else said they work like this, well, I can say they work a different way, a little bit. And so, about 20 years later, I didn't realize the full effect of this, but I went to Costa Rica and I stayed with these Guaymí natives there, and they could pull leaves off of trees and make shingles out of them, and they could make beds out of trees, and they could -- I watched this woman for three days. I was there. She was peeling this palm frond apart, these little threads off of it, and she'd roll the threads together and make little thicker threads, like strings, and she would weave the strings together, and as the materiality of this exact very bag formed before my eyes over those three days, the materiality of the way the world works, of reality, kind of started to unravel in my mind, because I realized that this bag and these clothes and the trampoline you have at home and the pencil sharpener, everything you have is made out of either a tree or a rock or something we dug out of the ground and did some process to, maybe a more complicated one, but still, everything was made that way. And so I had to start studying, who is it that's making these decisions? Who's making these things? How did they make them? What stops us from making them? Because this is how reality is created. So I started right away. I was at MIT Media Lab, and I was studying the maker movement and makers and creativity. And I started in nature, because I saw these Guaymís doing it in nature, and there just seems to be less barriers. So I went to Vermont to Not Back to School Camp, where there's unschoolers who are just kind of hanging out and willing to try anything. So I said, "Let's go into the woods near this stream and just put stuff together, you know, make something, I don't care, geometrical shapes, just grab some junk from around you. We won't bring anything with us. And, like, within minutes, this is very easy for adults and teens to do. Here's a triangle that was being formed underneath a flowing stream, and the shape of an oak leaf being made by other small oak leaves being put together. A leaf tied to a stick with a blade of grass. The materiality and fleshiness and meat of the mushroom being explored by how it can hold up different objects being stuck into it. And after about 45 minutes, you get really intricate projects like leaves sorted by hue, so you get a color fade and put in a circle like a wreath. And the creator of this, he said, "This is fire. I call this fire." And someone asked him, "How do you get those sticks to stay on that tree?" And he's like, "I don't know, but I can show you." And I'm like, "Wow, that's really amazing. He doesn't know, but he can show you." So his hands know and his intuition knows, but sometimes what we know gets in the way of what could be, especially when it comes to the human-made, human-built world. We think we already know how something works, so we can't imagine how it could work. We know how it's supposed to work, so we can't suppose all the things that could be possible. So kids don't have as hard of a time with this, and I saw in my own son, I gave him this book. I'm a good hippie dad, so I'm like, "Okay, you're going to learn to love the moon. I'm going to give you some building blocks and they're nonrectilinear cactus building blocks, so it's totally legit." But he doesn't really know what to do with these. I didn't show him. And so he's like, "Okay, I'll just mess around with this." This is no different than the sticks are to the teens in the forest. Just going to try to put them in shapes and push on them and stuff. And before long, he's kind of got this mechanism where you can almost launch and catapult objects around, and he enlists us in helping him. And at this point, I'm starting to wonder, what kind of tools can we give people, especially adults, who know too much, so that they can see the world as malleable, so they see themselves as agents of change in their everyday lives. Because the most advanced scientists are really just kind of pushing the way the world itself works, pushing what matter can do, the most advanced artists are just pushing the medium, and any sufficiently complicated task, whether you're a cook or a carpenter or you're raising a child -- anything that's complicated -- comes up with problems that aren't solved in the middle of it, and you can't do a good job getting it done unless you can say, "Okay, well we're just going to have to refigure this. I don't care that pencils are supposed to be for writing. I'm going to use them a different way." So let me show you a little demo. This is a little piano circuit right in here, and this is an ordinary paintbrush that I smashed it together with. (Beeping) And so, with some ketchup, — (musical notes) — and then I can kind of — (musical notes) — (Laughter) (Applause) And that's awesome, right? But this is not what's awesome. What's awesome is what happens when you give the piano circuit to people. A pencil is not just a pencil. Look what it has in the middle of it. That's a wire running down the middle, and not only is it a wire, if you take that piano circuit, you can thumbtack into the middle of a pencil, and you can lay out wire on the page, too, and get electrical current to run through it. And so you can kind of hack a pencil, just by thumbtacking into it with a little piano electrical circuit. And the electricity runs through your body too. And then you can take the little piano circuit off the pencil. You can make one of these brushes just on the fly. All you do is connect to the bristles, and the bristles are wet, so they conduct, and the person's body conducts, and leather is great to paint on, and then you can start hooking to everything, even the kitchen sink. The metal in the sink is conductive. Flowing water acts like a theremin or a violin. (Musical notes) And you can even hook to the trees. Anything in the world is either conductive or not conductive, and you can use those together. So — (Laughter) — I took this to those same teens, because those teens are really awesome, and they'll try things that I won't try. I don't even have access to a facial piercing if I wanted to. And this young woman, she made what she called a hula-looper, and as the hula hoop traveled around her body, she has a circuit taped to her shirt right there. You can see her pointing to it in the picture. And every time the hula hoop would smush against her body, it would connect two little pieces of copper tape, and it would make a sound, and the next sound, and it would loop the same sounds over and over again. I ran these workshops everywhere. In Taiwan, at an art museum, this 12-year-old girl made a mushroom organ out of some mushrooms that were from Taiwan and some electrical tape and hot glue. And professional designers were making artifacts with this thing strapped onto it. And big companies like Intel or smaller design firms like Ideo or startups like Bump, were inviting me to give workshops, just to practice this idea of smashing electronics and everyday objects together. And then we came up with this idea to not just use electronics, but let's just smash computers with everyday objects and see how that goes over. And so I just want to do a quick demo. So this is the MaKey MaKey circuit, and I'm just going to set it up from the beginning in front of you. So I'll just plug it in, and now it's on by USB. And I'll just hook up the forward arrow. You guys are facing that way, so I'll hook it to this one. And I'll just hook up a little ground wire to it. And now, if I touch this piece of pizza, the slides that I showed you before should go forward. And now if I hook up this wire just by connecting it to the left arrow, I'm kind of programming it by where I hook it up, now I have a left arrow and a right arrow, so I should be able to go forwards and backwards and forwards and backwards. Awesome. And so we're like, "We gotta put a video out about this." Because no one really believed that this was important or meaningful except me and, like, one other guy. So we made a video to prove that there's lots of stuff you can do. You can kind of sketch with Play-Doh and just Google for game controllers. Just ordinary Play-Doh, nothing special. And you can literally draw joysticks and just find Pacman on your computer and then just hook it up. (Video game noises) And you know the little plastic drawers you can get at Target? Well, if you take those out, they hold water great, but you can totally cut your toes, so yeah, just be careful. You know the Happiness Project, where the experts are setting up the piano stairs, and how cool that is? Well, I think it's cool, but we should be doing that stuff ourselves. It shouldn't be a set of experts engineering the way the world works. We should all be participating in changing the way the world works together. Aluminum foil. Everybody has a cat. Get a bowl of water. This is just Photo Booth on your Mac OS. Hover the mouse over the "take a photo" button, and you've got a little cat photo booth. And so we needed hundreds of people to buy this. If hundreds of people didn't buy this, we couldn't put it on the market. And so we put it up on Kickstarter, and hundreds of people bought it in the first day. And then 30 days later, 11,000 people had backed the project. And then what the best part is, we started getting a flood of videos in of people doing crazy things with it. So this is "The Star-Spangled Banner" by eating lunch, including drinking Listerine. And we actually sent this guy materials. We're like, "We're sponsoring you, man. You're, like, a pro maker." Okay, just wait for this one. This is good. (Laughter) (Applause) And these guys at the exploratorium are playing house plants as if they were drums. And dads and daughters are completing circuits in special ways. And then this brother -- look at this diagram. See where it says "sister"? I love when people put humans on the diagram. I always add humans to any technical -- if you're drawing a technical diagram, put a human in it. And this kid is so sweet. He made this trampoline slideshow advancer for his sister so that on her birthday, she could be the star of the show, jumping on the trampoline to advance the slides. And this guy rounded up his dogs and he made a dog piano. And this is fun, and what could be more useful than feeling alive and fun? But it's also very serious because all this accessibility stuff started coming up, where people can't use computers, necessarily. Like this dad who wrote us, his son has cerebral palsy and he can't use a normal keyboard. And so his dad couldn't necessarily afford to buy all these custom controllers. And so, with the MaKey MaKey, he planned to make these gloves to allow him to navigate the web. And a huge eruption of discussion around accessibility came, and we're really excited about that. We didn't plan for that at all. And then all these professional musicians started using it, like at Coachella, just this weekend Jurassic 5 was using this onstage, and this D.J. is just from Brooklyn, right around here, and he put this up last month. And I love the carrot on the turntable. (Music: Massive Attack — "Teardrop") Most people cannot play them that way. (Laughter) And when this started to get serious, I thought, I'd better put a really serious warning label on the box that this comes in, because otherwise people are going to be getting this and they're going to be turning into agents of creative change, and governments will be crumbling, and I wouldn't have told people, so I thought I'd better warn them. And I also put this little surprise. When you open the lid of the box, it says, "The world is a construction kit." And as you start to mess around this way, I think that, in some small ways, you do start to see the landscape of your everyday life a little bit more like something you could express yourself with, and a little bit more like you could participate in designing the future of the way the world works. And so next time you're on an escalator and you drop an M&M by accident, you know, maybe that's an M&M surfboard, not an escalator, so don't pick it up right away. Maybe take some more stuff out of your pockets and throw it down, and maybe some chapstick, whatever. I used to want to design a utopian society or a perfect world or something like that. But as I'm kind of getting older and kind of messing with all this stuff, I'm realizing that my idea of a perfect world really can't be designed by one person or even by a million experts. It's really going to be seven billion pairs of hands, each following their own passions, and each kind of like a mosaic coming up and creating this world in their backyards and in their kitchens. And that's the world I really want to live in. Thank you. (Applause)
Hey guys. It's funny, someone just mentioned MacGyver, because that was, like, I loved it, and when I was seven, I taped a fork to a drill and I was like, "Hey, Mom, I'm going to Olive Garden." And -- (Drilling noise) (Laughter) And it worked really well there. And you know, it had a profound effect on me. It sounds silly, but I thought, okay, the way the world works can be changed, and it can be changed by me in these small ways. And my relationship to especially human-made objects which someone else said they work like this, well, I can say they work a different way, a little bit. And so, about 20 years later, I didn't realize the full effect of this, but I went to Costa Rica and I stayed with these Guaymí natives there, and they could pull leaves off of trees and make shingles out of them, and they could make beds out of trees, and they could -- I watched this woman for three days. I was there. She was peeling this palm frond apart, these little threads off of it, and she'd roll the threads together and make little thicker threads, like strings, and she would weave the strings together, and as the materiality of this exact very bag formed before my eyes over those three days, the materiality of the way the world works, of reality, kind of started to unravel in my mind, because I realized that this bag and these clothes and the trampoline you have at home and the pencil sharpener, everything you have is made out of either a tree or a rock or something we dug out of the ground and did some process to, maybe a more complicated one, but still, everything was made that way. And so I had to start studying, who is it that's making these decisions? Who's making these things? How did they make them? What stops us from making them? Because this is how reality is created. So I started right away. I was at MIT Media Lab, and I was studying the maker movement and makers and creativity. And I started in nature, because I saw these Guaymís doing it in nature, and there just seems to be less barriers. So I went to Vermont to Not Back to School Camp, where there's unschoolers who are just kind of hanging out and willing to try anything. So I said, "Let's go into the woods near this stream and just put stuff together, you know, make something, I don't care, geometrical shapes, just grab some junk from around you. We won't bring anything with us. And, like, within minutes, this is very easy for adults and teens to do. Here's a triangle that was being formed underneath a flowing stream, and the shape of an oak leaf being made by other small oak leaves being put together. A leaf tied to a stick with a blade of grass. The materiality and fleshiness and meat of the mushroom being explored by how it can hold up different objects being stuck into it. And after about 45 minutes, you get really intricate projects like leaves sorted by hue, so you get a color fade and put in a circle like a wreath. And the creator of this, he said, "This is fire. I call this fire." And someone asked him, "How do you get those sticks to stay on that tree?" And he's like, "I don't know, but I can show you." And I'm like, "Wow, that's really amazing. He doesn't know, but he can show you." So his hands know and his intuition knows, but sometimes what we know gets in the way of what could be, especially when it comes to the human-made, human-built world. We think we already know how something works, so we can't imagine how it could work. We know how it's supposed to work, so we can't suppose all the things that could be possible. So kids don't have as hard of a time with this, and I saw in my own son, I gave him this book. I'm a good hippie dad, so I'm like, "Okay, you're going to learn to love the moon. I'm going to give you some building blocks and they're nonrectilinear cactus building blocks, so it's totally legit." But he doesn't really know what to do with these. I didn't show him. And so he's like, "Okay, I'll just mess around with this." This is no different than the sticks are to the teens in the forest. Just going to try to put them in shapes and push on them and stuff. And before long, he's kind of got this mechanism where you can almost launch and catapult objects around, and he enlists us in helping him. And at this point, I'm starting to wonder, what kind of tools can we give people, especially adults, who know too much, so that they can see the world as malleable, so they see themselves as agents of change in their everyday lives. Because the most advanced scientists are really just kind of pushing the way the world itself works, pushing what matter can do, the most advanced artists are just pushing the medium, and any sufficiently complicated task, whether you're a cook or a carpenter or you're raising a child -- anything that's complicated -- comes up with problems that aren't solved in the middle of it, and you can't do a good job getting it done unless you can say, "Okay, well we're just going to have to refigure this. I don't care that pencils are supposed to be for writing. I'm going to use them a different way." So let me show you a little demo. This is a little piano circuit right in here, and this is an ordinary paintbrush that I smashed it together with. (Beeping) And so, with some ketchup, — (musical notes) — and then I can kind of — (musical notes) — (Laughter) (Applause) And that's awesome, right? But this is not what's awesome. What's awesome is what happens when you give the piano circuit to people. A pencil is not just a pencil. Look what it has in the middle of it. That's a wire running down the middle, and not only is it a wire, if you take that piano circuit, you can thumbtack into the middle of a pencil, and you can lay out wire on the page, too, and get electrical current to run through it. And so you can kind of hack a pencil, just by thumbtacking into it with a little piano electrical circuit. And the electricity runs through your body too. And then you can take the little piano circuit off the pencil. You can make one of these brushes just on the fly. All you do is connect to the bristles, and the bristles are wet, so they conduct, and the person's body conducts, and leather is great to paint on, and then you can start hooking to everything, even the kitchen sink. The metal in the sink is conductive. Flowing water acts like a theremin or a violin. (Musical notes) And you can even hook to the trees. Anything in the world is either conductive or not conductive, and you can use those together. So — (Laughter) — I took this to those same teens, because those teens are really awesome, and they'll try things that I won't try. I don't even have access to a facial piercing if I wanted to. And this young woman, she made what she called a hula-looper, and as the hula hoop traveled around her body, she has a circuit taped to her shirt right there. You can see her pointing to it in the picture. And every time the hula hoop would smush against her body, it would connect two little pieces of copper tape, and it would make a sound, and the next sound, and it would loop the same sounds over and over again. I ran these workshops everywhere. In Taiwan, at an art museum, this 12-year-old girl made a mushroom organ out of some mushrooms that were from Taiwan and some electrical tape and hot glue. And professional designers were making artifacts with this thing strapped onto it. And big companies like Intel or smaller design firms like Ideo or startups like Bump, were inviting me to give workshops, just to practice this idea of smashing electronics and everyday objects together. And then we came up with this idea to not just use electronics, but let's just smash computers with everyday objects and see how that goes over. And so I just want to do a quick demo. So this is the MaKey MaKey circuit, and I'm just going to set it up from the beginning in front of you. So I'll just plug it in, and now it's on by USB. And I'll just hook up the forward arrow. You guys are facing that way, so I'll hook it to this one. And I'll just hook up a little ground wire to it. And now, if I touch this piece of pizza, the slides that I showed you before should go forward. And now if I hook up this wire just by connecting it to the left arrow, I'm kind of programming it by where I hook it up, now I have a left arrow and a right arrow, so I should be able to go forwards and backwards and forwards and backwards. Awesome. And so we're like, "We gotta put a video out about this." Because no one really believed that this was important or meaningful except me and, like, one other guy. So we made a video to prove that there's lots of stuff you can do. You can kind of sketch with Play-Doh and just Google for game controllers. Just ordinary Play-Doh, nothing special. And you can literally draw joysticks and just find Pacman on your computer and then just hook it up. (Video game noises) And you know the little plastic drawers you can get at Target? Well, if you take those out, they hold water great, but you can totally cut your toes, so yeah, just be careful. You know the Happiness Project, where the experts are setting up the piano stairs, and how cool that is? Well, I think it's cool, but we should be doing that stuff ourselves. It shouldn't be a set of experts engineering the way the world works. We should all be participating in changing the way the world works together. Aluminum foil. Everybody has a cat. Get a bowl of water. This is just Photo Booth on your Mac OS. Hover the mouse over the "take a photo" button, and you've got a little cat photo booth. And so we needed hundreds of people to buy this. If hundreds of people didn't buy this, we couldn't put it on the market. And so we put it up on Kickstarter, and hundreds of people bought it in the first day. And then 30 days later, 11,000 people had backed the project. And then what the best part is, we started getting a flood of videos in of people doing crazy things with it. So this is "The Star-Spangled Banner" by eating lunch, including drinking Listerine. And we actually sent this guy materials. We're like, "We're sponsoring you, man. You're, like, a pro maker." Okay, just wait for this one. This is good. (Laughter) (Applause) And these guys at the exploratorium are playing house plants as if they were drums. And dads and daughters are completing circuits in special ways. And then this brother -- look at this diagram. See where it says "sister"? I love when people put humans on the diagram. I always add humans to any technical -- if you're drawing a technical diagram, put a human in it. And this kid is so sweet. He made this trampoline slideshow adventure for his sister so that on her birthday, she could be the star of the show, jumping on the trampoline to advance the slides. And this guy rounded up his dogs and he made a dog piano. And this is fun, and what could be more useful than feeling alive and fun? But it's also very serious because all this accessibility stuff started coming up, where people can't use computers, necessarily. Like this dad who wrote us, his son has cerebral palsy and he can't use a normal keyboard. And so his dad couldn't necessarily afford to buy all these custom controllers. And so, with the MaKey MaKey, he planned to make these gloves to allow him to navigate the web. And a huge eruption of discussion around accessibility came, and we're really excited about that. We didn't plan for that at all. And then all these professional musicians started using it, like at Coachella, just this weekend Jurassic 5 was using this onstage, and this D.J. is just from Brooklyn, right around here, and he put this up last month. And I love the carrot on the turntable. (Music: Massive Attack — "Teardrop") Most people cannot play them that way. (Laughter) And when this started to get serious, I thought, I'd better put a really serious warning label on the box that this comes in, because otherwise people are going to be getting this and they're going to be turning into agents of creative change, and governments will be crumbling, and I wouldn't have told people, so I thought I'd better warn them. And I also put this little surprise. When you open the lid of the box, it says, "The world is a construction kit." And as you start to mess around this way, I think that, in some small ways, you do start to see the landscape of your everyday life a little bit more like something you could express yourself with, and a little bit more like you could participate in designing the future of the way the world works. And so next time you're on an escalator and you drop an M&M by accident, you know, maybe that's an M&M surfboard, not an escalator, so don't pick it up right away. Maybe take some more stuff out of your pockets and throw it down, and maybe some chapstick, whatever. I used to want to design a utopian society or a perfect world or something like that. But as I'm kind of getting older and kind of messing with all this stuff, I'm realizing that my idea of a perfect world really can't be designed by one person or even by a million experts. It's really going to be seven billion pairs of hands, each following their own passions, and each kind of like a mosaic coming up and creating this world in their backyards and in their kitchens. And that's the world I really want to live in. Thank you. (Applause)
I'm 150 feet down an illegal mine shaft in Ghana. The air is thick with heat and dust, and it's hard to breathe. I can feel the brush of sweaty bodies passing me in the darkness, but I can't see much else. I hear voices talking, but mostly the shaft is this cacophony of men coughing, and stone being broken with primitive tools. Like the others, I wear a flickering, cheap flashlight tied to my head with this elastic, tattered band, and I can barely make out the slick tree limbs holding up the walls of the three-foot square hole dropping hundreds of feet into the earth. When my hand slips, I suddenly remember a miner I had met days before who had lost his grip and fell countless feet down that shaft. As I stand talking to you today, these men are still deep in that hole, risking their lives without payment or compensation, and often dying. I got to climb out of that hole, and I got to go home, but they likely never will, because they're trapped in slavery. For the last 28 years, I've been documenting indigenous cultures in more than 70 countries on six continents, and in 2009 I had the great honor of being the sole exhibitor at the Vancouver Peace Summit. Amongst all the astonishing people I met there, I met a supporter of Free the Slaves, an NGO dedicated to eradicating modern day slavery. We started talking about slavery, and really, I started learning about slavery, for I had certainly known it existed in the world, but not to such a degree. After we finished talking, I felt so horrible and honestly ashamed at my own lack of knowledge of this atrocity in my own lifetime, and I thought, if I don't know, how many other people don't know? It started burning a hole in my stomach, so within weeks, I flew down to Los Angeles to meet with the director of Free the Slaves and offer them my help. Thus began my journey into modern day slavery. Oddly, I had been to many of these places before. Some I even considered like my second home. But this time, I would see the skeletons hidden in the closet. A conservative estimate tells us there are more than 27 million people enslaved in the world today. That's double the amount of people taken from Africa during the entire trans-Atlantic slave trade. A hundred and fifty years ago, an agricultural slave cost about three times the annual salary of an American worker. That equates to about $50,000 in today's money. Yet today, entire families can be enslaved for generations over a debt as small as $18. Astonishingly, slavery generates profits of more than $13 billion worldwide each year. Many have been tricked by false promises of a good education, a better job, only to find that they're forced to work without pay under the threat of violence, and they cannot walk away. Today's slavery is about commerce, so the goods that enslaved people produce have value, but the people producing them are disposable. Slavery exists everywhere, nearly, in the world, and yet it is illegal everywhere in the world. In India and Nepal, I was introduced to the brick kilns. This strange and awesome sight was like walking into ancient Egypt or Dante's Inferno. Enveloped in temperatures of 130 degrees, men, women, children, entire families in fact, were cloaked in a heavy blanket of dust, while mechanically stacking bricks on their head, up to 18 at a time, and carrying them from the scorching kilns to trucks hundreds of yards away. Deadened by monotony and exhaustion, they work silently, doing this task over and over for 16 or 17 hours a day. There were no breaks for food, no water breaks, and the severe dehydration made urinating pretty much inconsequential. So pervasive was the heat and the dust that my camera became too hot to even touch and ceased working. Every 20 minutes, I'd have to run back to our cruiser to clean out my gear and run it under an air conditioner to revive it, and as I sat there, I thought, my camera is getting far better treatment than these people. Back in the kilns, I wanted to cry, but the abolitionist next to me quickly grabbed me and he said, "Lisa, don't do that. Just don't do that here." And he very clearly explained to me that emotional displays are very dangerous in a place like this, not just for me, but for them. I couldn't offer them any direct help. I couldn't give them money, nothing. I wasn't a citizen of that country. I could get them in a worse situation than they were already in. I'd have to rely on Free the Slaves to work within the system for their liberation, and I trusted that they would. As for me, I'd have to wait until I got home to really feel my heartbreak. In the Himalayas, I found children carrying stone for miles down mountainous terrain to trucks waiting at roads below. The big sheets of slate were heavier than the children carrying them, and the kids hoisted them from their heads using these handmade harnesses of sticks and rope and torn cloth. It's difficult to witness something so overwhelming. How can we affect something so insidious, yet so pervasive? Some don't even know they're enslaved, people working 16, 17 hours a day without any pay, because this has been the case all their lives. They have nothing to compare it to. When these villagers claimed their freedom, the slaveholders burned down all of their houses. I mean, these people had nothing, and they were so petrified, they wanted to give up, but the woman in the center rallied for them to persevere, and abolitionists on the ground helped them get a quarry lease of their own, so that now they do the same back-breaking work, but they do it for themselves, and they get paid for it, and they do it in freedom. Sex trafficking is what we often think of when we hear the word slavery, and because of this worldwide awareness, I was warned that it would be difficult for me to work safely within this particular industry. In Kathmandu, I was escorted by women who had previously been sex slaves themselves. They ushered me down a narrow set of stairs that led to this dirty, dimly fluorescent lit basement. This wasn't a brothel, per se. It was more like a restaurant. Cabin restaurants, as they're known in the trade, are venues for forced prostitution. Each has small, private rooms, where the slaves, women, along with young girls and boys, some as young as seven years old, are forced to entertain the clients, encouraging them to buy more food and alcohol. Each cubicle is dark and dingy, identified with a painted number on the wall, and partitioned by plywood and a curtain. The workers here often endure tragic sexual abuse at the hands of their customers. Standing in the near darkness, I remember feeling this quick, hot fear, and in that instant, I could only imagine what it must be like to be trapped in that hell. I had only one way out: the stairs from where I'd come in. There were no back doors. There were no windows large enough to climb through. These people have no escape at all, and as we take in such a difficult subject, it's important to note that slavery, including sex trafficking, occurs in our own backyard as well. Tens of hundreds of people are enslaved in agriculture, in restaurants, in domestic servitude, and the list can go on. Recently, the New York Times reported that between 100,000 and 300,000 American children are sold into sex slavery every year. It's all around us. We just don't see it. The textile industry is another one we often think of when we hear about slave labor. I visited villages in India where entire families were enslaved in the silk trade. This is a family portrait. The dyed black hands are the father, while the blue and red hands are his sons. They mix dye in these big barrels, and they submerge the silk into the liquid up to their elbows, but the dye is toxic. My interpreter told me their stories. "We have no freedom," they said. "We hope still, though, that we could leave this house someday and go someplace else where we actually get paid for our dyeing." It's estimated that more than 4,000 children are enslaved on Lake Volta, the largest man-made lake in the world. When we first arrived, I went to have a quick look. I saw what seemed to be a family fishing on a boat, two older brothers, some younger kids, makes sense right? Wrong. They were all enslaved. Children are taken from their families and trafficked and vanished, and they're forced to work endless hours on these boats on the lake, even though they do not know how to swim. This young child is eight years old. He was trembling when our boat approached, frightened it would run over his tiny canoe. He was petrified he would be knocked in the water. The skeletal tree limbs submerged in Lake Volta often catch the fishing nets, and weary, frightened children are thrown into the water to untether the lines. Many of them drown. For as long as he can recall, he's been forced to work on the lake. Terrified of his master, he will not run away, and since he's been treated with cruelty all his life, he passes that down to the younger slaves that he manages. I met these boys at five in the morning, when they were hauling in the last of their nets, but they had been working since 1 a.m. in the cold, windy night. And it's important to note that these nets weigh more than a thousand pounds when they're full of fish. I want to introduce you to Kofi. Kofi was rescued from a fishing village. I met him at a shelter where Free the Slaves rehabilitates victims of slavery. Here he's seen taking a bath at the well, pouring big buckets of water over his head, and the wonderful news is, as you and I are sitting here talking today, Kofi has been reunited with his family, and what's even better, his family has been given tools to make a living and to keep their children safe. Kofi is the embodiment of possibility. Who will he become because someone took a stand and made a difference in his life? Driving down a road in Ghana with partners of Free the Slaves, a fellow abolitionist on a moped suddenly sped up to our cruiser and tapped on the window. He told us to follow him down a dirt road into the jungle. At the end of the road, he urged us out of the car, and told the driver to quickly leave. Then he pointed toward this barely visible footpath, and said, "This is the path, this is the path. Go." As we started down the path, we pushed aside the vines blocking the way, and after about an hour of walking in, found that the trail had become flooded by recent rains, so I hoisted the photo gear above my head as we descended into these waters up to my chest. After another two hours of hiking, the winding trail abruptly ended at a clearing, and before us was a mass of holes that could fit into the size of a football field, and all of them were full of enslaved people laboring. Many women had children strapped to their backs while they were panning for gold, wading in water poisoned by mercury. Mercury is used in the extraction process. These miners are enslaved in a mine shaft in another part of Ghana. When they came out of the shaft, they were soaking wet from their own sweat. I remember looking into their tired, bloodshot eyes, for many of them had been underground for 72 hours. The shafts are up to 300 feet deep, and they carry out heavy bags of stone that later will be transported to another area, where the stone will be pounded so that they can extract the gold. At first glance, the pounding site seems full of powerful men, but when we look closer, we see some less fortunate working on the fringes, and children too. All of them are victim to injury, illness and violence. In fact, it's very likely that this muscular person will end up like this one here, racked with tuberculosis and mercury poisoning in just a few years. This is Manuru. When his father died, his uncle trafficked him to work with him in the mines. When his uncle died, Manuru inherited his uncle's debt, which further forced him into being enslaved in the mines. When I met him, he had been working in the mines for 14 years, and the leg injury that you see here is actually from a mining accident, one so severe doctors say his leg should be amputated. On top of that, Manuru has tuberculosis, yet he's still forced to work day in and day out in that mine shaft. Even still, he has a dream that he will become free and become educated with the help of local activists like Free the Slaves, and it's this sort of determination, in the face of unimaginable odds, that fills me with complete awe. I want to shine a light on slavery. When I was working in the field, I brought lots of candles with me, and with the help of my interpreter, I imparted to the people I was photographing that I wanted to illuminate their stories and their plight, so when it was safe for them, and safe for me, I made these images. They knew their image would be seen by you out in the world. I wanted them to know that we will be bearing witness to them, and that we will do whatever we can to help make a difference in their lives. I truly believe, if we can see one another as fellow human beings, then it becomes very difficult to tolerate atrocities like slavery. These images are not of issues. They are of people, real people, like you and me, all deserving of the same rights, dignity and respect in their lives. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think of these many beautiful, mistreated people I've had the tremendous honor of meeting. I hope that these images awaken a force in those who view them, people like you, and I hope that force will ignite a fire, and that fire will shine a light on slavery, for without that light, the beast of bondage can continue to live in the shadows. Thank you very much. (Applause)
In the ocean, what is the common point between oil, plastic and radioactivity? On the top line, this is the BP oil spill: billions of barrels of oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico. The middle line is millions of tons of plastic debris accumulating in our ocean, and the third line is radioactive material leaking from Fukushima nuclear power plant in the Pacific Ocean. Well, the three big problems have in common that they are man-made problems but they are controlled by natural forces. This should make us feel very, terribly awful as much as it should make us feel hopeful, because if we have the power to create these problems, we may as well have the power to remediate these problems. But what about natural forces? Well, that's exactly what I want to talk about today, is how we can use these natural forces to remediate these man-made problems. When the BP oil spill happened, I was working at MIT, and I was in charge of developing an oil spill-cleaning technology. And I had a chance to go in the Gulf of Mexico and meet some fishermen and see the terrible conditions in which they were working. More than 700 of these boats, which are fishermen boats repurposed with oil absorbent in white and oil containment in orange, were used, but they only collected three percent of the oil on the surface, and the health of the cleaners were very deeply affected. I was working on a very interesting technology at MIT, but it was a very long-term view of how to develop technology, and it was going to be a very expensive technology, and also it would be patented. So I wanted to develop something that we could develop very fast, that would be cheap, and that would be open-source, so, because oil spills are not only happening in the Gulf of Mexico, and that would be using renewable energy. So I quit my dream job, and I moved to New Orleans, and I kept on studying how the oil spill was happening. Currently, what they were doing is that they were using these small fishing boats, and they were cleaning clean lines in an ocean of dirt. If you're using the exact same amount of surface of oil absorbent, but you're just paying attention to natural patterns, and if you're going up the winds, you can collect a lot more material. If you're multiplying the rig, so you multiply how many layers of absorbent you're using, you can collect a lot more. But it's extremely difficult to move oil absorbent against the winds, the surface currents and the waves. These are enormous forces. So the very simple idea was to use the ancient technique of sailing and tacking of the wind to capture or intercept the oil that is drifting down the wind. So this didn't require any invention. We just took a simple sailing boat and we tried to pull something long and heavy, but as we tacked back and forth, what we lost was two things: we were losing pulling power and direction. And so, I thought, what about if we just take the rudder from the back of the boat to the front, would we have better control? So I built this small sailing robot with the rudder at the front, and I was trying to pull something very long and heavy, so that's a four-meter-long object just to pull, and I was surprised with just a 14-centimeter rudder, I could control four meters of absorbent. Then I was so happy that I kept playing with the robot, and so you see the robot has a front rudder here. Normally it's at the back. And, playing, I realized that the maneuverability of this was really amazing, and I could avoid an obstacle at the very last second, more maneuverable than a normal boat. Then I started publishing online, and some friends from Korea, they started being interested in this, and we made a boat which has a front rudder and a back rudder, so we started interacting with this, and it was slightly better, although it was very small and a bit off balance, but then we thought, what if we have more than two points of control? What if the entire boat becomes a point of control? What if the entire boat changes shape? So — (Applause) Thank you very much. (Applause) And so that's the beginning of Protei, and that's the first boat in history that completely changed the shape of the hull in order to control it, and the properties of sailing that we get are very superior compared to a normal boat. When we're turning, we have the feeling of surfing, and the way it's going up-wind, it's very efficient. This is low speed, low wind speed, and the maneuverability is very increased, and here I'm going to do a small jibe, and look at the position of the sail. What's happening is that, because the boat changes shape, the position of the front sail and the main sail are different to the wind. We're catching wind from both sides. And this is exactly what we're looking [for] if we want to pull something long and heavy. We don't want to lose pulling power, nor direction. So, I wanted to know if this was possible to put this at an industrial level, so we made a large boat with a large sail, and with a very light hull, inflatable, very small footprint, so we have a very big size and power ratio. After this, we wanted to see if we could implement this and automate the system, so we used the same system but we added a structure to it so we could activate the machine. So, we used the same bladder-inflated system, and we took it for testing. So this is happening in the Netherlands. We tried in the water without any skin or ballast just to see how it works. And then we mounted a camera for controlling it, but quickly we saw that we would need a lot more weight at the bottom, so we had to take it back to the lab, and then we built a skin around it, we put batteries, remote controllers, and then we put it in the water and then we let it go in the water and see how well it would work, so let some rope out, and hope it's going to work, and it worked okay, but we still have a long way. Our small prototype has given us good insight that it's working very well, but we still need to work a lot more on this. So what we are doing is an accelerated evolution of sailing technology. We went from a back rudder to a front rudder to two rudders to multiple rudders to the whole boat changing shape, and the more we are moving forward, and the more the design looks simple and cute. (Laughter) But I wanted to show you a fish because -- In fact, it's very different from a fish. A fish will move because -- by changing like this, but our boat is propelled by the wind still, and the hull controls the trajectory. So I brought to you for the first time on the TED stage Protei Number Eight. It's not the last one, but it's a good one for making demos. So the first thing as I show you in the video is that we may be able to control the trajectory of a sailing boat better, or we may be able to never be in irons, so never facing the wind, we always can catch the wind from both sides. But new properties of a sailing boat. So if you're looking at the boat from this side, this might remind you of an airplane profile. An airplane, when you're moving in this direction, starts to lift, and that's how it takes off. Now, if you're taking the same system, and you're putting vertical, you're bending, and if you're moving this way forward, your instinct will tell you that you might go this way, but if you're moving fast enough, you might create what we call lateral lift, so we could get further or closer to the wind. Other property is this: A normal sailing boat has a centerboard here and a rudder at the back, and these two things are what creates most resistance and turbulence behind the boat, but because this doesn't have either a centerboard or a rudder, we hope that if we keep working on this hull design we can improve and have less resistance. The other thing is, most boats, when they reach a certain speed, and they are going on waves, they start to hit and slap on the surface of the water, and a lot of the energy moving forward is lost. But if we're going with the flow, if we pay attention to natural patterns instead of trying to be strong, but if you're going with the flow, we may absorb a lot of environmental noises, so the wave energy, to actually save some energy to move forward. So we may have developed the technology which is very efficient for pulling something long and heavy, but the idea is, what is the purpose of technology if it doesn't reach the right hands? Normal technology or innovation happens like this: Somebody has an interesting idea, some other scientist or engineer, they take it to the next level, they make a theory about it and maybe they patent it, and then some industry will make a contract of exclusivity to manufacture and sell it, and then, eventually, a buyer will buy it, and we hope that they are going to use [it] for a good purpose. What we really want is that this innovation happens continuously. The inventor and engineers and also the manufacturers and everybody works at the same time, but this would be sterile if this was happening in a parallel and uncrossed process. What you really want is not a sequential, not parallel development. You want to have a network of innovation. You want everybody, like we're doing now, to work at the same time, and that can only happen if these people all together decide to share the information, and that's exactly what open hardware is about. It's to replace competition by collaboration. It's to transform any new product into a new market. So what is open hardware? Essentially, open hardware is a license. It's just an intellectual property setup. It means that everybody is free to use, modify and distribute, and in exchange we only ask for two things: The name is credited -- the name of the project -- and also the people who make improvement, they share back with the community. So it's a very simple condition. And I started this project alone in a garage in New Orleans, but quickly after I wanted to publish and share this information, so I made a Kickstarter, which is a crowd-fundraising platform, and in about one month we fundraised 30,000 dollars. With this money, I hired a team of young engineers from all over the world, and we rented a factory in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. We were peer-learning, we were engineering, we were making things, prototyping, but most importantly we were trying our prototypes in the water as often as possible, to fail as quickly as possible, to learn from. This is a proud member of Protei from Korea, and on the right side, this is a multiple-masts design proposed by a team in Mexico. This idea really appealed to Gabriella Levine in New York, and so she decided to prototype this idea that she saw, and she documented every step of the process, and she published it on Instructables, which is a website for sharing inventions. Less than one week after, this is a team in Eindhoven, it's a school of engineering. They made it, but they eventually published a simplified design. They also made it into an Instructable, and in less than one week, they had almost 10,000 views, and they got many new friends. We're working on also simpler technology, not that complex, with younger people and also older people, like this dinosaur is from Mexico. (Laughter) So Protei is now an international network of innovation for selling technology using this shape-shifting hull. And what puts us together is that we have a common, at least, global understanding of what the word "business" is, or what it should be. This is how most work today. Business as usual is saying, what's most important is to make lots of profit, and you'll be using technology for that, and people will be your work force, instrumentalized, and environment is usually the last priority. It will be just a way to, say, greenwash your audience and, say, increase your price tag. What we're trying to do, or what we believe, because this is how we believe the world really works, is that without the environment you have nothing. We have the people so we need to protect each other, yes, and we're a technology company, and profit is necessary to make this happen. (Applause) Thank you very much. (Applause) If we have the courage to understand or accept that this actually how the world really works, and this is the order of priority that we need to choose, then it makes obvious why we need to choose open hardware for developing environmental technology, because we need to share information. What's next for us? So, this small machine that you've seen, we're hoping to make small toys like one-meter remote control Protei that you can upgrade -- so replace the remote control parts by Androids, so the mobile phone, and Arduino micro-controller, so you could be controlling this from your mobile phone, your tablet. Then what we want to do is create six-meter versions so we can test the maximum performance of these machines, so we can go at very, very high speed. So imagine yourself. You are laying down in a flexible torpedo, sailing at high speed, controlling the shape of the hull with your legs and controlling the sail with your arms. So that's what we're looking for developing. (Applause) And we replace the human being -- to go, for example, for measuring radioactivity, you don't want a human to be sailing those robots -- with batteries, motors, micro-controllers and sensors. This is what our teammates, we dream of at night. We hope that we can sometime clean up oil spills, or we can gather or collect plastic in the ocean, or we can have swarms of our machines controlled by multi-player video game engines to control many of these machines, to monitor coral reefs or to monitor fisheries. Our hope is that we can use open hardware technology to better understand and protect our oceans. Thank you very much. (Applause) (Applause)
Thank you very much. Please excuse me for sitting; I'm very old. (Laughter) Well, the topic I'm going to discuss is one which is, in a certain sense, very peculiar because it's very old. Roughness is part of human life forever and forever, and ancient authors have written about it. It was very much uncontrollable, and in a certain sense, it seemed to be the extreme of complexity, just a mess, a mess and a mess. There are many different kinds of mess. Now, in fact, by a complete fluke, I got involved many years ago in a study of this form of complexity, and to my utter amazement, I found traces -- very strong traces, I must say -- of order in that roughness. And so today, I would like to present to you a few examples of what this represents. I prefer the word roughness to the word irregularity because irregularity -- to someone who had Latin in my long-past youth -- means the contrary of regularity. But it is not so. Regularity is the contrary of roughness because the basic aspect of the world is very rough. So let me show you a few objects. Some of them are artificial. Others of them are very real, in a certain sense. Now this is the real. It's a cauliflower. Now why do I show a cauliflower, a very ordinary and ancient vegetable? Because old and ancient as it may be, it's very complicated and it's very simple, both at the same time. If you try to weigh it -- of course it's very easy to weigh it, and when you eat it, the weight matters -- but suppose you try to measure its surface. Well, it's very interesting. If you cut, with a sharp knife, one of the florets of a cauliflower and look at it separately, you think of a whole cauliflower, but smaller. And then you cut again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, and you still get small cauliflowers. So the experience of humanity has always been that there are some shapes which have this peculiar property, that each part is like the whole, but smaller. Now, what did humanity do with that? Very, very little. (Laughter) So what I did actually is to study this problem, and I found something quite surprising. That one can measure roughness by a number, a number, 2.3, 1.2 and sometimes much more. One day, a friend of mine, to bug me, brought a picture and said, "What is the roughness of this curve?" I said, "Well, just short of 1.5." It was 1.48. Now, it didn't take me any time. I've been looking at these things for so long. So these numbers are the numbers which denote the roughness of these surfaces. I hasten to say that these surfaces are completely artificial. They were done on a computer, and the only input is a number, and that number is roughness. So on the left, I took the roughness copied from many landscapes. To the right, I took a higher roughness. So the eye, after a while, can distinguish these two very well. Humanity had to learn about measuring roughness. This is very rough, and this is sort of smooth, and this perfectly smooth. Very few things are very smooth. So then if you try to ask questions: "What's the surface of a cauliflower?" Well, you measure and measure and measure. Each time you're closer, it gets bigger, down to very, very small distances. What's the length of the coastline of these lakes? The closer you measure, the longer it is. The concept of length of coastline, which seems to be so natural because it's given in many cases, is, in fact, complete fallacy; there's no such thing. You must do it differently. What good is that, to know these things? Well, surprisingly enough, it's good in many ways. To begin with, artificial landscapes, which I invented sort of, are used in cinema all the time. We see mountains in the distance. They may be mountains, but they may be just formulae, just cranked on. Now it's very easy to do. It used to be very time-consuming, but now it's nothing. Now look at that. That's a real lung. Now a lung is something very strange. If you take this thing, you know very well it weighs very little. The volume of a lung is very small, but what about the area of the lung? Anatomists were arguing very much about that. Some say that a normal male's lung has an area of the inside of a basketball [court]. And the others say, no, five basketball [courts]. Enormous disagreements. Why so? Because, in fact, the area of the lung is something very ill-defined. The bronchi branch, branch, branch and they stop branching, not because of any matter of principle, but because of physical considerations: the mucus, which is in the lung. So what happens is that in a way you have a much bigger lung, but it branches and branches down to distances about the same for a whale, for a man and for a little rodent. Now, what good is it to have that? Well, surprisingly enough, amazingly enough, the anatomists had a very poor idea of the structure of the lung until very recently. And I think that my mathematics, surprisingly enough, has been of great help to the surgeons studying lung illnesses and also kidney illnesses, all these branching systems, for which there was no geometry. So I found myself, in other words, constructing a geometry, a geometry of things which had no geometry. And a surprising aspect of it is that very often, the rules of this geometry are extremely short. You have formulas that long. And you crank it several times. Sometimes repeatedly: again, again, again, the same repetition. And at the end, you get things like that. This cloud is completely, 100 percent artificial. Well, 99.9. And the only part which is natural is a number, the roughness of the cloud, which is taken from nature. Something so complicated like a cloud, so unstable, so varying, should have a simple rule behind it. Now this simple rule is not an explanation of clouds. The seer of clouds had to take account of it. I don't know how much advanced these pictures are. They're old. I was very much involved in it, but then turned my attention to other phenomena. Now, here is another thing which is rather interesting. One of the shattering events in the history of mathematics, which is not appreciated by many people, occurred about 130 years ago, 145 years ago. Mathematicians began to create shapes that didn't exist. Mathematicians got into self-praise to an extent which was absolutely amazing, that man can invent things that nature did not know. In particular, it could invent things like a curve which fills the plane. A curve's a curve, a plane's a plane, and the two won't mix. Well, they do mix. A man named Peano did define such curves, and it became an object of extraordinary interest. It was very important, but mostly interesting because a kind of break, a separation between the mathematics coming from reality, on the one hand, and new mathematics coming from pure man's mind. Well, I was very sorry to point out that the pure man's mind has, in fact, seen at long last what had been seen for a long time. And so here I introduce something, the set of rivers of a plane-filling curve. And well, it's a story unto itself. So it was in 1875 to 1925, an extraordinary period in which mathematics prepared itself to break out from the world. And the objects which were used as examples, when I was a child and a student, as examples of the break between mathematics and visible reality -- those objects, I turned them completely around. I used them for describing some of the aspects of the complexity of nature. Well, a man named Hausdorff in 1919 introduced a number which was just a mathematical joke, and I found that this number was a good measurement of roughness. When I first told it to my friends in mathematics they said, "Don't be silly. It's just something [silly]." Well actually, I was not silly. The great painter Hokusai knew it very well. The things on the ground are algae. He did not know the mathematics; it didn't yet exist. And he was Japanese who had no contact with the West. But painting for a long time had a fractal side. I could speak of that for a long time. The Eiffel Tower has a fractal aspect. I read the book that Mr. Eiffel wrote about his tower, and indeed it was astonishing how much he understood. This is a mess, mess, mess, Brownian loop. One day I decided -- halfway through my career, I was held by so many things in my work -- I decided to test myself. Could I just look at something which everybody had been looking at for a long time and find something dramatically new? Well, so I looked at these things called Brownian motion -- just goes around. I played with it for a while, and I made it return to the origin. Then I was telling my assistant, "I don't see anything. Can you paint it?" So he painted it, which means he put inside everything. He said: "Well, this thing came out ..." And I said, "Stop! Stop! Stop! I see; it's an island." And amazing. So Brownian motion, which happens to have a roughness number of two, goes around. I measured it, 1.33. Again, again, again. Long measurements, big Brownian motions, 1.33. Mathematical problem: how to prove it? It took my friends 20 years. Three of them were having incomplete proofs. They got together, and together they had the proof. So they got the big [Fields] medal in mathematics, one of the three medals that people have received for proving things which I've seen without being able to prove them. Now everybody asks me at one point or another, "How did it all start? What got you in that strange business?" What got you to be, at the same time, a mechanical engineer, a geographer and a mathematician and so on, a physicist? Well actually I started, oddly enough, studying stock market prices. And so here I had this theory, and I wrote books about it -- financial prices increments. To the left you see data over a long period. To the right, on top, you see a theory which is very, very fashionable. It was very easy, and you can write many books very fast about it. (Laughter) There are thousands of books on that. Now compare that with real price increments. Where are real price increments? Well, these other lines include some real price increments and some forgery which I did. So the idea there was that one must be able to -- how do you say? -- model price variation. And it went really well 50 years ago. For 50 years, people were sort of pooh-poohing me because they could do it much, much easier. But I tell you, at this point, people listened to me. (Laughter) These two curves are averages: Standard & Poor, the blue one; and the red one is Standard & Poor's from which the five biggest discontinuities are taken out. Now discontinuities are a nuisance, so in many studies of prices, one puts them aside. "Well, acts of God. And you have the little nonsense which is left. Acts of God." In this picture, five acts of God are as important as everything else. In other words, it is not acts of God that we should put aside. That is the meat, the problem. If you master these, you master price, and if you don't master these, you can master the little noise as well as you can, but it's not important. Well, here are the curves for it. Now, I get to the final thing, which is the set of which my name is attached. In a way, it's the story of my life. My adolescence was spent during the German occupation of France. Since I thought that I might vanish within a day or a week, I had very big dreams. And after the war, I saw an uncle again. My uncle was a very prominent mathematician, and he told me, "Look, there's a problem which I could not solve 25 years ago, and which nobody can solve. This is a construction of a man named [Gaston] Julia and [Pierre] Fatou. If you could find something new, anything, you will get your career made." Very simple. So I looked, and like the thousands of people that had tried before, I found nothing. But then the computer came, and I decided to apply the computer, not to new problems in mathematics -- like this wiggle wiggle, that's a new problem -- but to old problems. And I went from what's called real numbers, which are points on a line, to imaginary, complex numbers, which are points on a plane, which is what one should do there, and this shape came out. This shape is of an extraordinary complication. The equation is hidden there, z goes into z squared, plus c. It's so simple, so dry. It's so uninteresting. Now you turn the crank once, twice: twice, marvels come out. I mean this comes out. I don't want to explain these things. This comes out. This comes out. Shapes which are of such complication, such harmony and such beauty. This comes out repeatedly, again, again, again. And that was one of my major discoveries, to find that these islands were the same as the whole big thing, more or less. And then you get these extraordinary baroque decorations all over the place. All that from this little formula, which has whatever, five symbols in it. And then this one. The color was added for two reasons. First of all, because these shapes are so complicated that one couldn't make any sense of the numbers. And if you plot them, you must choose some system. And so my principle has been to always present the shapes with different colorings because some colorings emphasize that, and others it is that or that. It's so complicated. (Laughter) In 1990, I was in Cambridge, U.K. to receive a prize from the university, and three days later, a pilot was flying over the landscape and found this thing. So where did this come from? Obviously, from extraterrestrials. (Laughter) Well, so the newspaper in Cambridge published an article about that "discovery" and received the next day 5,000 letters from people saying, "But that's simply a Mandelbrot set very big." Well, let me finish. This shape here just came out of an exercise in pure mathematics. Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules, which are repeated without end. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Now this is a very un-TED-like thing to do, but let's kick off the afternoon with a message from a mystery sponsor. Anonymous: Dear Fox News, it has come to our unfortunate attention that both the name and nature of Anonymous has been ravaged. We are everyone. We are no one. We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. We are but the base of chaos. Misha Glenny: Anonymous, ladies and gentlemen -- a sophisticated group of politically motivated hackers who have emerged in 2011. And they're pretty scary. You never know when they're going to attack next, who or what the consequences will be. But interestingly, they have a sense of humor. These guys hacked into Fox News' Twitter account to announce President Obama's assassination. Now you can imagine the panic that would have generated in the newsroom at Fox. "What do we do now? Put on a black armband, or crack open the champagne?" (Laughter) And of course, who could escape the irony of a member of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. being a victim of hacking for a change. (Laughter) (Applause) Sometimes you turn on the news and you say, "Is there anyone left to hack?" Sony Playstation Network -- done, the government of Turkey -- tick, Britain's Serious Organized Crime Agency -- a breeze, the CIA -- falling off a log. In fact, a friend of mine from the security industry told me the other day that there are two types of companies in the world: those that know they've been hacked, and those that don't. I mean three companies providing cybersecurity services to the FBI have been hacked. Is nothing sacred anymore, for heaven's sake? Anyway, this mysterious group Anonymous -- and they would say this themselves -- they are providing a service by demonstrating how useless companies are at protecting our data. But there is also a very serious aspect to Anonymous -- they are ideologically driven. They claim that they are battling a dastardly conspiracy. They say that governments are trying to take over the Internet and control it, and that they, Anonymous, are the authentic voice of resistance -- be it against Middle Eastern dictatorships, against global media corporations, or against intelligence agencies, or whoever it is. And their politics are not entirely unattractive. Okay, they're a little inchoate. There's a strong whiff of half-baked anarchism about them. But one thing is true: we are at the beginning of a mighty struggle for control of the Internet. The Web links everything, and very soon it will mediate most human activity. Because the Internet has fashioned a new and complicated environment for an old-age dilemma that pits the demands of security with the desire for freedom. Now this is a very complicated struggle. And unfortunately, for mortals like you and me, we probably can't understand it very well. Nonetheless, in an unexpected attack of hubris a couple of years ago, I decided I would try and do that. And I sort of get it. These were the various things that I was looking at as I was trying to understand it. But in order to try and explain the whole thing, I would need another 18 minutes or so to do it, so you're just going to have to take it on trust from me on this occasion, and let me assure you that all of these issues are involved in cybersecurity and control of the Internet one way or the other, but in a configuration that even Stephen Hawking would probably have difficulty trying to get his head around. So there you are. And as you see, in the middle, there is our old friend, the hacker. The hacker is absolutely central to many of the political, social and economic issues affecting the Net. And so I thought to myself, "Well, these are the guys who I want to talk to." And what do you know, nobody else does talk to the hackers. They're completely anonymous, as it were. So despite the fact that we are beginning to pour billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, into cybersecurity -- for the most extraordinary technical solutions -- no one wants to talk to these guys, the hackers, who are doing everything. Instead, we prefer these really dazzling technological solutions, which cost a huge amount of money. And so nothing is going into the hackers. Well, I say nothing, but actually there is one teeny weeny little research unit in Turin, Italy called the Hackers Profiling Project. And they are doing some fantastic research into the characteristics, into the abilities and the socialization of hackers. But because they're a U.N. operation, maybe that's why governments and corporations are not that interested in them. Because it's a U.N. operation, of course, it lacks funding. But I think they're doing very important work. Because where we have a surplus of technology in the cybersecurity industry, we have a definite lack of -- call me old-fashioned -- human intelligence. Now, so far I've mentioned the hackers Anonymous who are a politically motivated hacking group. Of course, the criminal justice system treats them as common old garden criminals. But interestingly, Anonymous does not make use of its hacked information for financial gain. But what about the real cybercriminals? Well real organized crime on the Internet goes back about 10 years when a group of gifted Ukrainian hackers developed a website, which led to the industrialization of cybercrime. Welcome to the now forgotten realm of CarderPlanet. This is how they were advertising themselves a decade ago on the Net. Now CarderPlanet was very interesting. Cybercriminals would go there to buy and sell stolen credit card details, to exchange information about new malware that was out there. And remember, this is a time when we're seeing for the first time so-called off-the-shelf malware. This is ready for use, out-of-the-box stuff, which you can deploy even if you're not a terribly sophisticated hacker. And so CarderPlanet became a sort of supermarket for cybercriminals. And its creators were incredibly smart and entrepreneurial, because they were faced with one enormous challenge as cybercriminals. And that challenge is: How do you do business, how do you trust somebody on the Web who you want to do business with when you know that they're a criminal? (Laughter) It's axiomatic that they're dodgy, and they're going to want to try and rip you off. So the family, as the inner core of CarderPlanet was known, came up with this brilliant idea called the escrow system. They appointed an officer who would mediate between the vendor and the purchaser. The vendor, say, had stolen credit card details; the purchaser wanted to get a hold of them. The purchaser would send the administrative officer some dollars digitally, and the vendor would sell the stolen credit card details. And the officer would then verify if the stolen credit card worked. And if they did, he then passed on the money to the vendor and the stolen credit card details to the purchaser. And it was this which completely revolutionized cybercrime on the Web. And after that, it just went wild. We had a champagne decade for people who we know as Carders. Now I spoke to one of these Carders who we'll call RedBrigade -- although that wasn't even his proper nickname -- but I promised I wouldn't reveal who he was. And he explained to me how in 2003 and 2004 he would go on sprees in New York, taking out $10,000 from an ATM here, $30,000 from an ATM there, using cloned credit cards. He was making, on average a week, $150,000 -- tax free of course. And he said that he had so much money stashed in his upper-East side apartment at one point that he just didn't know what to do with it and actually fell into a depression. But that's a slightly different story, which I won't go into now. Now the interesting thing about RedBrigade is that he wasn't an advanced hacker. He sort of understood the technology, and he realized that security was very important if you were going to be a Carder, but he didn't spend his days and nights bent over a computer, eating pizza, drinking coke and that sort of thing. He was out there on the town having a fab time enjoying the high life. And this is because hackers are only one element in a cybercriminal enterprise. And often they're the most vulnerable element of all. And I want to explain this to you by introducing you to six characters who I met while I was doing this research. Dimitry Golubov, aka SCRIPT -- born in Odessa, Ukraine in 1982. Now he developed his social and moral compass on the Black Sea port during the 1990s. This was a sink-or-swim environment where involvement in criminal or corrupt activities was entirely necessary if you wanted to survive. As an accomplished computer user, what Dimitry did was to transfer the gangster capitalism of his hometown onto the Worldwide Web. And he did a great job in it. You have to understand though that from his ninth birthday, the only environment he knew was gangsterism. He knew no other way of making a living and making money. Then we have Renukanth Subramaniam, aka JiLsi -- founder of DarkMarket, born in Colombo, Sri Lanka. As an eight year-old, he and his parents fled the Sri Lankan capital because Singhalese mobs were roaming the city, looking for Tamils like Renu to murder. At 11, he was interrogated by the Sri Lankan military, accused of being a terrorist, and his parents sent him on his own to Britain as a refugee seeking political asylum. At 13, with only little English and being bullied at school, he escaped into a world of computers where he showed great technical ability, but he was soon being seduced by people on the Internet. He was convicted of mortgage and credit card fraud, and he will be released from Wormwood Scrubs jail in London in 2012. Matrix001, who was an administrator at DarkMarket. Born in Southern Germany to a stable and well-respected middle class family, his obsession with gaming as a teenager led him to hacking. And he was soon controlling huge servers around the world where he stored his games that he had cracked and pirated. His slide into criminality was incremental. And when he finally woke up to his situation and understood the implications, he was already in too deep. Max Vision, aka ICEMAN -- mastermind of cardersMarket. Born in Meridian, Idaho. Max Vision was one of the best penetration testers working out of Santa Clara, California in the late 90s for private companies and voluntarily for the FBI. Now in the late 1990s, he discovered a vulnerability on all U.S. government networks, and he went in and patched it up -- because this included nuclear research facilities -- sparing the American government a huge security embarrassment. But also, because he was an inveterate hacker, he left a tiny digital wormhole through which he alone could crawl. But this was spotted by an eagle-eye investigator, and he was convicted. At his open prison, he came under the influence of financial fraudsters, and those financial fraudsters persuaded him to work for them on his release. And this man with a planetary-sized brain is now serving a 13-year sentence in California. Adewale Taiwo, aka FeddyBB -- master bank account cracker from Abuja in Nigeria. He set up his prosaically entitled newsgroup, bankfrauds@yahoo.co.uk before arriving in Britain in 2005 to take a Masters in chemical engineering at Manchester University. He impressed in the private sector, developing chemical applications for the oil industry while simultaneously running a worldwide bank and credit card fraud operation that was worth millions until his arrest in 2008. And then finally, Cagatay Evyapan, aka Cha0 -- one of the most remarkable hackers ever, from Ankara in Turkey. He combined the tremendous skills of a geek with the suave social engineering skills of the master criminal. One of the smartest people I've ever met. He also had the most effective virtual private network security arrangement the police have ever encountered amongst global cybercriminals. Now the important thing about all of these people is they share certain characteristics despite the fact that they come from very different environments. They are all people who learned their hacking skills in their early to mid-teens. They are all people who demonstrate advanced ability in maths and the sciences. Remember that, when they developed those hacking skills, their moral compass had not yet developed. And most of them, with the exception of SCRIPT and Cha0, they did not demonstrate any real social skills in the outside world -- only on the Web. And the other thing is the high incidence of hackers like these who have characteristics which are consistent with Asperger's syndrome. Now I discussed this with Professor Simon Baron-Cohen who's the professor of developmental psychopathology at Cambridge. And he has done path-breaking work on autism and confirmed, also for the authorities here, that Gary McKinnon -- who is wanted by the United States for hacking into the Pentagon -- suffers from Asperger's and a secondary condition of depression. And Baron-Cohen explained that certain disabilities can manifest themselves in the hacking and computing world as tremendous skills, and that we should not be throwing in jail people who have such disabilities and skills because they have lost their way socially or been duped. Now I think we're missing a trick here, because I don't think people like Max Vision should be in jail. And let me be blunt about this. In China, in Russia and in loads of other countries that are developing cyber-offensive capabilities, this is exactly what they are doing. They are recruiting hackers both before and after they become involved in criminal and industrial espionage activities -- are mobilizing them on behalf of the state. We need to engage and find ways of offering guidance to these young people, because they are a remarkable breed. And if we rely, as we do at the moment, solely on the criminal justice system and the threat of punitive sentences, we will be nurturing a monster we cannot tame. Thank you very much for listening. (Applause) Chris Anderson: So your idea worth spreading is hire hackers. How would someone get over that kind of fear that the hacker they hire might preserve that little teensy wormhole? MG: I think to an extent, you have to understand that it's axiomatic among hackers that they do that. They're just relentless and obsessive about what they do. But all of the people who I've spoken to who have fallen foul of the law, they have all said, "Please, please give us a chance to work in the legitimate industry. We just never knew how to get there, what we were doing. We want to work with you." Chris Anderson: Okay, well that makes sense. Thanks a lot Misha. (Applause)
Now this is a very un-TED-like thing to do, but let's kick off the afternoon with a message from a mystery sponsor. Anonymous: Dear Fox News, it has come to our unfortunate attention that both the name and nature of Anonymous has been ravaged. We are everyone. We are no one. We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. We are but the base of chaos. Misha Glenny: Anonymous, ladies and gentlemen -- a sophisticated group of politically motivated hackers who have emerged in 2011. And they're pretty scary. You never know when they're going to attack next, who or what the consequences will be. But interestingly, they have a sense of humor. These guys hacked into Fox News' Twitter account to announce President Obama's assassination. Now you can imagine the panic that would have generated in the newsroom at Fox. "What do we do now? Put on a black armband, or crack open the champagne?" (Laughter) And of course, who could escape the irony of a member of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. being a victim of hacking for a change. (Laughter) (Applause) Sometimes you turn on the news and you say, "Is there anyone left to hack?" Sony Playstation Network -- done, the government of Turkey -- tick, Britain's Serious Organized Crime Agency -- a breeze, the CIA -- falling off a log. In fact, a friend of mine from the security industry told me the other day that there are two types of companies in the world: those that know they've been hacked, and those that don't. I mean three companies providing cybersecurity services to the FBI have been hacked. Is nothing sacred anymore, for heaven's sake? Anyway, this mysterious group Anonymous -- and they would say this themselves -- they are providing a service by demonstrating how useless companies are at protecting our data. But there is also a very serious aspect to Anonymous -- they are ideologically driven. They claim that they are battling a dastardly conspiracy. They say that governments are trying to take over the Internet and control it, and that they, Anonymous, are the authentic voice of resistance -- be it against Middle Eastern dictatorships, against global media corporations, or against intelligence agencies, or whoever it is. And their politics are not entirely unattractive. Okay, they're a little inchoate. There's a strong whiff of half-baked anarchism about them. But one thing is true: we are at the beginning of a mighty struggle for control of the Internet. The Web links everything, and very soon it will mediate most human activity. Because the Internet has fashioned a new and complicated environment for an old-age dilemma that pits the demands of security with the desire for freedom. Now this is a very complicated struggle. And unfortunately, for mortals like you and me, we probably can't understand it very well. Nonetheless, in an unexpected attack of hubris a couple of years ago, I decided I would try and do that. And I sort of get it. These were the various things that I was looking at as I was trying to understand it. But in order to try and explain the whole thing, I would need another 18 minutes or so to do it, so you're just going to have to take it on trust from me on this occasion, and let me assure you that all of these issues are involved in cybersecurity and control of the Internet one way or the other, but in a configuration that even Stephen Hawking would probably have difficulty trying to get his head around. So there you are. And as you see, in the middle, there is our old friend, the hacker. The hacker is absolutely central to many of the political, social and economic issues affecting the Net. And so I thought to myself, "Well, these are the guys who I want to talk to." And what do you know, nobody else does talk to the hackers. They're completely anonymous, as it were. So despite the fact that we are beginning to pour billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, into cybersecurity -- for the most extraordinary technical solutions -- no one wants to talk to these guys, the hackers, who are doing everything. Instead, we prefer these really dazzling technological solutions, which cost a huge amount of money. And so nothing is going into the hackers. Well, I say nothing, but actually there is one teeny weeny little research unit in Turin, Italy called the Hackers Profiling Project. And they are doing some fantastic research into the characteristics, into the abilities and the socialization of hackers. But because they're a U.N. operation, maybe that's why governments and corporations are not that interested in them. Because it's a U.N. operation, of course, it lacks funding. But I think they're doing very important work. Because where we have a surplus of technology in the cybersecurity industry, we have a definite lack of -- call me old-fashioned -- human intelligence. Now, so far I've mentioned the hackers Anonymous who are a politically motivated hacking group. Of course, the criminal justice system treats them as common old garden criminals. But interestingly, Anonymous does not make use of its hacked information for financial gain. But what about the real cybercriminals? Well real organized crime on the Internet goes back about 10 years when a group of gifted Ukrainian hackers developed a website, which led to the industrialization of cybercrime. Welcome to the now forgotten realm of CarderPlanet. This is how they were advertising themselves a decade ago on the Net. Now CarderPlanet was very interesting. Cybercriminals would go there to buy and sell stolen credit card details, to exchange information about new malware that was out there. And remember, this is a time when we're seeing for the first time so-called off-the-shelf malware. This is ready for use, out-of-the-box stuff, which you can deploy even if you're not a terribly sophisticated hacker. And so CarderPlanet became a sort of supermarket for cybercriminals. And its creators were incredibly smart and entrepreneurial, because they were faced with one enormous challenge as cybercriminals. And that challenge is: How do you do business, how do you trust somebody on the Web who you want to do business with when you know that they're a criminal? (Laughter) It's axiomatic that they're dodgy, and they're going to want to try and rip you off. So the family, as the inner core of CarderPlanet was known, came up with this brilliant idea called the escrow system. They appointed an officer who would mediate between the vendor and the purchaser. The vendor, say, had stolen credit card details; the purchaser wanted to get a hold of them. The purchaser would send the administrative officer some dollars digitally, and the vendor would sell the stolen credit card details. And the officer would then verify if the stolen credit card worked. And if they did, he then passed on the money to the vendor and the stolen credit card details to the purchaser. And it was this which completely revolutionized cybercrime on the Web. And after that, it just went wild. We had a champagne decade for people who we know as Carders. Now I spoke to one of these Carders who we'll call RedBrigade -- although that wasn't even his proper nickname -- but I promised I wouldn't reveal who he was. And he explained to me how in 2003 and 2004 he would go on sprees in New York, taking out $10,000 from an ATM here, $30,000 from an ATM there, using cloned credit cards. He was making, on average a week, $150,000 -- tax free of course. And he said that he had so much money stashed in his upper-East side apartment at one point that he just didn't know what to do with it and actually fell into a depression. But that's a slightly different story, which I won't go into now. Now the interesting thing about RedBrigade is that he wasn't an advanced hacker. He sort of understood the technology, and he realized that security was very important if you were going to be a Carder, but he didn't spend his days and nights bent over a computer, eating pizza, drinking coke and that sort of thing. He was out there on the town having a fab time enjoying the high life. And this is because hackers are only one element in a cybercriminal enterprise. And often they're the most vulnerable element of all. And I want to explain this to you by introducing you to six characters who I met while I was doing this research. Dimitry Golubov, aka SCRIPT -- born in Odessa, Ukraine in 1982. Now he developed his social and moral compass on the Black Sea port during the 1990s. This was a sink-or-swim environment where involvement in criminal or corrupt activities was entirely necessary if you wanted to survive. As an accomplished computer user, what Dimitry did was to transfer the gangster capitalism of his hometown onto the Worldwide Web. And he did a great job in it. You have to understand though that from his ninth birthday, the only environment he knew was gangsterism. He knew no other way of making a living and making money. Then we have Renukanth Subramaniam, aka JiLsi -- founder of DarkMarket, born in Colombo, Sri Lanka. As an eight year-old, he and his parents fled the Sri Lankan capital because Singhalese mobs were roaming the city, looking for Tamils like Renu to murder. At 11, he was interrogated by the Sri Lankan military, accused of being a terrorist, and his parents sent him on his own to Britain as a refugee seeking political asylum. At 13, with only little English and being bullied at school, he escaped into a world of computers where he showed great technical ability, but he was soon being seduced by people on the Internet. He was convicted of mortgage and credit card fraud, and he will be released from Wormwood Scrubs jail in London in 2012. Matrix001, who was an administrator at DarkMarket. Born in Southern Germany to a stable and well-respected middle class family, his obsession with gaming as a teenager led him to hacking. And he was soon controlling huge servers around the world where he stored his games that he had cracked and pirated. His slide into criminality was incremental. And when he finally woke up to his situation and understood the implications, he was already in too deep. Max Vision, aka ICEMAN -- mastermind of CardersMarket. Born in Meridian, Idaho. Max Vision was one of the best penetration testers working out of Santa Clara, California in the late 90s for private companies and voluntarily for the FBI. Now in the late 1990s, he discovered a vulnerability on all U.S. government networks, and he went in and patched it up -- because this included nuclear research facilities -- sparing the American government a huge security embarrassment. But also, because he was an inveterate hacker, he left a tiny digital wormhole through which he alone could crawl. But this was spotted by an eagle-eye investigator, and he was convicted. At his open prison, he came under the influence of financial fraudsters, and those financial fraudsters persuaded him to work for them on his release. And this man with a planetary-sized brain is now serving a 13-year sentence in California. Adewale Taiwo, aka FreddyBB -- master bank account cracker from Abuja in Nigeria. He set up his prosaically entitled newsgroup, bankfrauds@yahoo.co.uk before arriving in Britain in 2005 to take a Masters in chemical engineering at Manchester University. He impressed in the private sector, developing chemical applications for the oil industry while simultaneously running a worldwide bank and credit card fraud operation that was worth millions until his arrest in 2008. And then finally, Cagatay Evyapan, aka Cha0 -- one of the most remarkable hackers ever, from Ankara in Turkey. He combined the tremendous skills of a geek with the suave social engineering skills of the master criminal. One of the smartest people I've ever met. He also had the most effective virtual private network security arrangement the police have ever encountered amongst global cybercriminals. Now the important thing about all of these people is they share certain characteristics despite the fact that they come from very different environments. They are all people who learned their hacking skills in their early to mid-teens. They are all people who demonstrate advanced ability in maths and the sciences. Remember that, when they developed those hacking skills, their moral compass had not yet developed. And most of them, with the exception of SCRIPT and Cha0, they did not demonstrate any real social skills in the outside world -- only on the Web. And the other thing is the high incidence of hackers like these who have characteristics which are consistent with Asperger's syndrome. Now I discussed this with Professor Simon Baron-Cohen who's the professor of developmental psychopathology at Cambridge. And he has done path-breaking work on autism and confirmed, also for the authorities here, that Gary McKinnon -- who is wanted by the United States for hacking into the Pentagon -- suffers from Asperger's and a secondary condition of depression. And Baron-Cohen explained that certain disabilities can manifest themselves in the hacking and computing world as tremendous skills, and that we should not be throwing in jail people who have such disabilities and skills because they have lost their way socially or been duped. Now I think we're missing a trick here, because I don't think people like Max Vision should be in jail. And let me be blunt about this. In China, in Russia and in loads of other countries that are developing cyber-offensive capabilities, this is exactly what they are doing. They are recruiting hackers both before and after they become involved in criminal and industrial espionage activities -- are mobilizing them on behalf of the state. We need to engage and find ways of offering guidance to these young people, because they are a remarkable breed. And if we rely, as we do at the moment, solely on the criminal justice system and the threat of punitive sentences, we will be nurturing a monster we cannot tame. Thank you very much for listening. (Applause) Chris Anderson: So your idea worth spreading is hire hackers. How would someone get over that kind of fear that the hacker they hire might preserve that little teensy wormhole? MG: I think to an extent, you have to understand that it's axiomatic among hackers that they do that. They're just relentless and obsessive about what they do. But all of the people who I've spoken to who have fallen foul of the law, they have all said, "Please, please give us a chance to work in the legitimate industry. We just never knew how to get there, what we were doing. We want to work with you." Chris Anderson: Okay, well that makes sense. Thanks a lot Misha. (Applause)
So, my question: are we alone? The story of humans is the story of ideas -- scientific ideas that shine light into dark corners, ideas that we embrace rationally and irrationally, ideas for which we've lived and died and killed and been killed, ideas that have vanished in history, and ideas that have been set in dogma. It's a story of nations, of ideologies, of territories, and of conflicts among them. But, every moment of human history, from the Stone Age to the Information Age, from Sumer and Babylon to the iPod and celebrity gossip, they've all been carried out -- every book that you've read, every poem, every laugh, every tear -- they've all happened here. Here. Here. Here. (Laughter) Perspective is a very powerful thing. Perspectives can change. Perspectives can be altered. From my perspective, we live on a fragile island of life, in a universe of possibilities. For many millennia, humans have been on a journey to find answers, answers to questions about naturalism and transcendence, about who we are and why we are, and of course, who else might be out there. Is it really just us? Are we alone in this vast universe of energy and matter and chemistry and physics? Well, if we are, it's an awful waste of space. (Laughter) But, what if we're not? What if, out there, others are asking and answering similar questions? What if they look up at the night sky, at the same stars, but from the opposite side? Would the discovery of an older cultural civilization out there inspire us to find ways to survive our increasingly uncertain technological adolescence? Might it be the discovery of a distant civilization and our common cosmic origins that finally drives home the message of the bond among all humans? Whether we're born in San Francisco, or Sudan, or close to the heart of the Milky Way galaxy, we are the products of a billion-year lineage of wandering stardust. We, all of us, are what happens when a primordial mixture of hydrogen and helium evolves for so long that it begins to ask where it came from. Fifty years ago, the journey to find answers took a different path and SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, began. So, what exactly is SETI? Well, SETI uses the tools of astronomy to try and find evidence of someone else's technology out there. Our own technologies are visible over interstellar distances, and theirs might be as well. It might be that some massive network of communications, or some shield against asteroidal impact, or some huge astro-engineering project that we can't even begin to conceive of, could generate signals at radio or optical frequencies that a determined program of searching might detect. For millennia, we've actually turned to the priests and the philosophers for guidance and instruction on this question of whether there's intelligent life out there. Now, we can use the tools of the 21st century to try and observe what is, rather than ask what should be, believed. SETI doesn't presume the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence; it merely notes the possibility, if not the probability in this vast universe, which seems fairly uniform. The numbers suggest a universe of possibilities. Our sun is one of 400 billion stars in our galaxy, and we know that many other stars have planetary systems. We've discovered over 350 in the last 14 years, including the small planet, announced earlier this week, which has a radius just twice the size of the Earth. And, if even all of the planetary systems in our galaxy were devoid of life, there are still 100 billion other galaxies out there, altogether 10^22 stars. Now, I'm going to try a trick, and recreate an experiment from this morning. Remember, one billion? But, this time not one billion dollars, one billion stars. Alright, one billion stars. Now, up there, 20 feet above the stage, that's 10 trillion. Well, what about 10^22? Where's the line that marks that? That line would have to be 3.8 million miles above this stage. (Laughter) 16 times farther away than the moon, or four percent of the distance to the sun. So, there are many possibilities. (Laughter) And much of this vast universe, much more may be habitable than we once thought, as we study extremophiles on Earth -- organisms that can live in conditions totally inhospitable for us, in the hot, high pressure thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, frozen in ice, in boiling battery acid, in the cooling waters of nuclear reactors. These extremophiles tell us that life may exist in many other environments. But those environments are going to be widely spaced in this universe. Even our nearest star, the Sun -- its emissions suffer the tyranny of light speed. It takes a full eight minutes for its radiation to reach us. And the nearest star is 4.2 light years away, which means its light takes 4.2 years to get here. And the edge of our galaxy is 75,000 light years away, and the nearest galaxy to us, 2.5 million light years. That means any signal we detect would have started its journey a long time ago. And a signal would give us a glimpse of their past, not their present. Which is why Phil Morrison calls SETI, "the archaeology of the future." It tells us about their past, but detection of a signal tells us it's possible for us to have a long future. I think this is what David Deutsch meant in 2005, when he ended his Oxford TEDTalk by saying he had two principles he'd like to share for living, and he would like to carve them on stone tablets. The first is that problems are inevitable. The second is that problems are soluble. So, ultimately what's going to determine the success or failure of SETI is the longevity of technologies, and the mean distance between technologies in the cosmos -- distance over space and distance over time. If technologies don't last and persist, we will not succeed. And we're a very young technology in an old galaxy, and we don't yet know whether it's possible for technologies to persist. So, up until now I've been talking to you about really large numbers. Let me talk about a relatively small number. And that's the length of time that the Earth was lifeless. Zircons that are mined in the Jack Hills of western Australia, zircons taken from the Jack Hills of western Australia tell us that within a few hundred million years of the origin of the planet there was abundant water and perhaps even life. So, our planet has spent the vast majority of its 4.56 billion year history developing life, not anticipating its emergence. Life happened very quickly, and that bodes well for the potential of life elsewhere in the cosmos. And the other thing that one should take away from this chart is the very narrow range of time over which humans can claim to be the dominant intelligence on the planet. It's only the last few hundred thousand years modern humans have been pursuing technology and civilization. So, one needs a very deep appreciation of the diversity and incredible scale of life on this planet as the first step in preparing to make contact with life elsewhere in the cosmos. We are not the pinnacle of evolution. We are not the determined product of billions of years of evolutionary plotting and planning. We are one outcome of a continuing adaptational process. We are residents of one small planet in a corner of the Milky Way galaxy. And Homo sapiens are one small leaf on a very extensive Tree of Life, which is densely populated by organisms that have been honed for survival over millions of years. We misuse language, and talk about the "ascent" of man. We understand the scientific basis for the interrelatedness of life but our ego hasn't caught up yet. So this "ascent" of man, pinnacle of evolution, has got to go. It's a sense of privilege that the natural universe doesn't share. Loren Eiseley has said, "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." One day that eye may be that of an intelligent alien, and the sooner we eschew our narrow view of evolution the sooner we can truly explore our ultimate origins and destinations. We are a small part of the story of cosmic evolution, and we are going to be responsible for our continued participation in that story, and perhaps SETI will help as well. Occasionally, throughout history, this concept of this very large cosmic perspective comes to the surface, and as a result we see transformative and profound discoveries. So in 1543, Nicholas Copernicus published "The Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres," and by taking the Earth out of the center, and putting the sun in the center of the solar system, he opened our eyes to a much larger universe, of which we are just a small part. And that Copernican revolution continues today to influence science and philosophy and technology and theology. So, in 1959, Giuseppe Coccone and Philip Morrison published the first SETI article in a refereed journal, and brought SETI into the scientific mainstream. And in 1960, Frank Drake conducted the first SETI observation looking at two stars, Tau Ceti and Epsilon Eridani, for about 150 hours. Now Drake did not discover extraterrestrial intelligence, but he learned a very valuable lesson from a passing aircraft, and that's that terrestrial technology can interfere with the search for extraterrestrial technology. We've been searching ever since, but it's impossible to overstate the magnitude of the search that remains. All of the concerted SETI efforts, over the last 40-some years, are equivalent to scooping a single glass of water from the oceans. And no one would decide that the ocean was without fish on the basis of one glass of water. The 21st century now allows us to build bigger glasses -- much bigger glasses. In Northern California, we're beginning to take observations with the first 42 telescopes of the Allen Telescope Array -- and I've got to take a moment right now to publicly thank Paul Allen and Nathan Myhrvold and all the TeamSETI members in the TED community who have so generously supported this research. (Applause) The ATA is the first telescope built from a large number of small dishes, and hooked together with computers. It's making silicon as important as aluminum, and we'll grow it in the future by adding more antennas to reach 350 for more sensitivity and leveraging Moore's law for more processing capability. Today, our signal detection algorithms can find very simple artifacts and noise. If you look very hard here you can see the signal from the Voyager 1 spacecraft, the most distant human object in the universe, 106 times as far away from us as the sun is. And over those long distances, its signal is very faint when it reaches us. It may be hard for your eye to see it, but it's easily found with our efficient algorithms. But this is a simple signal, and tomorrow we want to be able to find more complex signals. This is a very good year. 2009 is the 400th anniversary of Galileo's first use of the telescope, Darwin's 200th birthday, the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of Species," the 50th anniversary of SETI as a science, the 25th anniversary of the incorporation of the SETI Institute as a non-profit, and of course, the 25th anniversary of TED. And next month, the Kepler Spacecraft will launch and will begin to tell us just how frequent Earth-like planets are, the targets for SETI's searches. In 2009, the U.N. has declared it to be the International Year of Astronomy, a global festival to help us residents of Earth rediscover our cosmic origins and our place in the universe. And in 2009, change has come to Washington, with a promise to put science in its rightful position. (Applause) So, what would change everything? Well, this is the question the Edge foundation asked this year, and four of the respondents said, "SETI." Why? Well, to quote: "The discovery of intelligent life beyond Earth would eradicate the loneliness and solipsism that has plagued our species since its inception. And it wouldn't simply change everything, it would change everything all at once." So, if that's right, why did we only capture four out of those 151 minds? I think it's a problem of completion and delivery, because the fine print said, "What game-changing ideas and scientific developments would you expect to live to see?" So, we have a fulfillment problem. We need bigger glasses and more hands in the water, and then working together, maybe we can all live to see the detection of the first extraterrestrial signal. That brings me to my wish. I wish that you would empower Earthlings everywhere to become active participants in the ultimate search for cosmic company. The first step would be to tap into the global brain trust, to build an environment where raw data could be stored, and where it could be accessed and manipulated, where new algorithms could be developed and old algorithms made more efficient. And this is a technically creative challenge, and it would change the perspective of people who worked on it. And then, we'd like to augment the automated search with human insight. We'd like to use the pattern recognition capability of the human eye to find faint, complex signals that our current algorithms miss. And, of course, we'd like to inspire and engage the next generation. We'd like to take the materials that we have built for education, and get them out to students everywhere, students that can't come and visit us at the ATA. We'd like to tell our story better, and engage young people, and thereby change their perspective. I'm sorry Seth Godin, but over the millennia, we've seen where tribalism leads. We've seen what happens when we divide an already small planet into smaller islands. And, ultimately, we actually all belong to only one tribe, to Earthlings. And SETI is a mirror -- a mirror that can show us ourselves from an extraordinary perspective, and can help to trivialize the differences among us. If SETI does nothing but change the perspective of humans on this planet, then it will be one of the most profound endeavors in history. So, in the opening days of 2009, a visionary president stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and said, "We cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass, that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve, that, as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself." So, I look forward to working with the TED community to hear about your ideas about how to fulfill this wish, and in collaborating with you, hasten the day that that visionary statement can become a reality. Thank you. (Applause)
The great texts of the ancient world don't survive to us in their original form. They survive because medieval scribes copied them and copied them and copied them. And so it is with Archimedes, the great Greek mathematician. Everything we know about Archimedes as a mathematician we know about because of just three books, and they're called A, B and C. And A was lost by an Italian humanist in 1564. And B was last heard of in the Pope's Library about a hundred miles north of Rome in Viterbo in 1311. Now Codex C was only discovered in 1906, and it landed on my desk in Baltimore on the 19th of January, 1999. And this is Codex C here. Now Codex C is actually buried in this book. It's buried treasure. Because this book is actually a prayer book. It was finished by a guy called Johannes Myrones on the 14th of April, 1229. And to make his prayer book he used parchment. But he didn't use new parchment, he used parchment recycled from earlier manuscripts, and there were seven of them. And Archimedes Codex C was just one of those seven. He took apart the Archimedes manuscript and the other seven manuscripts. He erased all of their texts, and then he cut the sheets down in the middle, he shuffled them up, and he rotated them 90 degrees, and he wrote prayers on top of these books. And essentially these seven manuscripts disappeared for 700 years, and we have a prayer book. The prayer book was discovered by this guy, Johan Ludvig Heiberg, in 1906. And with just a magnifying glass, he transcribed as much of the text as he could. And the thing is that he found two texts in this manuscript that were unique texts. They weren't in A and B at all; they were completely new texts by Archimedes, and they were called "The Method" and "The Stomachion." And it became a world famous manuscript. Now it should be clear by now that this book is in bad condition. It got in worse condition in the 20th century after Heiberg saw it. Forgeries were painted over it, and it suffered very badly from mold. This book is the definition of a write-off. It's the sort of book that you thought would be in an institution. But it's not in an institution, it was bought by a private owner in 1998. Why did he buy this book? Because he wanted to make that which was fragile safe. He wanted to make that which was unique ubiquitous. He wanted to make that which was expensive free. And he wanted to do this as a matter of principle. Because not many people are really going to read Archimedes in ancient Greek, but they should have the chance to do it. So he gathered around himself the friends of Archimedes, and he promised to pay for all the work. And it was an expensive job, but actually it wouldn't be as much as you think because these people, they didn't come from money, they came from Archimedes. And they came from all sorts of different backgrounds. They came from particle physics, they came from classical philology, they came from book conservation, they came from ancient mathematics, they came from data management, they came from scientific imaging and program management. And they got together to work on this manuscript. The first problem was a conservation problem. And this is the sort of thing that we had to deal with: There was glue on the spine of the book. And if you look at this photograph carefully, the bottom half of this is rather brown. And that glue is hide glue. Now if you're a conservator, you can take off this glue reasonably easily. The top half is Elmer's wood glue. It's polyvinyl acetate emulsion that doesn't dissolve in water once it's dry. And it's much tougher than the parchment that it was written on. And so before we could start imaging Archimedes, we had to take this book apart. So it took four years to take apart. And this is a rare action shot, ladies and gentlemen. (Laughter) Another thing is that we had to get rid of all the wax, because this was used in the liturgical services of the Greek Orthodox Church and they'd used candle wax. And the candle wax was dirty, and we couldn't image through the wax. So very carefully we had to mechanically scrape off all the wax. It's hard to tell you exactly how bad this condition of this book is, but it came out in little bits very often. And normally in a book, you wouldn't worry about the little bits, but these little bits might contain unique Archimedes text. So, tiny fragments we actually managed to put back in the right place. Then, having done that, we started to image the manuscript. And we imaged the manuscript in 14 different wavebands of light. Because if you look at something in different wavebands of light, you see different things. And here is an image of a page imaged in 14 different wavebands of light. But none of them worked. So what we did was we processed the images together, and we put two images into one blank screen. And here are two different images of the Archimedes manuscript. And the image on the left is the normal red image. And the image on the right is an ultraviolet image. And in the image on the right you might be able to see some of the Archimedes writing. If you merge them together into one digital canvas, the parchment is bright in both images and it comes out bright. The prayer book is dark in both images and it comes out dark. The Archimedes text is dark in one image and bright in another. And it'll come out dark but red, and then you can start to read it rather clearly. And that's what it looks like. Now that's a before and after image, but you don't read the image on the screen like that. You zoom in and you zoom in and you zoom in and you zoom in, and you can just read it now. (Applause) If you process the same two images in a different way, you can actually get rid of the prayer book text. And this is terribly important, because the diagrams in the manuscript are the unique source for the diagrams that Archimedes drew in the sand in the fourth century B.C. And there we are, I can give them to you. With this kind of imaging -- this kind of infrared, ultraviolet, invisible light imaging -- we were never going to image through the gold ground forgeries. How were we going to do that? Well we took the manuscript, and we decided to image it in X-ray fluorescence imaging. So an X-ray comes in in the diagram on the left and it knocks out an electron from the inner shell of an atom. And that electron disappears. And as it disappears, an electron from a shell farther out jumps in and takes its place. And when it takes its place, it sheds electromagnetic radiation. It sheds an X-ray. And this X-ray is specific in its wavelength to the atom that it hits. And what we wanted to get was the iron. Because the ink was written in iron. And if we can map where this X-ray that comes out, where it comes from, we can map all the iron on the page, then theoretically we can read the image. The thing is that you need a very powerful light source to do this. So we took it to the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory in California, which is a particle accelerator. Electrons go around one way, positrons go around the other. They meet in the middle, and they create subatomic particles like the charm quark and the tau lepton. Now we weren't actually going to put Archimedes in that beam. But as the electrons go round at the speed of light, they shed X-rays. And this is the most powerful light source in the solar system. This is called synchrotron radiation, and it's normally used to look at things like proteins and that sort of thing. But we wanted it to look at atoms, at iron atoms, so that we could read the page from before and after. And lo and behold, we found that we could do it. It took about 17 minutes to do a single page. So what did we discover? Well one of the unique texts in Archimedes is called "The Stomachion." And this didn't exist in Codices A and B. And we knew that it involved this square. And this is a perfect square, and it's divided into 14 bits. But no one knew what Archimedes was doing with these 14 bits. And now we think we know. He was trying to work out how many ways you can recombine those 14 bits and still make a perfect square. Anyone want to guess the answer? It's 17,152 divided into 536 families. And the important point about this is that it's the earliest study in combinatorics in mathematics. And combinatorics is a wonderful and interesting branch of mathematics. The really astonishing thing though about this manuscript is that we looked at the other manuscripts that the palimpsester had made, the scribe had made his book out of, and one of them was a manuscript containing text by Hyperides. Now Hyperides was an Athenian orator from the fourth century B.C. He was an exact contemporary of Demosthenes. And in 338 B.C. he and Demosthenes together decided that they wanted to stand up to the military might of Philip of Macedon. So Athens and Thebes went out to fight Philip of Macedon. This was a bad idea, because Philip of Macedon had a son called Alexander the Great, and they lost the battle of Chaeronea. Alexander the Great went on to conquer the known world; Hyperides found himself on trial for treason. And this is the speech that he gave when he was on trial -- and it's a great speech: "Best of all," he says, "is to win. But if you can't win, then you should fight for a noble cause, because then you'll be remembered. Consider the Spartans. They won enumerable victories, but no one remembers what they are because they were all fought for selfish ends. The one battle that the Spartans fought that everybody remembers is the the battle of Thermopylae where they were butchered to a man, but fought for the freedom of Greece." It was such a great speech that the Athenian law courts let him off. He lived for another 10 years, then the Macedonian faction caught up with him. They cut out his tongue in mockery of his oratory, and no one knows what they did with his body. So this is the discovery of a lost voice from antiquity, speaking to us, not from the grave, because his grave doesn't exist, but from the Athenian law courts. Now I should say at this point that normally when you're looking at medieval manuscripts that have been scraped off, you don't find unique texts. And to find two in one manuscript is really something. To find three is completely weird. And we found three. Aristotle's "Categories" is one of the foundational texts of Western philosophy. And we found a third century A.D. commentary on it, possibly by Galen and probably by Porphyry. Now all this data that we collected, all the images, all the raw images, all the transcriptions that we made and that sort of thing have been put online under a Creative Commons license for anyone to use for any commercial purpose. (Applause) Why did the owner of the manuscript do this? He did this because he understands data as well as books. Now the thing to do with books, if you want to ensure their long-term utility, is to hide them away in closets and let very few people look at them. The thing to do with data, if you want it to survive, is to let it out and have everybody have it with as little control on that data as possible. And that's what he did. And institutions can learn from this. Because institutions at the moment confine their data with copyright restrictions and that sort of thing. And if you want to look at medieval manuscripts on the Web, at the moment you have to go to the National Library of Y's site or the University Library of X's site, which is about the most boring way in which you can deal with digital data. What you want to do is to aggregate it all together. Because the Web of the ancient manuscripts of the future isn't going to be built by institutions. It's going to be built by users, by people who get this data together, by people who want to aggregate all sorts of maps from wherever they come from, all sorts of medieval romances from wherever they come from, people who just want to curate their own glorious selection of beautiful things. And that is the future of the Web. And it's an attractive and beautiful future, if only we can make it happen. Now we at the Walters Art Museum have followed this example, and we have put up all our manuscripts on the Web for people to enjoy -- all the raw data, all the descriptions, all the metadata. under a Creative Commons license. Now the Walters Art Museum is a small museum and it has beautiful manuscripts, but the data is fantastic. And the result of this is that if you do a Google search on images right now and you type in "Illuminated manuscript Koran" for example, 24 of the 28 images you'll find come from my institution. (Applause) Now, let's think about this for a minute. What's in it for the institution? There are all sorts of things that are in it for the institution. You can talk about the Humanities and that sort of thing, but let's talk about selfish things. Because what's really in it for the institution is this: Now why do people go to the Louvre? They go to see the Mona Lisa. Why do they go to see the Mona Lisa? Because they already know what she looks like. And they know what she looks like because they've seen pictures of her absolutely everywhere. Now, there is no need for these restrictions at all. And I think that institutions should stand up and release all their data under unrestricted licenses, and it would be a great benefit to everybody. Why don't we just let everybody have access to this data and curate their own collection of ancient knowledge and wonderful and beautiful things and increase the beauty and the cultural significance of the Internet. Thank you very much indeed. (Applause)
Today I'm going to speak to you about the last 30 years of architectural history. That's a lot to pack into 18 minutes. It's a complex topic, so we're just going to dive right in at a complex place: New Jersey. Because 30 years ago, I'm from Jersey, and I was six, and I lived there in my parents' house in a town called Livingston, and this was my childhood bedroom. Around the corner from my bedroom was the bathroom that I used to share with my sister. And in between my bedroom and the bathroom was a balcony that overlooked the family room. And that's where everyone would hang out and watch TV, so that every time that I walked from my bedroom to the bathroom, everyone would see me, and every time I took a shower and would come back in a towel, everyone would see me. And I looked like this. I was awkward, insecure, and I hated it. I hated that walk, I hated that balcony, I hated that room, and I hated that house. And that's architecture. (Laughter) Done. That feeling, those emotions that I felt, that's the power of architecture, because architecture is not about math and it's not about zoning, it's about those visceral, emotional connections that we feel to the places that we occupy. And it's no surprise that we feel that way, because according to the EPA, Americans spend 90 percent of their time indoors. That's 90 percent of our time surrounded by architecture. That's huge. That means that architecture is shaping us in ways that we didn't even realize. That makes us a little bit gullible and very, very predictable. It means that when I show you a building like this, I know what you think: You think "power" and "stability" and "democracy." And I know you think that because it's based on a building that was build 2,500 years ago by the Greeks. This is a trick. This is a trigger that architects use to get you to create an emotional connection to the forms that we build our buildings out of. It's a predictable emotional connection, and we've been using this trick for a long, long time. We used it [200] years ago to build banks. We used it in the 19th century to build art museums. And in the 20th century in America, we used it to build houses. And look at these solid, stable little soldiers facing the ocean and keeping away the elements. This is really, really useful, because building things is terrifying. It's expensive, it takes a long time, and it's very complicated. And the people that build things -- developers and governments -- they're naturally afraid of innovation, and they'd rather just use those forms that they know you'll respond to. That's how we end up with buildings like this. This is a nice building. This is the Livingston Public Library that was completed in 2004 in my hometown, and, you know, it's got a dome and it's got this round thing and columns, red brick, and you can kind of guess what Livingston is trying to say with this building: children, property values and history. But it doesn't have much to do with what a library actually does today. That same year, in 2004, on the other side of the country, another library was completed, and it looks like this. It's in Seattle. This library is about how we consume media in a digital age. It's about a new kind of public amenity for the city, a place to gather and read and share. So how is it possible that in the same year, in the same country, two buildings, both called libraries, look so completely different? And the answer is that architecture works on the principle of a pendulum. On the one side is innovation, and architects are constantly pushing, pushing for new technologies, new typologies, new solutions for the way that we live today. And we push and we push and we push until we completely alienate all of you. We wear all black, we get very depressed, you think we're adorable, we're dead inside because we've got no choice. We have to go to the other side and reengage those symbols that we know you love. So we do that, and you're happy, we feel like sellouts, so we start experimenting again and we push the pendulum back and back and forth and back and forth we've gone for the last 300 years, and certainly for the last 30 years. Okay, 30 years ago we were coming out of the '70s. Architects had been busy experimenting with something called brutalism. It's about concrete. (Laughter) You can guess this. Small windows, dehumanizing scale. This is really tough stuff. So as we get closer to the '80s, we start to reengage those symbols. We push the pendulum back into the other direction. We take these forms that we know you love and we update them. We add neon and we add pastels and we use new materials. And you love it. And we can't give you enough of it. We take Chippendale armoires and we turned those into skyscrapers, and skyscrapers can be medieval castles made out of glass. Forms got big, forms got bold and colorful. Dwarves became columns. (Laughter) Swans grew to the size of buildings. It was crazy. But it's the '80s, it's cool. (Laughter) We're all hanging out in malls and we're all moving to the suburbs, and out there, out in the suburbs, we can create our own architectural fantasies. And those fantasies, they can be Mediterranean or French or Italian. (Laughter) Possibly with endless breadsticks. This is the thing about postmodernism. This is the thing about symbols. They're easy, they're cheap, because instead of making places, we're making memories of places. Because I know, and I know all of you know, this isn't Tuscany. This is Ohio. (Laughter) So architects get frustrated, and we start pushing the pendulum back into the other direction. In the late '80s and early '90s, we start experimenting with something called deconstructivism. We throw out historical symbols, we rely on new, computer-aided design techniques, and we come up with new compositions, forms crashing into forms. This is academic and heady stuff, it's super unpopular, we totally alienate you. Ordinarily, the pendulum would just swing back into the other direction. And then, something amazing happened. In 1997, this building opened. This is the Guggenheim Bilbao, by Frank Gehry. And this building fundamentally changes the world's relationship to architecture. Paul Goldberger said that Bilbao was one of those rare moments when critics, academics, and the general public were completely united around a building. The New York Times called this building a miracle. Tourism in Bilbao increased 2,500 percent after this building was completed. So all of a sudden, everybody wants one of these buildings: L.A., Seattle, Chicago, New York, Cleveland, Springfield. (Laughter) Everybody wants one, and Gehry is everywhere. He is our very first starchitect. Now, how is it possible that these forms -- they're wild and radical -- how is it possible that they become so ubiquitous throughout the world? And it happened because media so successfully galvanized around them that they quickly taught us that these forms mean culture and tourism. We created an emotional reaction to these forms. So did every mayor in the world. So every mayor knew that if they had these forms, they had culture and tourism. This phenomenon at the turn of the new millennium happened to a few other starchitects. It happened to Zaha and it happened to Libeskind, and what happened to these elite few architects at the turn of the new millennium could actually start to happen to the entire field of architecture, as digital media starts to increase the speed with which we consume information. Because think about how you consume architecture. A thousand years ago, you would have had to have walked to the village next door to see a building. Transportation speeds up: You can take a boat, you can take a plane, you can be a tourist. Technology speeds up: You can see it in a newspaper, on TV, until finally, we are all architectural photographers, and the building has become disembodied from the site. Architecture is everywhere now, and that means that the speed of communication has finally caught up to the speed of architecture. Because architecture actually moves quite quickly. It doesn't take long to think about a building. It takes a long time to build a building, three or four years, and in the interim, an architect will design two or eight or a hundred other buildings before they know if that building that they designed four years ago was a success or not. That's because there's never been a good feedback loop in architecture. That's how we end up with buildings like this. Brutalism wasn't a two-year movement, it was a 20-year movement. For 20 years, we were producing buildings like this because we had no idea how much you hated it. It's never going to happen again, I think, because we are living on the verge of the greatest revolution in architecture since the invention of concrete, of steel, or of the elevator, and it's a media revolution. So my theory is that when you apply media to this pendulum, it starts swinging faster and faster, until it's at both extremes nearly simultaneously, and that effectively blurs the difference between innovation and symbol, between us, the architects, and you, the public. Now we can make nearly instantaneous, emotionally charged symbols out of something that's brand new. Let me show you how this plays out in a project that my firm recently completed. We were hired to replace this building, which burned down. This is the center of a town called the Pines in Fire Island in New York State. It's a vacation community. We proposed a building that was audacious, that was different than any of the forms that the community was used to, and we were scared and our client was scared and the community was scared, so we created a series of photorealistic renderings that we put onto Facebook and we put onto Instagram, and we let people start to do what they do: share it, comment, like it, hate it. But that meant that two years before the building was complete, it was already a part of the community, so that when the renderings looked exactly like the finished product, there were no surprises. This building was already a part of this community, and then that first summer, when people started arriving and sharing the building on social media, the building ceased to be just an edifice and it became media, because these, these are not just pictures of a building, they're your pictures of a building. And as you use them to tell your story, they become part of your personal narrative, and what you're doing is you're short-circuiting all of our collective memory, and you're making these charged symbols for us to understand. That means we don't need the Greeks anymore to tell us what to think about architecture. We can tell each other what we think about architecture, because digital media hasn't just changed the relationship between all of us, it's changed the relationship between us and buildings. Think for a second about those librarians back in Livingston. If that building was going to be built today, the first thing they would do is go online and search "new libraries." They would be bombarded by examples of experimentation, of innovation, of pushing at the envelope of what a library can be. That's ammunition. That's ammunition that they can take with them to the mayor of Livingston, to the people of Livingston, and say, there's no one answer to what a library is today. Let's be a part of this. This abundance of experimentation gives them the freedom to run their own experiment. Everything is different now. Architects are no longer these mysterious creatures that use big words and complicated drawings, and you aren't the hapless public, the consumer that won't accept anything that they haven't seen anymore. Architects can hear you, and you're not intimidated by architecture. That means that that pendulum swinging back and forth from style to style, from movement to movement, is irrelevant. We can actually move forward and find relevant solutions to the problems that our society faces. This is the end of architectural history, and it means that the buildings of tomorrow are going to look a lot different than the buildings of today. It means that a public space in the ancient city of Seville can be unique and tailored to the way that a modern city works. It means that a stadium in Brooklyn can be a stadium in Brooklyn, not some red-brick historical pastiche of what we think a stadium ought to be. It means that robots are going to build our buildings, because we're finally ready for the forms that they're going to produce. And it means that buildings will twist to the whims of nature instead of the other way around. It means that a parking garage in Miami Beach, Florida, can also be a place for sports and for yoga and you can even get married there late at night. (Laughter) It means that three architects can dream about swimming in the East River of New York, and then raise nearly half a million dollars from a community that gathered around their cause, no one client anymore. It means that no building is too small for innovation, like this little reindeer pavilion that's as muscly and sinewy as the animals it's designed to observe. And it means that a building doesn't have to be beautiful to be lovable, like this ugly little building in Spain, where the architects dug a hole, packed it with hay, and then poured concrete around it, and when the concrete dried, they invited someone to come and clean that hay out so that all that's left when it's done is this hideous little room that's filled with the imprints and scratches of how that place was made, and that becomes the most sublime place to watch a Spanish sunset. Because it doesn't matter if a cow builds our buildings or a robot builds our buildings. It doesn't matter how we build, it matters what we build. Architects already know how to make buildings that are greener and smarter and friendlier. We've just been waiting for all of you to want them. And finally, we're not on opposite sides anymore. Find an architect, hire an architect, work with us to design better buildings, better cities, and a better world, because the stakes are high. Buildings don't just reflect our society, they shape our society down to the smallest spaces: the local libraries, the homes where we raise our children, and the walk that they take from the bedroom to the bathroom. Thank you. (Applause)
Okay, so 90 percent of my photographic process is, in fact, not photographic. It involves a campaign of letter writing, research and phone calls to access my subjects, which can range from Hamas leaders in Gaza to a hibernating black bear in its cave in West Virginia. And oddly, the most notable letter of rejection I ever received came from Walt Disney World, a seemingly innocuous site. And it read -- I'm just going to read a key sentence: "Especially during these violent times, I personally believe that the magical spell cast upon guests who visit our theme parks is particularly important to protect and helps to provide them with an important fantasy they can escape to." Photography threatens fantasy. They didn't want to let my camera in because it confronts constructed realities, myths and beliefs, and provides what appears to be evidence of a truth. But there are multiple truths attached to every image, depending on the creator's intention, the viewer and the context in which it is presented. Over a five year period following September 11th, when the American media and government were seeking hidden and unknown sites beyond its borders, most notably weapons of mass destruction, I chose to look inward at that which was integral to America's foundation, mythology and daily functioning. I wanted to confront the boundaries of the citizen, self-imposed and real, and confront the divide between privileged and public access to knowledge. It was a critical moment in American history and global history where one felt they didn't have access to accurate information. And I wanted to see the center with my own eyes, but what I came away with is a photograph. And it's just another place from which to observe, and the understanding that there are no absolute, all-knowing insiders. And the outsider can never really reach the core. I'm going to run through some of the photographs in this series. It's titled, "An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar," and it's comprised of nearly 70 images. In this context I'll just show you a few. This is a nuclear waste storage and encapsulation facility at Hanford site in Washington State, where there are over 1,900 stainless steel capsules containing nuclear waste submerged in water. A human standing in front of an unprotected capsule would die instantly. And I found one section amongst all of these that actually resembled the outline of the United States of America, which you can see here. And a big part of the work that is sort of absent in this context is text. So I create these two poles. Every image is accompanied with a very detailed factual text. And what I'm most interested in is the invisible space between a text and its accompanying image, and how the image is transformed by the text and the text by the image. So, at best, the image is meant to float away into abstraction and multiple truths and fantasy. And then the text functions as this cruel anchor that kind of nails it to the ground. But in this context I'm just going to read an abridged version of those texts. This is a cryopreservation unit, and it holds the bodies of the wife and mother of cryonics pioneer Robert Ettinger, who hoped to be awoken one day to extended life in good health, with advancements in science and technology, all for the cost of 35 thousand dollars, for forever. This is a 21-year-old Palestinian woman undergoing hymenoplasty. Hymenoplasty is a surgical procedure which restores the virginal state, allowing her to adhere to certain cultural expectations regarding virginity and marriage. So it essentially reconstructs a ruptured hymen, allowing her to bleed upon having sexual intercourse, to simulate the loss of virginity. This is a jury simulation deliberation room, and you can see beyond that two-way mirror jury advisers standing in a room behind the mirror. And they observe deliberations after mock trial proceedings so that they can better advise their clients how to adjust their trial strategy to have the outcome that they're hoping for. This process costs 60,000 dollars. This is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection room, a contraband room, at John F. Kennedy International Airport. On that table you can see 48 hours' worth of seized goods from passengers entering in to the United States. There is a pig's head and African cane rats. And part of my photographic work is I'm not just documenting what's there. I do take certain liberties and intervene. And in this I really wanted it to resemble an early still-life painting, so I spent some time with the smells and items. This is the exhibited art on the walls of the CIA in Langley, Virginia, their original headquarters building. And the CIA has had a long history with both covert and public cultural diplomacy efforts. And it's speculated that some of their interest in the arts was designed to counter Soviet communism and promote what it considered to be pro-American thoughts and aesthetics. And one of the art forms that elicited the interest of the agency, and had thus come under question, is abstract expressionism. This is the Forensic Anthropology Research Facility, and on a six acre plot there are approximately 75 cadavers at any given time that are being studied by forensic anthropologists and researchers who are interested in monitoring a rate of corpse decomposition. And in this particular photograph the body of a young boy has been used to reenact a crime scene. This is the only federally funded site where it is legal to cultivate cannabis for scientific research in the United States. It's a research crop marijuana grow room. And part of the work that I hope for is that there is a sort of disorienting entropy where you can't find any discernible formula in how these things -- they sort of awkwardly jump from government to science to religion to security -- and you can't completely understand how information is being distributed. These are transatlantic submarine communication cables that travel across the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, connecting North America to Europe. They carry over 60 million simultaneous voice conversations, and in a lot of the government and technology sites there was just this very apparent vulnerability. This one is almost humorous because it feels like I could just snip all of that conversation in one easy cut. But stuff did feel like it could have been taken 30 or 40 years ago, like it was locked in the Cold War era and hadn't necessarily progressed. This is a Braille edition of Playboy magazine. (Laughter) And this is ... a division of the Library of Congress produces a free national library service for the blind and visually impaired, and the publications they choose to publish are based on reader popularity. And Playboy is always in the top few. (Laughter) But you'd be surprised, they don't do the photographs. It's just the text. (Laughter) This is an avian quarantine facility where all imported birds coming into America are required to undergo a 30-day quarantine, where they are tested for diseases including Exotic Newcastle Disease and Avian Influenza. This film shows the testing of a new explosive fill on a warhead. And the Air Armament Center at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida is responsible for the deployment and testing of all air-delivered weaponry coming from the United States. And the film was shot on 72 millimeter, government-issue film. And that red dot is a marking on the government-issue film. All living white tigers in North America are the result of selective inbreeding -- that would be mother to son, father to daughter, sister to brother -- to allow for the genetic conditions that create a salable white tiger. Meaning white fur, ice blue eyes, a pink nose. And the majority of these white tigers are not born in a salable state and are killed at birth. It's a very violent process that is little known. And the white tiger is obviously celebrated in several forms of entertainment. Kenny was born. He actually made it to adulthood. He has since passed away, but was mentally retarded and suffers from severe bone abnormalities. This, on a lighter note, is at George Lucas' personal archive. This is the Death Star. And it's shown here in its true orientation. In the context of "Star Wars: Return of the Jedi," its mirror image is presented. They flip the negative. And you can see the photoetched brass detailing, and the painted acrylic facade. In the context of the film, this is a deep-space battle station of the Galactic Empire, capable of annihilating planets and civilizations, and in reality it measures about four feet by two feet. (Laughter) This is at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. It's a Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain site. Essentially they've simulated a city for urban combat, and this is one of the structures that exists in that city. It's called the World Church of God. It's supposed to be a generic site of worship. And after I took this photograph, they constructed a wall around the World Church of God to mimic the set-up of mosques in Afghanistan or Iraq. And I worked with Mehta Vihar who creates virtual simulations for the army for tactical practice. And we put that wall around the World Church of God, and also used the characters and vehicles and explosions that are offered in the video games for the army. And I put them into my photograph. This is live HIV virus at Harvard Medical School, who is working with the U.S. Government to develop sterilizing immunity. And Alhurra is a U.S. Government- sponsored Arabic language television network that distributes news and information to over 22 countries in the Arab world. It runs 24 hours a day, commercial free. However, it's illegal to broadcast Alhurra within the United States. And in 2004, they developed a channel called Alhurra Iraq, which specifically deals with events occurring in Iraq and is broadcast to Iraq. Now I'm going to move on to another project I did. It's titled "The Innocents." And for the men in these photographs, photography had been used to create a fantasy. Contradicting its function as evidence of a truth, in these instances it furthered the fabrication of a lie. I traveled across the United States photographing men and women who had been wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit, violent crimes. I investigate photography's ability to blur truth and fiction, and its influence on memory, which can lead to severe, even lethal consequences. For the men in these photographs, the primary cause of their wrongful conviction was mistaken identification. A victim or eyewitness identifies a suspected perpetrator through law enforcement's use of images. But through exposure to composite sketches, Polaroids, mug shots and line-ups, eyewitness testimony can change. I'll give you an example from a case. A woman was raped and presented with a series of photographs from which to identify her attacker. She saw some similarities in one of the photographs, but couldn't quite make a positive identification. Days later, she is presented with another photo array of all new photographs, except that one photograph that she had some draw to from the earlier array is repeated in the second array. And a positive identification is made because the photograph replaced the memory, if there ever was an actual memory. Photography offered the criminal justice system a tool that transformed innocent citizens into criminals, and the criminal justice system failed to recognize the limitations of relying on photographic identifications. Frederick Daye, who is photographed at his alibi location, where 13 witnesses placed him at the time of the crime. He was convicted by an all-white jury of rape, kidnapping and vehicle theft. And he served 10 years of a life sentence. Now DNA exonerated Frederick and it also implicated another man who was serving time in prison. But the victim refused to press charges because she claimed that law enforcement had permanently altered her memory through the use of Frederick's photograph. Charles Fain was convicted of kidnapping, rape and murder of a young girl walking to school. He served 18 years of a death sentence. I photographed him at the scene of the crime at the Snake River in Idaho. And I photographed all of the wrongfully convicted at sites that came to particular significance in the history of their wrongful conviction. The scene of arrest, the scene of misidentification, the alibi location. And here, the scene of the crime, it's this place to which he's never been, but changed his life forever. So photographing there, I was hoping to highlight the tenuous relationship between truth and fiction, in both his life and in photography. Calvin Washington was convicted of capital murder. He served 13 years of a life sentence in Waco, Texas. Larry Mayes, I photographed at the scene of arrest, where he hid between two mattresses in Gary, Indiana, in this very room to hide from the police. He ended up serving 18 and a half years of an 80 year sentence for rape and robbery. The victim failed to identify Larry in two live lineups and then made a positive identification, days later, from a photo array. Larry Youngblood served eight years of a 10 and half year sentence in Arizona for the abduction and repeated sodomizing of a 10 year old boy at a carnival. He is photographed at his alibi location. Ron Williamson. Ron was convicted of the rape and murder of a barmaid at a club, and served 11 years of a death sentence. I photographed Ron at a baseball field because he had been drafted to the Oakland A's to play professional baseball just before his conviction. And the state's key witness in Ron's case was, in the end, the actual perpetrator. Ronald Jones served eight years of a death sentence for rape and murder of a 28-year-old woman. I photographed him at the scene of arrest in Chicago. William Gregory was convicted of rape and burglary. He served seven years of a 70 year sentence in Kentucky. Timothy Durham, who I photographed at his alibi location where 11 witnesses placed him at the time of the crime, was convicted of 3.5 years of a 3220 year sentence, for several charges of rape and robbery. He had been misidentified by an 11-year-old victim. Troy Webb is photographed here at the scene of the crime in Virginia. He was convicted of rape, kidnapping and robbery, and served seven years of a 47 year sentence. Troy's picture was in a photo array that the victim tentatively had some draw toward, but said he looked too old. The police went and found a photograph of Troy Webb from four years earlier, which they entered into a photo array days later, and he was positively identified. Now I'm going to leave you with a self portrait. And it reiterates that distortion is a constant, and our eyes are easily deceived. That's it. Thank you. (Applause)
Chris has been so nice. I don't know how you keep it up, Chris, I really don't. So nice, all week. He's the kind of man you could say to, "Chris, I'm really sorry, I've crashed your car. And it gets worse, I crashed it into your house. Your house has caught fire. And what's more, your wife has just run off with your best friend." And you know that Chris would say, "Thank you." (Laughter) "Thank you for sharing, that's really interesting." (Laughter) "Thank you for taking me to a place that I didn't know existed. Thank you." (Laughter) One of the -- (Applause) Thank you for inviting us. One of the things about appearing later on in the TED week is that, gradually, as the days go by, all the other speakers cover most of what you were going to say. (Laughter) Nuclear fusion, I had about 10 minutes on that. Spectroscopy, that was another one. Parallel universes. And so this morning I thought, "Oh well, I'll just do a card trick." (Laughter) That one's gone as well. And today is Emmanuel's day, I think we've agreed that, already, haven't we? Emmanuel? Absolutely. (Applause) I was planning on finishing on a dance ... (Laughter) So, that's going to look pretty shabby now. So, what I thought I'd do is -- in honor of Emmanuel -- is, what I can do is to launch today the first TED Global auction. If I could start, this is the Enigma decoding machine. (Laughter) Who will start me with $1,000? Anyone? Thank you. Bruno's face, just then, he said, "No, don't go through this. Don't, please don't. Don't go through this. Don't do it." (Laughter) I'm worried. When I first got the invitation, they said somewhere in the thing, they said, "15 minutes to change the world, your moment onstage." 15 minutes to change the world. I don't know about you, it takes me 15 minutes to change a plug. (Laughter) So, the idea of changing the world is really quite an extraordinary one. Well, of course now we know we don't have to change a plug, now we've seen that wonderful demonstration of the wireless electric -- fantastic. You know, it inspires us. 300 years ago he'd have been burnt at the stake for that. (Laughter) And now it's an idea. (Laughter) It's great. It's fantastic. But you do meet some fantastic people, people who look at the world in a totally different way. Yesterday, David Deutsch, another one who covered most of what I was going to say. (Laughter) But when you think of the world in that way, it does make going to Starbucks a whole new experience, don't you think? I mean, he must walk in and they will say, "Would you like a macchiato, or a latte, or an Americano, or a cappuccino?" And he'll say, "You're offering me things that are infinitely variable." (Laughter) "How can your coffee be true?" (Laughter) And they will say, "Would you mind if I serve the next customer?" (Laughter) And Elaine Morgan yesterday, wasn't she wonderful? Fantastic. Really good. Her talk about the aquatic ape, and the link, of course, the link between Darwinism and the fact that we are all naked beneath this -- we're not hirsute and we can swim rather well. And she said, you know, she's 90. She's running out of time, she said. And she's desperate to find more evidence for the link. And I think, "I'm sitting next to Lewis Pugh." (Laughter) This man has swum around the North Pole, what more evidence do you want? (Laughter) And there he is. (Applause) That's how TED brings these connections together. I wasn't here on Tuesday. I didn't actually see Gordon Brown's job application -- um, sorry. (Laughter) I'm so sorry. (Applause) I'm so sorry. No, no. (Applause) No, no, ahh ... (Applause) (As Brown): "Global problems require Scottish solutions." (Laughter) The problem I have is because Gordon Brown, he comes onstage and he looks for all the world like a man who's just taken the head off a bear suit. (As Brown): "Hello, can I tell you what happened in the woods back there? Uh, no." (Laughter) "I'm sorry. I've only got 18 minutes, 18 minutes to talk about saving the world, saving the planet, global institutions. Our work on climate change, I've only got 18 minutes, unfortunately I'm not able to tell you about all the wonderful things we're doing to promote the climate change agenda in Great Britain, like the third runway we're planning at Heathrow Airport ..." (Laughter) "The large coal-fired power station we're building at King's North, and of course the exciting news that only today, only this week, Britain's only manufacturer of wind turbines has been forced to close. No time, unfortunately, to mention those." (Applause) "British jobs for Scottish people ... No." (Laughter) "Christian principles, Christian values. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." (Laughter) "Although to be honest, when I was at Number 11 that was never going to be a problem." (Laughter) (As Tony Blair): "Yeah, alright, come on, eh. Alright Gordon, come on, eh. I just, can I just say a few things about, first about Cherie, because she's a wonderful lady, my wife, with a wonderful smile. That reminds me, I must post that letter." (Laughter) "I just think, you know, what people forget, Gordon and I, we always got on perfectly well. Alright, it was never exactly 'Brokeback Mountain.'" (Laughter) "You know, I wrote to him, just before I left office. I said, 'Can I rely on your support for the next month?' And he wrote back. He said, 'No, you can't.' Which kind of surprised me, because I'd never seen 'can't' spelled that way before." (Laughter) Another thing Gordon could have mentioned in his speech to the Mansion House in 2002 -- that was to the building; the people weren't listening. But the people, when talking about the finance industry, he said, "What you as the city of London have done for financial services, we, as a government, hope to do for the economy as a whole." (Laughter) When you think what's happened to financial services, and you see what's happened to the economy, you think, "Well, there is a man who delivers on his promises." (Laughter) But we're in a new world now. We're in a completely new world. This is the first time that I can remember, where if you get a letter from the bank manager about a loan, you don't know if you're borrowing money from him, or if he's borrowing money from you. Am I right? These extraordinary things, Icelandic Internet accounts. Did anyone here have an Icelandic Internet account? Why would you do that? Why would -- It's like one step up from replying to one of those emails from Nigeria, isn't it? (Laughter) Asking for your bank details. And, you know, Iceland, it was never going to cut it. It didn't have that kind of collateral. What does it have? It has fish, that's all. That's why the Prime Minister went on television. He said, "This has left us all with a very big haddock." (Laughter) A lot of what I do -- I have to try and make sense of things before I can make nonsense of them. And making sense of the financial crisis is very, very difficult. Luckily, somebody like George Bush was really helpful. He summed it up, really, at a dinner. He was speaking at a dinner, he said, "Wall Street got drunk." (Laughter) "And now it's got a hangover." And that's, you know, that's something -- (Applause) And that's something we can relate to. It's certainly something he can relate to. (Laughter) And the other one, of course, is Donald Rumsfeld, who said, "There are the known knowns, the things we know we know. And then you got the known unknowns, the things we know we don't know. And then you got the unknown unknowns, those are the things we don't know we don't know." And being English, when I first heard that I thought, "What a load of cock." And then, you're now, well, actually, that's what this is about. This whole, what Ben Bernanke has said, the chaotic unwinding of the world's financial system, it's about -- they don't know, they didn't know what they were doing. In 2006, the head of the American Mortgage Bankers Association said, quote, "As we can clearly see, no seismic occurrence is about to overwhelm the U.S. economy." Now, there is a man on top of his job. (Laughter) And when the crisis was happening, the head of quantitative equities at Lehman Brothers said, "Events which models predicted would happen once every 10,000 years happened every day for three days." So, it's extraordinary. It's a new world that's very, very difficult to make sense of. But we have a new hope. We have a new man. America has now elected its first openly black President. (Laughter) Wonderful news. Not only that, he's left-handed. Have you noticed this? How many people here are left-handed? You see, a lot of the people that I most admire, they're great artists, great designers, great thinkers, they're left-handed. And somebody said to me last night, you know, being left-handed, you have to learn to write without smudging the ink. And somebody was talking about metaphors on Monday. And I thought, what a wonderful metaphor, isn't it? An American President who has to write without smudging the ink. You like that one? As opposed to you could see George Bush, well, what's the metaphor there? I think it would be something out of the aquatic ape thing, wouldn't it? "Well, you know I'm sorry about that. I'm right-handed but I seem to have smudged that ink as well." (Laughter) But, you know, he's gone. Now he's gone. That's eight years of American History, eight minutes of my act, just gone like that. "You know, it's the end of an error [sic]. I happen to believe it was a great error. I know folks said to me they believe it was one of the greatest errors in the history of the United States. But we proved them wrong in Iraq. They said there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There is now." (Laughter) "But I have a message for the suicide bombers, for those people who've blown themselves up." (Laughter) "We're going to find you." (Laughter) "We're going to make sure you don't do it again." (Laughter) But now he's gone, and it's great to see one of the -- arguably one of the worst speech makers in American history, now given way to one of the greatest, in Obama. You were there, maybe, on the night of his victory. And he spoke to the crowd in Chicago, he said, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible ..." I can't do the whole thing because it would take too long, it really would. (Laughter) But you get the picture. And then it goes to the inauguration. And he and the Chief Justice, they trip over each other, they get their words wrong and they screw the thing up. And there is George Bush sitting there going, "Heh heh heh heh ..." (Laughter) "Not so easy is it? Heh heh heh." (Laughter) But the interesting thing is, Gordon Brown was talking about Cicero, who said, people would listen to a speech, they said, "Great speech." And then they'd listen to Demosthenes, and they'd say, "Let's march." And we all want to believe in President Obama. It's rather like that line in the film "As Good As it Gets." Do you remember that film with Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson, and Helen Hunt says to Jack Nicholson, "What do you see in me?" And Jack Nicholson just says, "You make me want to be a better man." And you want a leader who inspires and challenges and makes you want to be a better citizen. Right? But at the moment, it's a Cicero thing. We like what Barack Obama says, but we don't do anything about it. So he comes over to this country, and he says, "We need a big fiscal stimulus." And everyone goes, "Great!" He leaves the country and the French and the Germans go, "No, no, forget about that, absolutely not." Nothing happens. He goes to Strasburg. He says, "We need more boots on the ground in Afghanistan." And everyone goes, "Great idea." He leaves, people go, "No no no, we're not going to do that. 5,000 maximum, and no rockets. No, no, not going to do it." He goes to Prague, he says, "We believe in a nuclear-free world." And it's great to have an American president who can say the word "nuclear," let's just point that out first. Do you remember that? George Bush, "A nu-ca-ler." Sorry, what? "A nu-ca-ler." (Laughter) Could you say "avuncular"? "Avunclear." (Laughter) Thank you very much. But he says, "We want a nuclear-free world." And that day, North Korea, that very day, North Korea is just seeing if it can just get one over Japan -- (Laughter) -- and land it before ... So, where do we look for inspiration? We've still got Bill Clinton. "Travels the world." (Laughs) "I believe, I believe it was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who said ..." (Laughter) "Tell a lie; it was Diana Ross ..." (Laughter) "... who said, reach out and touch ..." (Laughter) "... somebody's gla -- hand." (Laughter) "Make this world a better place, if you can. I just think that's important. I really do. And I was hoping Hillary would get to the White House, because she'd have been out of our home for four years. And I, you know." (Laughter) "So, when that didn't work out I had to make a few arrangements, let me tell you." (Laughter) So, there's him. In Britain we have Prince Charles: "And the environment is so important, all we can do. My wife gets fed up with me constantly trying to push emissions up her agenda." (Laughter) Or, any South Africans, we have Mandela to inspire. Mandela, the great man Mandela. He's been honored with a statue now. The previous highest honor he had in Britain was a visit from the team from Ground Force, a gardening program. "So, Nelson, how would you like a nice water feature?" "Ahh, listen to me Mr. Titchmarsh." (Laughter) "I was held in prison for nearly 30 years on an island in the middle of the ocean. Why would I need a bloody water feature?" (Laughter) Very quickly: I wasn't quite sure how to end this talk and then yesterday that man came up with a wonderful quote from the "Japanese Essays on Idleness" which said it's nice to have something which is unfinished because it implies there is still room for growth. Thank you very much indeed. (Applause)
Erez Lieberman Aiden: Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words. But we at Harvard were wondering if this was really true. (Laughter) So we assembled a team of experts, spanning Harvard, MIT, The American Heritage Dictionary, The Encyclopedia Britannica and even our proud sponsors, the Google. And we cogitated about this for about four years. And we came to a startling conclusion. Ladies and gentlemen, a picture is not worth a thousand words. In fact, we found some pictures that are worth 500 billion words. Jean-Baptiste Michel: So how did we get to this conclusion? So Erez and I were thinking about ways to get a big picture of human culture and human history: change over time. So many books actually have been written over the years. So we were thinking, well the best way to learn from them is to read all of these millions of books. Now of course, if there's a scale for how awesome that is, that has to rank extremely, extremely high. Now the problem is there's an X-axis for that, which is the practical axis. This is very, very low. (Applause) Now people tend to use an alternative approach, which is to take a few sources and read them very carefully. This is extremely practical, but not so awesome. What you really want to do is to get to the awesome yet practical part of this space. So it turns out there was a company across the river called Google who had started a digitization project a few years back that might just enable this approach. They have digitized millions of books. So what that means is, one could use computational methods to read all of the books in a click of a button. That's very practical and extremely awesome. ELA: Let me tell you a little bit about where books come from. Since time immemorial, there have been authors. These authors have been striving to write books. And this became considerably easier with the development of the printing press some centuries ago. Since then, the authors have won on 129 million distinct occasions, publishing books. Now if those books are not lost to history, then they are somewhere in a library, and many of those books have been getting retrieved from the libraries and digitized by Google, which has scanned 15 million books to date. Now when Google digitizes a book, they put it into a really nice format. Now we've got the data, plus we have metadata. We have information about things like where was it published, who was the author, when was it published. And what we do is go through all of those records and exclude everything that's not the highest quality data. What we're left with is a collection of five million books, 500 billion words, a string of characters a thousand times longer than the human genome -- a text which, when written out, would stretch from here to the Moon and back 10 times over -- a veritable shard of our cultural genome. Of course what we did when faced with such outrageous hyperbole ... (Laughter) was what any self-respecting researchers would have done. We took a page out of XKCD, and we said, "Stand back. We're going to try science." (Laughter) JM: Now of course, we were thinking, well let's just first put the data out there for people to do science to it. Now we're thinking, what data can we release? Well of course, you want to take the books and release the full text of these five million books. Now Google, and Jon Orwant in particular, told us a little equation that we should learn. So you have five million, that is, five million authors and five million plaintiffs is a massive lawsuit. So, although that would be really, really awesome, again, that's extremely, extremely impractical. (Laughter) Now again, we kind of caved in, and we did the very practical approach, which was a bit less awesome. We said, well instead of releasing the full text, we're going to release statistics about the books. So take for instance "A gleam of happiness." It's four words; we call that a four-gram. We're going to tell you how many times a particular four-gram appeared in books in 1801, 1802, 1803, all the way up to 2008. That gives us a time series of how frequently this particular sentence was used over time. We do that for all the words and phrases that appear in those books, and that gives us a big table of two billion lines that tell us about the way culture has been changing. ELA: So those two billion lines, we call them two billion n-grams. What do they tell us? Well the individual n-grams measure cultural trends. Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that I am thriving, then tomorrow I want to tell you about how well I did. And so I might say, "Yesterday, I throve." Alternatively, I could say, "Yesterday, I thrived." Well which one should I use? How to know? As of about six months ago, the state of the art in this field is that you would, for instance, go up to the following psychologist with fabulous hair, and you'd say, "Steve, you're an expert on the irregular verbs. What should I do?" And he'd tell you, "Well most people say thrived, but some people say throve." And you also knew, more or less, that if you were to go back in time 200 years and ask the following statesman with equally fabulous hair, (Laughter) "Tom, what should I say?" He'd say, "Well, in my day, most people throve, but some thrived." So now what I'm just going to show you is raw data. Two rows from this table of two billion entries. What you're seeing is year by year frequency of "thrived" and "throve" over time. Now this is just two out of two billion rows. So the entire data set is a billion times more awesome than this slide. (Laughter) (Applause) JM: Now there are many other pictures that are worth 500 billion words. For instance, this one. If you just take influenza, you will see peaks at the time where you knew big flu epidemics were killing people around the globe. ELA: If you were not yet convinced, sea levels are rising, so is atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. JM: You might also want to have a look at this particular n-gram, and that's to tell Nietzsche that God is not dead, although you might agree that he might need a better publicist. (Laughter) ELA: You can get at some pretty abstract concepts with this sort of thing. For instance, let me tell you the history of the year 1950. Pretty much for the vast majority of history, no one gave a damn about 1950. In 1700, in 1800, in 1900, no one cared. Through the 30s and 40s, no one cared. Suddenly, in the mid-40s, there started to be a buzz. People realized that 1950 was going to happen, and it could be big. (Laughter) But nothing got people interested in 1950 like the year 1950. (Laughter) People were walking around obsessed. They couldn't stop talking about all the things they did in 1950, all the things they were planning to do in 1950, all the dreams of what they wanted to accomplish in 1950. In fact, 1950 was so fascinating that for years thereafter, people just kept talking about all the amazing things that happened, in '51, '52, '53. Finally in 1954, someone woke up and realized that 1950 had gotten somewhat passé. (Laughter) And just like that, the bubble burst. (Laughter) And the story of 1950 is the story of every year that we have on record, with a little twist, because now we've got these nice charts. And because we have these nice charts, we can measure things. We can say, "Well how fast does the bubble burst?" And it turns out that we can measure that very precisely. Equations were derived, graphs were produced, and the net result is that we find that the bubble bursts faster and faster with each passing year. We are losing interest in the past more rapidly. JM: Now a little piece of career advice. So for those of you who seek to be famous, we can learn from the 25 most famous political figures, authors, actors and so on. So if you want to become famous early on, you should be an actor, because then fame starts rising by the end of your 20s -- you're still young, it's really great. Now if you can wait a little bit, you should be an author, because then you rise to very great heights, like Mark Twain, for instance: extremely famous. But if you want to reach the very top, you should delay gratification and, of course, become a politician. So here you will become famous by the end of your 50s, and become very, very famous afterward. So scientists also tend to get famous when they're much older. Like for instance, biologists and physics tend to be almost as famous as actors. One mistake you should not do is become a mathematician. (Laughter) If you do that, you might think, "Oh great. I'm going to do my best work when I'm in my 20s." But guess what, nobody will really care. (Laughter) ELA: There are more sobering notes among the n-grams. For instance, here's the trajectory of Marc Chagall, an artist born in 1887. And this looks like the normal trajectory of a famous person. He gets more and more and more famous, except if you look in German. If you look in German, you see something completely bizarre, something you pretty much never see, which is he becomes extremely famous and then all of a sudden plummets, going through a nadir between 1933 and 1945, before rebounding afterward. And of course, what we're seeing is the fact Marc Chagall was a Jewish artist in Nazi Germany. Now these signals are actually so strong that we don't need to know that someone was censored. We can actually figure it out using really basic signal processing. Here's a simple way to do it. Well, a reasonable expectation is that somebody's fame in a given period of time should be roughly the average of their fame before and their fame after. So that's sort of what we expect. And we compare that to the fame that we observe. And we just divide one by the other to produce something we call a suppression index. If the suppression index is very, very, very small, then you very well might be being suppressed. If it's very large, maybe you're benefiting from propaganda. JM: Now you can actually look at the distribution of suppression indexes over whole populations. So for instance, here -- this suppression index is for 5,000 people picked in English books where there's no known suppression -- it would be like this, basically tightly centered on one. What you expect is basically what you observe. This is distribution as seen in Germany -- very different, it's shifted to the left. People talked about it twice less as it should have been. But much more importantly, the distribution is much wider. There are many people who end up on the far left on this distribution who are talked about 10 times fewer than they should have been. But then also many people on the far right who seem to benefit from propaganda. This picture is the hallmark of censorship in the book record. ELA: So culturomics is what we call this method. It's kind of like genomics. Except genomics is a lens on biology through the window of the sequence of bases in the human genome. Culturomics is similar. It's the application of massive-scale data collection analysis to the study of human culture. Here, instead of through the lens of a genome, through the lens of digitized pieces of the historical record. The great thing about culturomics is that everyone can do it. Why can everyone do it? Everyone can do it because three guys, Jon Orwant, Matt Gray and Will Brockman over at Google, saw the prototype of the Ngram Viewer, and they said, "This is so fun. We have to make this available for people." So in two weeks flat -- the two weeks before our paper came out -- they coded up a version of the Ngram Viewer for the general public. And so you too can type in any word or phrase that you're interested in and see its n-gram immediately -- also browse examples of all the various books in which your n-gram appears. JM: Now this was used over a million times on the first day, and this is really the best of all the queries. So people want to be their best, put their best foot forward. But it turns out in the 18th century, people didn't really care about that at all. They didn't want to be their best, they wanted to be their beft. So what happened is, of course, this is just a mistake. It's not that strove for mediocrity, it's just that the S used to be written differently, kind of like an F. Now of course, Google didn't pick this up at the time, so we reported this in the science article that we wrote. But it turns out this is just a reminder that, although this is a lot of fun, when you interpret these graphs, you have to be very careful, and you have to adopt the base standards in the sciences. ELA: People have been using this for all kinds of fun purposes. (Laughter) Actually, we're not going to have to talk, we're just going to show you all the slides and remain silent. This person was interested in the history of frustration. There's various types of frustration. If you stub your toe, that's a one A "argh." If the planet Earth is annihilated by the Vogons to make room for an interstellar bypass, that's an eight A "aaaaaaaargh." This person studies all the "arghs," from one through eight A's. And it turns out that the less-frequent "arghs" are, of course, the ones that correspond to things that are more frustrating -- except, oddly, in the early 80s. We think that might have something to do with Reagan. (Laughter) JM: There are many usages of this data, but the bottom line is that the historical record is being digitized. Google has started to digitize 15 million books. That's 12 percent of all the books that have ever been published. It's a sizable chunk of human culture. There's much more in culture: there's manuscripts, there newspapers, there's things that are not text, like art and paintings. These all happen to be on our computers, on computers across the world. And when that happens, that will transform the way we have to understand our past, our present and human culture. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Hello. Actually, that's "hello" in Bauer Bodoni for the typographically hysterical amongst us. One of the threads that seems to have come through loud and clear in the last couple of days is this need to reconcile what the Big wants -- the "Big" being the organization, the system, the country -- and what the "Small" wants -- the individual, the person. And how do you bring those two things together? Charlie Ledbetter, yesterday, I thought, talked very articulately about this need to bring consumers, to bring people into the process of creating things. And that's what I want to talk about today. So, bringing together the Small to help facilitate and create the Big, I think, is something that we believe in -- something I believe in, and something that we kind of bring to life through what we do at Ideo. I call this first chapter -- for the Brits in the room -- the "Blinding Glimpse of the Bleeding Obvious." Often, the good ideas are so staring-at-you-right-in-the-face that you kind of miss them. And I think, a lot of times, what we do is just, sort of, hold the mirror up to our clients, and sort of go, "Duh! You know, look what's really going on." And rather than talk about it in the theory, I think I'm just going to show you an example. We were asked by a large healthcare system in Minnesota to describe to them what their patient experience was. And I think they were expecting -- they'd worked with lots of consultants before -- I think they were expecting some kind of hideous org chart with thousands of bubbles and systemic this, that and the other, and all kinds of mappy stuff. Or even worse, some kind of ghastly death-by-Powerpoint thing with WowCharts and all kinds of, you know, God knows, whatever. The first thing we actually shared with them was this. I'll play this until your eyeballs completely dissolve. This is 59 seconds into the film. This is a minute 59. 3:19. I think something happens. I think a head may appear in a second. 5:10. 5:58. 6:20. We showed them the whole cut, and they were all completely, what is this? And the point is when you lie in a hospital bed all day, all you do is look at the roof, and it's a really shitty experience. And just putting yourself in the position of the patient -- this is Christian, who works with us at Ideo. He just lay in the hospital bed, and, kind of, stared at the polystyrene ceiling tiles for a really long time. That's what it's like to be a patient in the hospital. And they were sort, you know, blinding glimpse of bleeding obvious. Oh, my goodness. So, looking at the situation from the point of view of the person out -- as opposed to the traditional position of the organization in -- was, for these guys, quite a revelation. And so, that was a really catalytic thing for them. So they snapped into action. They said, OK, it's not about systemic change. It's not about huge, ridiculous things that we need to do. It's about tiny things that can make a huge amount of difference. So we started with them prototyping some really little things that we could do to have a huge amount of impact. The first thing we did was we took a little bicycle mirror and we Band-Aided it here, onto a gurney, a hospital trolley, so that when you were wheeled around by a nurse or by a doctor, you could actually have a conversation with them. You could, kind of, see them in your rear-view mirror, so it created a tiny human interaction. Very small example of something that they could do. Interestingly, the nurses themselves, sort of, snapped into action -- said, OK, we embrace this. What can we do? The first thing they do is they decorated the ceiling. Which I thought was really -- I showed this to my mother recently. I think my mother now thinks that I'm some sort of interior decorator. It's what I do for a living, sort of Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen. Not particularly the world's best design solution for those of us who are real, sort of, hard-core designers, but nonetheless, a fabulous empathic solution for people. Things that they started doing themselves -- like changing the floor going into the patient's room so that it signified, "This is my room. This is my personal space" -- was a really interesting sort of design solution to the problem. So you went from public space to private space. And another idea, again, that came from one of the nurses -- which I love -- was they took traditional, sort of, corporate white boards, then they put them on one wall of the patient's room, and they put this sticker there. So that what you could actually do was go into the room and write messages to the person who was sick in that room, which was lovely. So, tiny, tiny, tiny solutions that made a huge amount of impact. I thought that was a really, really nice example. So this is not particularly a new idea, kind of, seeing opportunities in things that are around you and snapping and turning them into a solution. It's a history of invention based around this. I'm going to read this because I want to get these names right. Joan Ganz Cooney saw her daughter -- came down on a Saturday morning, saw her daughter watching the test card, waiting for programs to come on one morning and from that came Sesame Street. Malcolm McLean was moving from one country to another and was wondering why it took these guys so long to get the boxes onto the ship. And he invented the shipping container. George de Mestral -- this is not bugs all over a Birkenstock -- was walking his dog in a field and got covered in burrs, sort of little prickly things, and from that came Velcro. And finally, for the Brits, Percy Shaw -- this is a big British invention -- saw the cat's eyes at the side of the road, when he was driving home one night and from that came the Catseye. So there's a whole series of just using your eyes, seeing things for the first time, seeing things afresh and using them as an opportunity to create new possibilities. Second one, without sounding overly Zen, and this is a quote from the Buddha: "Finding yourself in the margins, looking to the edges of things, is often a really interesting place to start." Blinkered vision tends to produce, I think, blinkered solutions. So, looking wide, using your peripheral vision, is a really interesting place to look for opportunity. Again, another medical example here. We were asked by a device producer -- we did the Palm Pilot and the Treo. We did a lot of sexy tech at Ideo -- they'd seen this and they wanted a sexy piece of technology for medical diagnostics. This was a device that a nurse uses when they're doing a spinal procedure in hospital. They'll ask the nurses to input data. And they had this vision of the nurse, kind of, clicking away on this aluminum device and it all being incredibly, sort of, gadget-lustish. When we actually went and watched this procedure taking place -- and I'll explain this in a second -- it became very obvious that there was a human dimension to this that they really weren't recognizing. When you're having a four-inch needle inserted into your spine -- which was the procedure that this device's data was about; it was for pain management -- you're shit scared; you're freaking out. And so the first thing that pretty much every nurse did, was hold the patient's hand to comfort them. Human gesture -- which made the fabulous two-handed data input completely impossible. So, the thing that we designed, much less sexy but much more human and practical, was this. So, it's not a Palm Pilot by any stretch of the imagination, but it has a thumb-scroll so you can do everything with one hand. So, again, going back to this -- the idea that a tiny human gesture dictated the design of this product. And I think that's really, really important. So, again, this idea of workarounds. We use this phrase "workarounds" a lot, sort of, looking around us. I was actually looking around the TED and just watching all of these kind of things happen while I've been here. This idea of the way that people cobble together solutions in our life -- and the things we kind of do in our environment that are somewhat subconscious but have huge potential -- is something that we look at a lot. We wrote a book recently, I think you might have received it, called "Thoughtless Acts?" It's been all about these kind of thoughtless things that people do, which have huge intention and huge opportunity. Why do we all follow the line in the street? This is a picture in a Japanese subway. People consciously follow things even though, why, we don't know. Why do we line up the square milk carton with the square fence? Because we kind of have to -- we're just compelled to. We don't know why, but we do. Why do we wrap the teabag string around the cup handle? Again, we're sort of using the world around us to create our own design solutions. And we're always saying to our clients: "You should look at this stuff. This stuff is really important. This stuff is really vital." This is people designing their own experiences. You can draw from this. We sort of assume that because there's a pole in the street, that it's okay to use it, so we park our shopping cart there. It's there for our use, on some level. So, again, we sort of co-opt our environment to do all these different things. We co-opt other experiences -- we take one item and transfer it to another. And this is my favorite one. My mother used to say to me, "Just because your sister jumps in the lake doesn't mean you have to." But, of course, we all do. We all follow each other every day. So somebody assumes that because somebody else has done something, that's permission for them to do the same thing. And there's almost this sort of semaphore around us all the time. I mean, shopping bag equals "parking meter out of order." And we all, kind of, know how to read these signals now. We all talk to one another in this highly visual way without realizing what we're doing. Third section is this idea of not knowing, of consciously putting yourself backwards. I talk about unthinking situations all the time. Sort of having beginner's mind, scraping your mind clean and looking at things afresh. A friend of mine was a designer at IKEA, and he was asked by his boss to help design a storage system for children. This is the Billy bookcase -- it's IKEA's biggest selling product. Hammer it together. Hammer it together with a shoe, if you're me, because they're impossible to assemble. But big selling bookcase. How do we replicate this for children? The reality is when you actually watch children, children don't think about things like storage in linear terms. Children assume permission in a very different way. Children live on things. They live under things. They live around things, and so their spatial awareness relationship, and their thinking around storage is totally different. So the first thing you have to do -- this is Graham, the designer -- is, sort of, put yourself in their shoes. And so, here he is sitting under the table. So, what came out of this? This is the storage system that he designed. So what is this? I hear you all ask. No, I don't. (Laughter) It's this, and I think this is a particularly lovely solution. So, you know, it's a totally different way of looking at the situation. It's a completely empathic solution -- apart from the fact that teddy's probably not loving it. (Laughter) But a really nice way of re-framing the ordinary, and I think that's one of the things. And putting yourself in the position of the person, and I think that's one of the threads that I've heard again from this conference is how do we put ourselves in other peoples' shoes and really feel what they feel? And then use that information to fuel solutions? And I think that's what this is very much about. Last section: green armband. We've all got them. It's about this really. I mean, it's about picking battles big enough to matter but small enough to win. Again, that's one of the themes that I think has come through loud and clear in this conference is: Where do we start? How do we start? What do we do to start? So, again, we were asked to design a water pump for a company called ApproTEC, in Kenya. They're now called KickStart. And, again, as designers, we wanted to make this thing incredibly beautiful and spend a lot of time thinking of the form. And that was completely irrelevant. When you put yourself in the position of these people, things like the fact that this has to be able to fold up and fit on a bicycle, become much more relevant than the form of it. The way it's produced, it has to be produced with indigenous manufacturing methods and indigenous materials. So it had to be looked at completely from the point of view of the user. We had to completely transfer ourselves over to their world. So what seems like a very clunky product is, in fact, incredibly useful. It's powered a bit like a Stairmaster -- you pump up and down on it. Children can use it. Adults can use it. Everybody uses it. It's turning these guys -- again, one of the themes -- it's turning them into entrepreneurs. These guys are using this very successfully. And for us, it's been great because it's won loads of design awards. So we actually managed to reconcile the needs of the design company, the needs of the individuals in the company, to feel good about a product we were actually designing, and the needs of the individuals we were designing it for. There it is, pumping water from 30 feet. So as a final gesture we handed out these bracelets to all of you this morning. We've made a donation on everybody's behalf here to kick start, no pun intended, their next project. Because, again, I think, sort of, putting our money where our mouth is, here. We feel that this is an important gesture. So we've handed out bracelets. Small is the new big. I hope you'll all wear them. So that's it. Thank you. (Applause)
This is called Hooked on a Feeling: The Pursuit of Happiness and Human Design. I put up a somewhat dour Darwin, but a very happy chimp up there. My first point is that the pursuit of happiness is obligatory. Man wishes to be happy, only wishes to be happy, and cannot wish not to be so. We are wired to pursue happiness, not only to enjoy it, but to want more and more of it. So given that that's true, how good are we at increasing our happiness? Well, we certainly try. If you look on the Amazon site, there are over 2,000 titles with advice on the seven habits, the nine choices, the 10 secrets, the 14,000 thoughts that are supposed to bring happiness. Now another way we try to increase our happiness is we medicate ourselves. And so there's over 120 million prescriptions out there for antidepressants. Prozac was really the first absolute blockbuster drug. It was clean, efficient, there was no high, there was really no danger, it had no street value. In 1995, illegal drugs were a $400 billion business, representing eight percent of world trade, roughly the same as gas and oil. These routes to happiness haven't really increased happiness very much. One problem that's happening now is, although the rates of happiness are about as flat as the surface of the moon, depression and anxiety are rising. Some people say this is because we have better diagnosis, and more people are being found out. It isn't just that. We're seeing it all over the world. In the United States right now there are more suicides than homicides. There is a rash of suicide in China. And the World Health Organization predicts by the year 2020 that depression will be the second largest cause of disability. Now the good news here is that if you take surveys from around the world, we see that about three quarters of people will say they are at least pretty happy. But this does not follow any of the usual trends. For example, these two show great growth in income, absolutely flat happiness curves. My field, the field of psychology, hasn't done a whole lot to help us move forward in understanding human happiness. In part, we have the legacy of Freud, who was a pessimist, who said that pursuit of happiness is a doomed quest, is propelled by infantile aspects of the individual that can never be met in reality. He said, "One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be happy is not included in the plan of creation." So the ultimate goal of psychoanalytic psychotherapy was really what Freud called ordinary misery. (Laughter) And Freud in part reflects the anatomy of the human emotion system -- which is that we have both a positive and a negative system, and our negative system is extremely sensitive. So for example, we're born loving the taste of something sweet and reacting aversively to the taste of something bitter. We also find that people are more averse to losing than they are happy to gain. The formula for a happy marriage is five positive remarks, or interactions, for every one negative. And that's how powerful the one negative is. Especially expressions of contempt or disgust, well you really need a lot of positives to upset that. I also put in here the stress response. We're wired for dangers that are immediate, that are physical, that are imminent, and so our body goes into an incredible reaction where endogenous opioids come in. We have a system that is really ancient, and really there for physical danger. And so over time, this becomes a stress response, which has enormous effects on the body. Cortisol floods the brain; it destroys hippocampal cells and memory, and can lead to all kinds of health problems. But unfortunately, we need this system in part. If we were only governed by pleasure we would not survive. We really have two command posts. Emotions are short-lived intense responses to challenge and to opportunity. And each one of them allows us to click into alternate selves that tune in, turn on, drop out thoughts, perceptions, feelings and memories. We tend to think of emotions as just feelings. But in fact, emotions are an all-systems alert that change what we remember, what kind of decisions we make, and how we perceive things. So let me go forward to the new science of happiness. We've come away from the Freudian gloom, and people are now actively studying this. And one of the key points in the science of happiness is that happiness and unhappiness are not endpoints of a single continuum. The Freudian model is really one continuum that, as you get less miserable, you get happier. And that isn't true -- when you get less miserable, you get less miserable. And that happiness is a whole other end of the equation. And it's been missing. It's been missing from psychotherapy. So when people's symptoms go away, they tend to recur, because there isn't a sense of the other half -- of what pleasure, happiness, compassion, gratitude, what are the positive emotions. And of course we know this intuitively, that happiness is not just the absence of misery. But somehow it was not put forward until very recently, seeing these as two parallel systems. So that the body can both look for opportunity and also protect itself from danger, at the same time. And they're sort of two reciprocal and dynamically interacting systems. People have also wanted to deconstruct. We use this word "happy," and it's this very large umbrella of a term. And then three emotions for which there are no English words: fiero, which is the pride in accomplishment of a challenge; schadenfreude, which is happiness in another's misfortune, a malicious pleasure; and naches, which is a pride and joy in one's children. Absent from this list, and absent from any discussions of happiness, are happiness in another's happiness. We don't seem to have a word for that. We are very sensitive to the negative, but it is in part offset by the fact that we have a positivity. We're also born pleasure-seekers. Babies love the taste of sweet and hate the taste of bitter. They love to touch smooth surfaces rather than rough ones. They like to look at beautiful faces rather than plain faces. They like to listen to consonant melodies instead of dissonant melodies. Babies really are born with a lot of innate pleasures. There was once a statement made by a psychologist that said that 80 percent of the pursuit of happiness is really just about the genes, and it's as difficult to become happier as it is to become taller. That's nonsense. There is a decent contribution to happiness from the genes -- about 50 percent -- but there is still that 50 percent that is unaccounted for. Let's just go into the brain for a moment, and see where does happiness arise from in evolution. We have basically at least two systems here, and they both are very ancient. One is the reward system, and that's fed by the chemical dopamine. And it starts in the ventral tegmental area. It goes to the nucleus accumbens, all the way up to the prefrontal cortex, orbital frontal cortex, where decisions are made, high level. This was originally seen as a system that was the pleasure system of the brain. In the 1950s, Olds and Milner put electrodes into the brain of a rat. And the rat would just keep pressing that bar thousands and thousands and thousands of times. It wouldn't eat. It wouldn't sleep. It wouldn't have sex. It wouldn't do anything but press this bar. So they assumed this must be, you know, the brain's orgasmatron. It turned out that it wasn't, that it really is a system of motivation, a system of wanting. It gives objects what's called incentive salience. It makes something look so attractive that you just have to go after it. That's something different from the system that is the pleasure system, which simply says, "I like this." The pleasure system, as you see, which is the internal opiates, there is a hormone oxytocin, is widely spread throughout the brain. Dopamine system, the wanting system, is much more centralized. The other thing about positive emotions is that they have a universal signal. And we see here the smile. And the universal signal is not just raising the corner of the lips to the zygomatic major. It's also crinkling the outer corner of the eye, the orbicularis oculi. So you see, even 10-month-old babies, when they see their mother, will show this particular kind of smile. Extroverts use it more than introverts. People who are relieved of depression show it more after than before. So if you want to unmask a true look of happiness, you will look for this expression. Our pleasures are really ancient. And we learn, of course, many, many pleasures, but many of them are base. And one of them, of course, is biophilia -- that we have a response to the natural world that's very profound. Very interesting studies done on people recovering from surgery, who found that people who faced a brick wall versus people who looked out on trees and nature, the people who looked out on the brick wall were in the hospital longer, needed more medication, and had more medical complications. There is something very restorative about nature, and it's part of how we are tuned. Humans, particularly so, we're very imitative creatures. And we imitate from almost the second we are born. Here is a three-week-old baby. And if you stick your tongue out at this baby, the baby will do the same. We are social beings from the beginning. And even studies of cooperation show that cooperation between individuals lights up reward centers of the brain. One problem that psychology has had is instead of looking at this intersubjectivity -- or the importance of the social brain to humans who come into the world helpless and need each other tremendously -- is that they focus instead on the self and self-esteem, and not self-other. It's sort of "me," not "we." And I think this has been a really tremendous problem that goes against our biology and nature, and hasn't made us any happier at all. Because when you think about it, people are happiest when in flow, when they're absorbed in something out in the world, when they're with other people, when they're active, engaged in sports, focusing on a loved one, learning, having sex, whatever. They're not sitting in front of the mirror trying to figure themselves out, or thinking about themselves. These are not the periods when you feel happiest. The other thing is, that a piece of evidence is, is if you look at computerized text analysis of people who commit suicide, what you find there, and it's quite interesting, is use of the first person singular -- "I," "me," "my," not "we" and "us" -- and the letters are less hopeless than they are really alone. And being alone is very unnatural to the human. There is a profound need to belong. But there are ways in which our evolutionary history can really trip us up. Because, for example, the genes don't care whether we're happy, they care that we replicate, that we pass our genes on. So for example we have three systems that underlie reproduction, because it's so important. There's lust, which is just wanting to have sex. And that's really mediated by the sex hormones. Romantic attraction, that gets into the desire system. And that's dopamine-fed. And that's, "I must have this one person." There's attachment, which is oxytocin, and the opiates, which says, "This is a long-term bond." See the problem is that, as humans, these three can separate. So a person can be in a long term attachment, become romantically infatuated with someone else, and want to have sex with a third person. The other way in which our genes can sometimes lead us astray is in social status. We are very acutely aware of our social status and always seek to further and increase it. Now in the animal world, there is only one way to increase status, and that's dominance. I seize command by physical prowess, and I keep it by beating my chest, and you make submissive gestures. Now, the human has a whole other way to rise to the top, and that is a prestige route, which is freely conferred. Someone has expertise and knowledge, and knows how to do things, and we give that person status. And that's clearly the way for us to create many more niches of status so that people don't have to be lower on the status hierarchy as they are in the animal world. The data isn't terribly supportive of money buying happiness. But it's not irrelevant. So if you look at questions like this, life satisfaction, you see life satisfaction going up with each rung of income. You see mental distress going up with lower income. So clearly there is some effect. But the effect is relatively small. And one of the problems with money is materialism. What happens when people pursue money too avidly, is they forget about the real basic pleasures of life. So we have here, this couple. "Do you think the less-fortunate are having better sex?" And then this kid over here is saying, "Leave me alone with my toys." So one of the things is that it really takes over. That whole dopamine-wanting system takes over and derails from any of the pleasure system. Maslow had this idea back in the 1950s that as people rise above their biological needs, as the world becomes safer and we don't have to worry about basic needs being met -- our biological system, whatever motivates us, is being satisfied -- we can rise above them, to think beyond ourselves toward self-actualization or transcendence, and rise above the materialist. So to just quickly conclude with some brief data that suggests this might be so. One is people who underwent what is called a quantum change: they felt their life and their whole values had changed. And sure enough, if you look at the kinds of values that come in, you see wealth, adventure, achievement, pleasure, fun, be respected, before the change, and much more post-materialist values after. Women had a whole different set of value shifts. But very similarly, the only one that survived there was happiness. They went from attractiveness and happiness and wealth and self-control to generosity and forgiveness. I end with a few quotes. "There is only one question: How to love this world?" And Rilke, "If your daily life seems poor, do not blame it; blame yourself. Tell yourself that you are not poet enough to call forth its riches." "First, say to yourself what you would be. Then do what you have to do." Thank you. (Applause)
I thought if I skipped it might help my nerves, but I'm actually having a paradoxical reaction to that, so that was a bad idea. (Laughter) Anyway, I was really delighted to receive the invitation to present to you some of my music and some of my work as a composer, presumably because it appeals to my well-known and abundant narcissism. (Laughter) And I'm not kidding, I just think we should just say that and move forward. (Laughter) So, but the thing is, a dilemma quickly arose, and that is that I'm really bored with music, and I'm really bored with the role of the composer, and so I decided to put that idea, boredom, as the focus of my presentation to you today. And I'm going to share my music with you, but I hope that I'm going to do so in a way that tells a story, tells a story about how I used boredom as a catalyst for creativity and invention, and how boredom actually forced me to change the fundamental question that I was asking in my discipline, and how boredom also, in a sense, pushed me towards taking on roles beyond the sort of most traditional, narrow definition of a composer. What I'd like to do today is to start with an excerpt of a piece of music at the piano. (Music) Okay, I wrote that. (Laughter) No, it's not — (Applause) Oh, why thank you. No, no, I didn't write that. In fact, that was a piece by Beethoven, and so I was not functioning as a composer. Just now I was functioning in the role of the interpreter, and there I am, interpreter. So, an interpreter of what? Of a piece of music, right? But we can ask the question, "But is it music?" And I say this rhetorically, because of course by just about any standard we would have to concede that this is, of course, a piece of music, but I put this here now because, just to set it in your brains for the moment, because we're going to return to this question. It's going to be a kind of a refrain as we go through the presentation. So here we have this piece of music by Beethoven, and my problem with it is, it's boring. I mean, you — I'm just like, a hush, huh -- It's like -- (Laughter) It's Beethoven, how can you say that? No, well, I don't know, it's very familiar to me. I had to practice it as a kid, and I'm really sick of it. So -- (Laughter) I would, so what I might like to try to do is to change it, to transform it in some ways, to personalize it, so I might take the opening, like this idea -- (Music) and then I might substitute -- (Music) and then I might improvise on that melody that goes forward from there -- (Music) (Music) So that might be the kind of thing -- Why thank you. (Applause) That would be the kind of thing that I would do, and it's not necessarily better than the Beethoven. In fact, I think it's not better than it. The thing is -- (Laughter) -- it's more interesting to me. It's less boring for me. I'm really leaning into me, because I, because I have to think about what decisions I'm going to make on the fly as that Beethoven text is running in time through my head and I'm trying to figure out what kinds of transformations I'm going to make to it. So this is an engaging enterprise for me, and I've really leaned into that first person pronoun thing there, and now my face appears twice, so I think we can agree that this is a fundamentally solipsistic enterprise. (Laughter) But it's an engaging one, and it's interesting to me for a while, but then I get bored with it, and by it, I actually mean, the piano, because it becomes, it's this familiar instrument, it's timbral range is actually pretty compressed, at least when you play on the keyboard, and if you're not doing things like listening to it after you've lit it on fire or something like that, you know. It gets a little bit boring, and so pretty soon I go through other instruments, they become familiar, and eventually I find myself designing and constructing my own instrument, and I brought one with me today, and I thought I would play a little bit on it for you so you can hear what it sounds like. (Music) You gotta have doorstops, that's important. (Laughter) I've got combs. They're the only combs that I own. (Music) They're all mounted on my instruments. (Laughter) (Music) I can actually do all sorts of things. I can play with a violin bow. I don't have to use the chopsticks. So we have this sound. (Music) And with a bank of live electronics, I can change the sounds radically. (Music) (Music) Like that, and like this. (Music) And so forth. So this gives you a little bit of an idea of the sound world of this instrument, which I think is quite interesting and it puts me in the role of the inventor, and the nice thing about — This instrument is called the Mouseketeer ... (Laughter) and the cool thing about it is I'm the world's greatest Mouseketeer player. (Laughter) Okay? (Applause) So in that regard, this is one of the things, this is one of the privileges of being, and here's another role, the inventor, and by the way, when I told you that I'm the world's greatest, if you're keeping score, we've had narcissism and solipsism and now a healthy dose of egocentricism. I know some of you are just, you know, bingo! Or, I don't know. (Laughter) Anyway, so this is also a really enjoyable role. I should concede also that I'm the world's worst Mouseketeer player, and it was this distinction that I was most worried about when I was on that prior side of the tenure divide. I'm glad I'm past that. We're not going to go into that. I'm crying on the inside. There are still scars. Anyway, but I guess my point is that all of these enterprises are engaging to me in their multiplicity, but as I've presented them to you today, they're actually solitary enterprises, and so pretty soon I want to commune with other people, and so I'm delighted that in fact I get to compose works for them. I get to write, sometimes for soloists and I get to work with one person, sometimes full orchestras, and I work with a lot of people, and this is probably the capacity, the role creatively for which I'm probably best known professionally. Now, some of my scores as a composer look like this, and others look like this, and some look like this, and I make all of these by hand, and it's really tedious. It takes a long, long time to make these scores, and right now I'm working on a piece that's 180 pages in length, and it's just a big chunk of my life, and I'm just pulling out hair. I have a lot of it, and that's a good thing I suppose. (Laughter) So this gets really boring and really tiresome for me, so after a while the process of notating is not only boring, but I actually want the notation to be more interesting, and so that's pushed me to do other projects like this one. This is an excerpt from a score called "The Metaphysics of Notation." The full score is 72 feet wide. It's a bunch of crazy pictographic notation. Let's zoom in on one section of it right here. You can see it's rather detailed. I do all of this with drafting templates, with straight edges, with French curves, and by freehand, and the 72 feet was actually split into 12 six-foot-wide panels that were installed around the Cantor Arts Center Museum lobby balcony, and it appeared for one year in the museum, and during that year, it was experienced as visual art most of the week, except, as you can see in these pictures, on Fridays, from noon til one, and only during that time, various performers came and interpreted these strange and undefined pictographic glyphs. (Laughter) Now this was a really exciting experience for me. It was gratifying musically, but I think the more important thing is it was exciting because I got to take on another role, especially given that it appeared in a museum, and that is as visual artist. (Laughter) We're going to fill up the whole thing, don't worry. (Laughter) I am multitudes. (Laughter) So one of the things is that, I mean, some people would say, like, "Oh, you're being a dilettante," and maybe that's true. I can understand how, I mean, because I don't have a pedigree in visual art and I don't have any training, but it's just something that I wanted to do as an extension of my composition, as an extension of a kind of creative impulse. I can understand the question, though. "But is it music?" I mean, there's not any traditional notation. I can also understand that sort of implicit criticism in this piece, "S-tog," which I made when I was living in Copenhagen. I took the Copenhagen subway map and I renamed all the stations to abstract musical provocations, and the players, who are synchronized with stopwatches, follow the timetables, which are listed in minutes past the hour. So this is a case of actually adapting something, or maybe stealing something, and then turning it into a musical notation. Another adaptation would be this piece. I took the idea of the wristwatch, and I turned it into a musical score. I made my own faces, and had a company fabricate them, and the players follow these scores. They follow the second hands, and as they pass over the various symbols, the players respond musically. Here's another example from another piece, and then its realization. So in these two capacities, I've been scavenger, in the sense of taking, like, the subway map, right, or thief maybe, and I've also been designer, in the case of making the wristwatches. And once again, this is, for me, interesting. Another role that I like to take on is that of the performance artist. Some of my pieces have these kind of weird theatric elements, and I often perform them. I want to show you a clip from a piece called "Echolalia." This is actually being performed by Brian McWhorter, who is an extraordinary performer. Let's watch a little bit of this, and please notice the instrumentation. (Music) Okay, I hear you were laughing nervously because you too could hear that the drill was a little bit sharp, the intonation was a little questionable. (Laughter) Let's watch just another clip. (Music) You can see the mayhem continues, and there's, you know, there were no clarinets and trumpets and flutes and violins. Here's a piece that has an even more unusual, more peculiar instrumentation. This is "Tlön," for three conductors and no players. (Laughter) This was based on the experience of actually watching two people having a virulent argument in sign language, which produced no decibels to speak of, but affectively, psychologically, was a very loud experience. So, yeah, I get it, with, like, the weird appliances and then the total absence of conventional instruments and this glut of conductors, people might, you know, wonder, yeah, "Is this music?" But let's move on to a piece where clearly I'm behaving myself, and that is my "Concerto for Orchestra." You're going to notice a lot of conventional instruments in this clip. (Music) (Music) This, in fact, is not the title of this piece. I was a bit mischievous. In fact, to make it more interesting, I put a space right in here, and this is the actual title of the piece. Let's continue with that same excerpt. (Music) It's better with a florist, right? (Laughter) (Music) Or at least it's less boring. Let's watch a couple more clips. (Music) So with all these theatric elements, this pushes me in another role, and that would be, possibly, the dramaturge. I was playing nice. I had to write the orchestra bits, right? Okay? But then there was this other stuff, right? There was the florist, and I can understand that, once again, we're putting pressure on the ontology of music as we know it conventionally, but let's look at one last piece today I'm going to share with you. This is going to be a piece called "Aphasia," and it's for hand gestures synchronized to sound, and this invites yet another role, and final one I'll share with you, which is that of the choreographer. And the score for the piece looks like this, and it instructs me, the performer, to make various hand gestures at very specific times synchronized with an audio tape, and that audio tape is made up exclusively of vocal samples. I recorded an awesome singer, and I took the sound of his voice in my computer, and I warped it in countless ways to come up with the soundtrack that you're about to hear. And I'll perform just an excerpt of "Aphasia" for you here. Okay? (Music) So that gives you a little taste of that piece. (Applause) Yeah, okay, that's kind of weird stuff. Is it music? Here's how I want to conclude. I've decided, ultimately, that this is the wrong question, that this is not the important question. The important question is, "Is it interesting?" And I follow this question, not worrying about "Is it music?" -- not worrying about the definition of the thing that I'm making. I allow my creativity to push me in directions that are simply interesting to me, and I don't worry about the likeness of the result to some notion, some paradigm, of what music composition is supposed to be, and that has actually urged me, in a sense, to take on a whole bunch of different roles, and so what I want you to think about is, to what extent might you change the fundamental question in your discipline, and, okay, I'm going to put one extra little footnote in here, because, like, I realized I mentioned some psychological defects earlier, and we also, along the way, had a fair amount of obsessive behavior, and there was some delusional behavior and things like that, and here I think we could say that this is an argument for self-loathing and a kind of schizophrenia, at least in the popular use of the term, and I really mean dissociative identity disorder, okay. (Laughter) Anyway, despite those perils, I would urge you to think about the possibility that you might take on roles in your own work, whether they are neighboring or far-flung from your professional definition. And with that, I thank you very much. (Applause) (Applause)
So I wanted to tell a story that really obsessed me when I was writing my new book, and it's a story of something that happened 3,000 years ago, when the Kingdom of Israel was in its infancy. And it takes place in an area called the Shephelah in what is now Israel. And the reason the story obsessed me is that I thought I understood it, and then I went back over it and I realized that I didn't understand it at all. Ancient Palestine had a -- along its eastern border, there's a mountain range. Still same is true of Israel today. And in the mountain range are all of the ancient cities of that region, so Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron. And then there's a coastal plain along the Mediterranean, where Tel Aviv is now. And connecting the mountain range with the coastal plain is an area called the Shephelah, which is a series of valleys and ridges that run east to west, and you can follow the Shephelah, go through the Shephelah to get from the coastal plain to the mountains. And the Shephelah, if you've been to Israel, you'll know it's just about the most beautiful part of Israel. It's gorgeous, with forests of oak and wheat fields and vineyards. But more importantly, though, in the history of that region, it's served, it's had a real strategic function, and that is, it is the means by which hostile armies on the coastal plain find their way, get up into the mountains and threaten those living in the mountains. And 3,000 years ago, that's exactly what happens. The Philistines, who are the biggest of enemies of the Kingdom of Israel, are living in the coastal plain. They're originally from Crete. They're a seafaring people. And they may start to make their way through one of the valleys of the Shephelah up into the mountains, because what they want to do is occupy the highland area right by Bethlehem and split the Kingdom of Israel in two. And the Kingdom of Israel, which is headed by King Saul, obviously catches wind of this, and Saul brings his army down from the mountains and he confronts the Philistines in the Valley of Elah, one of the most beautiful of the valleys of the Shephelah. And the Israelites dig in along the northern ridge, and the Philistines dig in along the southern ridge, and the two armies just sit there for weeks and stare at each other, because they're deadlocked. Neither can attack the other, because to attack the other side you've got to come down the mountain into the valley and then up the other side, and you're completely exposed. So finally, to break the deadlock, the Philistines send their mightiest warrior down into the valley floor, and he calls out and he says to the Israelites, "Send your mightiest warrior down, and we'll have this out, just the two of us." This was a tradition in ancient warfare called single combat. It was a way of settling disputes without incurring the bloodshed of a major battle. And the Philistine who is sent down, their mighty warrior, is a giant. He's 6 foot 9. He's outfitted head to toe in this glittering bronze armor, and he's got a sword and he's got a javelin and he's got his spear. He is absolutely terrifying. And he's so terrifying that none of the Israelite soldiers want to fight him. It's a death wish, right? There's no way they think they can take him. And finally the only person who will come forward is this young shepherd boy, and he goes up to Saul and he says, "I'll fight him." And Saul says, "You can't fight him. That's ridiculous. You're this kid. This is this mighty warrior." But the shepherd is adamant. He says, "No, no, no, you don't understand, I have been defending my flock against lions and wolves for years. I think I can do it." And Saul has no choice. He's got no one else who's come forward. So he says, "All right." And then he turns to the kid, and he says, "But you've got to wear this armor. You can't go as you are." So he tries to give the shepherd his armor, and the shepherd says, "No." He says, "I can't wear this stuff." The Biblical verse is, "I cannot wear this for I have not proved it," meaning, "I've never worn armor before. You've got to be crazy." So he reaches down instead on the ground and picks up five stones and puts them in his shepherd's bag and starts to walk down the mountainside to meet the giant. And the giant sees this figure approaching, and calls out, "Come to me so I can feed your flesh to the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field." He issues this kind of taunt towards this person coming to fight him. And the shepherd draws closer and closer, and the giant sees that he's carrying a staff. That's all he's carrying. Instead of a weapon, just this shepherd's staff, and he says -- he's insulted -- "Am I a dog that you would come to me with sticks?" And the shepherd boy takes one of his stones out of his pocket, puts it in his sling and rolls it around and lets it fly and it hits the giant right between the eyes -- right here, in his most vulnerable spot -- and he falls down either dead or unconscious, and the shepherd boy runs up and takes his sword and cuts off his head, and the Philistines see this and they turn and they just run. And of course, the name of the giant is Goliath and the name of the shepherd boy is David, and the reason that story has obsessed me over the course of writing my book is that everything I thought I knew about that story turned out to be wrong. So David, in that story, is supposed to be the underdog, right? In fact, that term, David and Goliath, has entered our language as a metaphor for improbable victories by some weak party over someone far stronger. Now why do we call David an underdog? Well, we call him an underdog because he's a kid, a little kid, and Goliath is this big, strong giant. We also call him an underdog because Goliath is an experienced warrior, and David is just a shepherd. But most importantly, we call him an underdog because all he has is -- it's that Goliath is outfitted with all of this modern weaponry, this glittering coat of armor and a sword and a javelin and a spear, and all David has is this sling. Well, let's start there with the phrase "All David has is this sling," because that's the first mistake that we make. In ancient warfare, there are three kinds of warriors. There's cavalry, men on horseback and with chariots. There's heavy infantry, which are foot soldiers, armed foot soldiers with swords and shields and some kind of armor. And there's artillery, and artillery are archers, but, more importantly, slingers. And a slinger is someone who has a leather pouch with two long cords attached to it, and they put a projectile, either a rock or a lead ball, inside the pouch, and they whirl it around like this and they let one of the cords go, and the effect is to send the projectile forward towards its target. That's what David has, and it's important to understand that that sling is not a slingshot. It's not this, right? It's not a child's toy. It's in fact an incredibly devastating weapon. When David rolls it around like this, he's turning the sling around probably at six or seven revolutions per second, and that means that when the rock is released, it's going forward really fast, probably 35 meters per second. That's substantially faster than a baseball thrown by even the finest of baseball pitchers. More than that, the stones in the Valley of Elah were not normal rocks. They were barium sulphate, which are rocks twice the density of normal stones. If you do the calculations on the ballistics, on the stopping power of the rock fired from David's sling, it's roughly equal to the stopping power of a [.45 caliber] handgun. This is an incredibly devastating weapon. Accuracy, we know from historical records that slingers -- experienced slingers could hit and maim or even kill a target at distances of up to 200 yards. From medieval tapestries, we know that slingers were capable of hitting birds in flight. They were incredibly accurate. When David lines up -- and he's not 200 yards away from Goliath, he's quite close to Goliath -- when he lines up and fires that thing at Goliath, he has every intention and every expectation of being able to hit Goliath at his most vulnerable spot between his eyes. If you go back over the history of ancient warfare, you will find time and time again that slingers were the decisive factor against infantry in one kind of battle or another. So what's Goliath? He's heavy infantry, and his expectation when he challenges the Israelites to a duel is that he's going to be fighting another heavy infantryman. When he says, "Come to me that I might feed your flesh to the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field," the key phrase is "Come to me." Come up to me because we're going to fight, hand to hand, like this. Saul has the same expectation. David says, "I want to fight Goliath," and Saul tries to give him his armor, because Saul is thinking, "Oh, when you say 'fight Goliath,' you mean 'fight him in hand-to-hand combat,' infantry on infantry." But David has absolutely no expectation. He's not going to fight him that way. Why would he? He's a shepherd. He's spent his entire career using a sling to defend his flock against lions and wolves. That's where his strength lies. So here he is, this shepherd, experienced in the use of a devastating weapon, up against this lumbering giant weighed down by a hundred pounds of armor and these incredibly heavy weapons that are useful only in short-range combat. Goliath is a sitting duck. He doesn't have a chance. So why do we keep calling David an underdog, and why do we keep referring to his victory as improbable? There's a second piece of this that's important. It's not just that we misunderstand David and his choice of weaponry. It's also that we profoundly misunderstand Goliath. Goliath is not what he seems to be. There's all kinds of hints of this in the Biblical text, things that are in retrospect quite puzzling and don't square with his image as this mighty warrior. So to begin with, the Bible says that Goliath is led onto the valley floor by an attendant. Now that is weird, right? Here is this mighty warrior challenging the Israelites to one-on-one combat. Why is he being led by the hand by some young boy, presumably, to the point of combat? Secondly, the Bible story makes special note of how slowly Goliath moves, another odd thing to say when you're describing the mightiest warrior known to man at that point. And then there's this whole weird thing about how long it takes Goliath to react to the sight of David. So David's coming down the mountain, and he's clearly not preparing for hand-to-hand combat. There is nothing about him that says, "I am about to fight you like this." He's not even carrying a sword. Why does Goliath not react to that? It's as if he's oblivious to what's going on that day. And then there's that strange comment he makes to David: "Am I a dog that you should come to me with sticks?" Sticks? David only has one stick. Well, it turns out that there's been a great deal of speculation within the medical community over the years about whether there is something fundamentally wrong with Goliath, an attempt to make sense of all of those apparent anomalies. There have been many articles written. The first one was in 1960 in the Indiana Medical Journal, and it started a chain of speculation that starts with an explanation for Goliath's height. So Goliath is head and shoulders above all of his peers in that era, and usually when someone is that far out of the norm, there's an explanation for it. So the most common form of giantism is a condition called acromegaly, and acromegaly is caused by a benign tumor on your pituitary gland that causes an overproduction of human growth hormone. And throughout history, many of the most famous giants have all had acromegaly. So the tallest person of all time was a guy named Robert Wadlow who was still growing when he died at the age of 24 and he was 8 foot 11. He had acromegaly. Do you remember the wrestler André the Giant? Famous. He had acromegaly. There's even speculation that Abraham Lincoln had acromegaly. Anyone who's unusually tall, that's the first explanation we come up with. And acromegaly has a very distinct set of side effects associated with it, principally having to do with vision. The pituitary tumor, as it grows, often starts to compress the visual nerves in your brain, with the result that people with acromegaly have either double vision or they are profoundly nearsighted. So when people have started to speculate about what might have been wrong with Goliath, they've said, "Wait a minute, he looks and sounds an awful lot like someone who has acromegaly." And that would also explain so much of what was strange about his behavior that day. Why does he move so slowly and have to be escorted down into the valley floor by an attendant? Because he can't make his way on his own. Why is he so strangely oblivious to David that he doesn't understand that David's not going to fight him until the very last moment? Because he can't see him. When he says, "Come to me that I might feed your flesh to the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field," the phrase "come to me" is a hint also of his vulnerability. Come to me because I can't see you. And then there's, "Am I a dog that you should come to me with sticks?" He sees two sticks when David has only one. So the Israelites up on the mountain ridge looking down on him thought he was this extraordinarily powerful foe. What they didn't understand was that the very thing that was the source of his apparent strength was also the source of his greatest weakness. And there is, I think, in that, a very important lesson for all of us. Giants are not as strong and powerful as they seem. And sometimes the shepherd boy has a sling in his pocket. Thank you. (Applause)
Hello, my name is Thomas Heatherwick. I have a studio in London that has a particular approach to designing buildings. When I was growing up, I was exposed to making and crafts and materials and invention on a small scale. And I was there looking at the larger scale of buildings and finding that the buildings that were around me and that were being designed and that were there in the publications I was seeing felt soulless and cold. And there on the smaller scale, the scale of an earring or a ceramic pot or a musical instrument, was a materiality and a soulfulness. And this influenced me. The first building I built was 20 years ago. And since, in the last 20 years, I've developed a studio in London. Sorry, this was my mother, by the way, in her bead shop in London. I spent a lot of time counting beads and things like that. I'm just going to show, for people who don't know my studio's work, a few projects that we've worked on. This is a hospital building. This is a shop for a bag company. This is studios for artists. This is a sculpture made from a million yards of wire and 150,000 glass beads the size of a golf ball. And this is a window display. And this is pair of cooling towers for an electricity substation next to St. Paul's Cathedral in London. And this is a temple in Japan for a Buddhist monk. And this is a cafe by the sea in Britain. And just very quickly, something we've been working on very recently is we were commissioned by the mayor of London to design a new bus that gave the passenger their freedom again. Because the original Routemaster bus that some of you may be familiar with, which had this open platform at the back -- in fact, I think all our Routemasters are here in California now actually. But they aren't in London. And so you're stuck on a bus. And if the bus is going to stop and it's three yards away from the bus stop, you're just a prisoner. But the mayor of London wanted to reintroduce buses with this open platform. So we've been working with Transport for London, and that organization hasn't actually been responsible as a client for a new bus for 50 years. And so we've been very lucky to have a chance to work. The brief is that the bus should use 40 percent less energy. So it's got hybrid drive. And we've been working to try to improve everything from the fabric to the format and structure and aesthetics. I was going to show four main projects. And this is a project for a bridge. And so we were commissioned to design a bridge that would open. And openings seemed -- everyone loves opening bridges, but it's quite a basic thing. I think we all kind of stand and watch. But the bridges that we saw that opened and closed -- I'm slightly squeamish -- but I once saw a photograph of a footballer who was diving for a ball. And as he was diving, someone had stamped on his knee, and it had broken like this. And then we looked at these kinds of bridges and just couldn't help feeling that it was a beautiful thing that had broken. And so this is in Paddington in London. And it's a very boring bridge, as you can see. It's just steel and timber. But instead of what it is, our focus was on the way it worked. (Applause) So we liked the idea that the two farthest bits of it would end up kissing each other. (Applause) We actually had to halve its speed, because everyone was too scared when we first did it. So that's it speeded up. A project that we've been working on very recently is to design a new biomass power station -- so a power station that uses organic waste material. In the news, the subject of where our future water is going to come from and where our power is going to come from is in all the papers all the time. And we used to be quite proud of the way we generated power. But recently, any annual report of a power company doesn't have a power station on it. It has a child running through a field, or something like that. (Laughter) And so when a consortium of engineers approached us and asked us to work with them on this power station, our condition was that we would work with them and that, whatever we did, we were not just going to decorate a normal power station. And instead, we had to learn -- we kind of forced them to teach us. And so we spent time traveling with them and learning about all the different elements, and finding that there were plenty of inefficiencies that weren't being capitalized on. That just taking a field and banging all these things out isn't necessarily the most efficient way that they could work. So we looked at how we could compose all those elements -- instead of just litter, create one composition. And what we found -- this area is one of the poorest parts of Britain. It was voted the worst place in Britain to live. And there are 2,000 new homes being built next to this power station. So it felt this has a social dimension. It has a symbolic importance. And we should be proud of where our power is coming from, rather than something we are necessarily ashamed of. So we were looking at how we could make a power station, that, instead of keeping people out and having a big fence around the outside, could be a place that pulls you in. And it has to be -- I'm trying to get my -- 250 feet high. So it felt that what we could try to do is make a power park and actually bring the whole area in, and using the spare soil that's there on the site, we could make a power station that was silent as well. Because just that soil could make the acoustic difference. And we also found that we could make a more efficient structure and have a cost-effective way of making a structure to do this. The finished project is meant to be more than just a power station. It has a space where you could have a bar mitzvah at the top. (Laughter) And it's a power park. So people can come and really experience this and also look out all around the area, and use that height that we have to have for its function. In Shanghai, we were invited to build -- well we weren't invited; what am I talking about. We won the competition, and it was painful to get there. (Laughter) So we won the competition to build the U.K. pavilion. And an expo is a totally bonkers thing. There's 250 pavilions. It's the world's biggest ever expo that had ever happened. So there are up to a million people there everyday. And 250 countries all competing. And the British government saying, "You need to be in the top five." And so that became the governmental goal -- is, how do you stand out in this chaos, which is an expo of stimulus? So our sense was we had to do one thing, and only one thing, instead of trying to have everything. And so what we also felt was that whatever we did we couldn't do a cheesy advert for Britain. (Laughter) But the thing that was true, the expo was about the future of cities, and particularly the Victorians pioneered integrating nature into the cities. And the world's first public park of modern times was in Britain. And the world's first major botanical institution is in London, and they have this extraordinary project where they've been collecting 25 percent of all the world's plant species. So we suddenly realized that there was this thing. And everyone agrees that trees are beautiful, and I've never met anyone who says, "I don't like trees." And the same with flowers. I've never met anyone who says, "I don't like flowers." But we realized that seeds -- there's been this very serious project happening -- but that seeds -- at these major botanical gardens, seeds aren't on show. But you just have to go to a garden center, and they're in little paper packets. But this phenomenal project's been happening. So we realized we had to make a project that would be seeds, some kind of seed cathedral. But how could we show these teeny-weeny things? And the film "Jurassic Park" actually really helped us. Because the DNA of the dinosaur that was trapped in the amber gave us some kind of clue that these tiny things could be trapped and be made to seem precious, rather than looking like nuts. So the challenge was, how are we going to bring light and expose these things? We didn't want to make a separate building and have separate content. So we were trying to think, how could we make a whole thing emanate. By the way, we had half the budget of the other Western nations. So that was also in the mix with the site the size of a football pitch. And so there was one particular toy that gave us a clue. (Video) Voice Over: The new Play-Doh Mop Top Hair Shop. Song: ♫ We've got the Mop Tops, the Play-Doh Mop Tops ♫ ♫ Just turn the chair and grow Play-Doh hair ♫ ♫ They're the Mop Tops ♫ Thomas Heatherwick: Okay, you get the idea. So the idea was to take these 66,000 seeds that they agreed to give us, and to take each seed and trap it in this precious optical hair and grow that through this box, very simple box element, and make it a building that could move in the wind. So the whole thing can gently move when the wind blows. And inside, the daylight -- each one is an optic and it brings light into the center. And by night, artificial light in each one emanates and comes out to the outside. And to make the project affordable, we focused our energy. Instead of building a building as big as the football pitch, we focused it on this one element. And the government agreed to do that and not do anything else, and focus our energy on that. And so the rest of the site was a public space. And with a million people there a day, it just felt like offering some public space. We worked with an AstroTurf manufacturer to develop a mini-me version of the seed cathedral, so that, even if you're partially-sighted, that it was kind of crunchy and soft, that piece of landscape that you see there. And then, you know when a pet has an operation and they shave a bit of the skin and get rid of the fur -- in order to get you to go into the seed cathedral, in effect, we've shaved it. And inside there's nothing; there's no famous actor's voice; there's no projections; there's no televisions; there's no color changing. There's just silence and a cool temperature. And if a cloud goes past, you can see a cloud on the tips where it's letting the light through. This is the only project that we've done where the finished thing looked more like a rendering than our renderings. (Laughter) A key thing was how people would interact. I mean, in a way it was the most serious thing you could possible do at the expo. And I just wanted to show you. The British government -- any government is potentially the worst client in the world you could ever possibly want to have. And there was a lot of terror. But there was an underlying support. And so there was a moment when suddenly -- actually, the next thing. This is the head of U.K. Trade and Investment, who was our client, with the Chinese children, using the landscape. (Video) Children: One, two, three, go. (Laughter) TH: I'm sorry about my stupid voice there. (Laughter) So finally, texture is something. In the projects we've been working on, these slick buildings, where they might be a fancy shape, but the materiality feels the same, is something that we've been trying to research really, and explore alternatives. And the project that we're building in Malaysia is apartment buildings for a property developer. And it's in a piece of land that's this site. And the mayor of Kuala Lumpur said that, if this developer would give something that gave something back to the city, they would give them more gross floor area, buildable. So there was an incentive for the developer to really try to think about what would be better for the city. And the conventional thing with apartment buildings in this part of the world is you have your tower, and you squeeze a few trees around the edge, and you see cars parked. It's actually only the first couple of floors that you really experience, and the rest of it is just for postcards. The lowest value is actually the bottom part of a tower like this. So if we could chop that away and give the building a small bottom, we could take that bit and put it at the top where the greater commercial value is for a property developer. And by linking these together, we could have 90 percent of the site as a rainforest, instead of only 10 percent of scrubby trees and bits of road around buildings. (Applause) So we're building these buildings. They're actually identical, so it's quite cost-effective. They're just chopped at different heights. But the key part is trying to give back an extraordinary piece of landscape, rather than engulf it. And that's my final slide. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) June Cohen: So thank you. Thank you, Thomas. You're a delight. Since we have an extra minute here, I thought perhaps you could tell us a little bit about these seeds, which maybe came from the shaved bit of the building. TH: These are a few of the tests we did when we were building the structure. So there were 66,000 of these. This optic was 22 feet long. And so the daylight was just coming -- it was caught on the outside of the box and was coming down to illuminate each seed. Waterproofing the building was a bit crazy. Because it's quite hard to waterproof buildings anyway, but if you say you're going to drill 66,000 holes in it -- we had quite a time. There was one person in the contractors who was the right size -- and it wasn't a child -- who could fit between them for the final waterproofing of the building. JC: Thank you, Thomas. (Applause)
Now, I'm an ethnobotanist. That's a scientist who works in the rainforest to document how people use local plants. I've been doing this for a long time, and I want to tell you, these people know these forests and these medicinal treasures better than we do and better than we ever will. But also, these cultures, these indigenous cultures, are disappearing much faster than the forests themselves. And the greatest and most endangered species in the Amazon Rainforest is not the jaguar, it's not the harpy eagle, it's the isolated and uncontacted tribes. Now four years ago, I injured my foot in a climbing accident and I went to the doctor. She gave me heat, she gave me cold, aspirin, narcotic painkillers, anti-inflammatories, cortisone shots. It didn't work. Several months later, I was in the northeast Amazon, walked into a village, and the shaman said, "You're limping." And I'll never forget this as long as I live. He looked me in the face and he said, "Take off your shoe and give me your machete." (Laughter) He walked over to a palm tree and carved off a fern, threw it in the fire, applied it to my foot, threw it in a pot of water, and had me drink the tea. The pain disappeared for seven months. When it came back, I went to see the shaman again. He gave me the same treatment, and I've been cured for three years now. Who would you rather be treated by? (Applause) Now, make no mistake — Western medicine is the most successful system of healing ever devised, but there's plenty of holes in it. Where's the cure for breast cancer? Where's the cure for schizophrenia? Where's the cure for acid reflux? Where's the cure for insomnia? The fact is that these people can sometimes, sometimes, sometimes cure things we cannot. Here you see a medicine man in the northeast Amazon treating leishmaniasis, a really nasty protozoal disease that afflicts 12 million people around the world. Western treatment are injections of antimony. They're painful, they're expensive, and they're probably not good for your heart; it's a heavy metal. This man cures it with three plants from the Amazon Rainforest. This is the magic frog. My colleague, the late great Loren McIntyre, discoverer of the source lake of the Amazon, Laguna McIntyre in the Peruvian Andes, was lost on the Peru-Brazil border about 30 years ago. He was rescued by a group of isolated Indians called the Matsés. They beckoned for him to follow them into the forest, which he did. There, they took out palm leaf baskets. There, they took out these green monkey frogs — these are big suckers, they're like this — and they began licking them. It turns out, they're highly hallucinogenic. McIntyre wrote about this and it was read by the editor of High Times magazine. You see that ethnobotanists have friends in all sorts of strange cultures. This guy decided he would go down to the Amazon and give it a whirl, or give it a lick, and he did, and he wrote, "My blood pressure went through the roof, I lost full control of my bodily functions, I passed out in a heap, I woke up in a hammock six hours later, felt like God for two days." (Laughter) An Italian chemist read this and said, "I'm not really interested in the theological aspects of the green monkey frog. What's this about the change in blood pressure?" Now, this is an Italian chemist who's working on a new treatment for high blood pressure based on peptides in the skin of the green monkey frog, and other scientists are looking at a cure for drug-resistant Staph aureus. How ironic if these isolated Indians and their magic frog prove to be one of the cures. Here's an ayahuasca shaman in the northwest Amazon, in the middle of a yage ceremony. I took him to Los Angeles to meet a foundation officer looking for support for monies to protect their culture. This fellow looked at the medicine man, and he said, "You didn't go to medical school, did you?" The shaman said, "No, I did not." He said, "Well, then what can you know about healing?" The shaman looked at him and he said, "You know what? If you have an infection, go to a doctor. But many human afflictions are diseases of the heart, the mind and the spirit. Western medicine can't touch those. I cure them." (Applause) But all is not rosy in learning from nature about new medicines. This is a viper from Brazil, the venom of which was studied at the Universidade de São Paulo here. It was later developed into ACE inhibitors. This is a frontline treatment for hypertension. Hypertension causes over 10 percent of all deaths on the planet every day. This is a $4 billion industry based on venom from a Brazilian snake, and the Brazilians did not get a nickel. This is not an acceptable way of doing business. The rainforest has been called the greatest expression of life on Earth. There's a saying in Suriname that I dearly love: "The rainforests hold answers to questions we have yet to ask." But as you all know, it's rapidly disappearing. Here in Brazil, in the Amazon, around the world. I took this picture from a small plane flying over the eastern border of the Xingu indigenous reserve in the state of Mato Grosso to the northwest of here. The top half of the picture, you see where the Indians live. The line through the middle is the eastern border of the reserve. Top half Indians, bottom half white guys. Top half wonder drugs, bottom half just a bunch of skinny-ass cows. Top half carbon sequestered in the forest where it belongs, bottom half carbon in the atmosphere where it's driving climate change. In fact, the number two cause of carbon being released into the atmosphere is forest destruction. But in talking about destruction, it's important to keep in mind that the Amazon is the mightiest landscape of all. It's a place of beauty and wonder. The biggest anteater in the world lives in the rain forest, tips the scale at 90 pounds. The goliath bird-eating spider is the world's largest spider. It's found in the Amazon as well. The harpy eagle wingspan is over seven feet. And the black cayman — these monsters can tip the scale at over half a ton. They're known to be man-eaters. The anaconda, the largest snake, the capybara, the largest rodent. A specimen from here in Brazil tipped the scale at 201 pounds. Let's visit where these creatures live, the northeast Amazon, home to the Akuriyo tribe. Uncontacted peoples hold a mystical and iconic role in our imagination. These are the people who know nature best. These are the people who truly live in total harmony with nature. By our standards, some would dismiss these people as primitive. "They don't know how to make fire, or they didn't when they were first contacted." But they know the forest far better than we do. The Akuriyos have 35 words for honey, and other Indians look up to them as being the true masters of the emerald realm. Here you see the face of my friend Pohnay. When I was a teenager rocking out to the Rolling Stones in my hometown of New Orleans, Pohnay was a forest nomad roaming the jungles of the northeast Amazon in a small band, looking for game, looking for medicinal plants, looking for a wife, in other small nomadic bands. But it's people like these that know things that we don't, and they have lots of lessons to teach us. However, if you go into most of the forests of the Amazon, there are no indigenous peoples. This is what you find: rock carvings which indigenous peoples, uncontacted peoples, used to sharpen the edge of the stone axe. These cultures that once danced, made love, sang to the gods, worshipped the forest, all that's left is an imprint in stone, as you see here. Let's move to the western Amazon, which is really the epicenter of isolated peoples. Each of these dots represents a small, uncontacted tribe, and the big reveal today is we believe there are 14 or 15 isolated groups in the Colombian Amazon alone. Why are these people isolated? They know we exist, they know there's an outside world. This is a form of resistance. They have chosen to remain isolated, and I think it is their human right to remain so. Why are these the tribes that hide from man? Here's why. Obviously, some of this was set off in 1492. But at the turn of the last century was the rubber trade. The demand for natural rubber, which came from the Amazon, set off the botanical equivalent of a gold rush. Rubber for bicycle tires, rubber for automobile tires, rubber for zeppelins. It was a mad race to get that rubber, and the man on the left, Julio Arana, is one of the true thugs of the story. His people, his company, and other companies like them killed, massacred, tortured, butchered Indians like the Witotos you see on the right hand side of the slide. Even today, when people come out of the forest, the story seldom has a happy ending. These are Nukaks. They were contacted in the '80s. Within a year, everybody over 40 was dead. And remember, these are preliterate societies. The elders are the libraries. Every time a shaman dies, it's as if a library has burned down. They have been forced off their lands. The drug traffickers have taken over the Nukak lands, and the Nukaks live as beggars in public parks in eastern Colombia. From the Nukak lands, I want to take you to the southwest, to the most spectacular landscape in the world: Chiribiquete National Park. It was surrounded by three isolated tribes and thanks to the Colombian government and Colombian colleagues, it has now expanded. It's bigger than the state of Maryland. It is a treasure trove of botanical diversity. It was first explored botanically in 1943 by my mentor, Richard Schultes, seen here atop the Bell Mountain, the sacred mountains of the Karijonas. And let me show you what it looks like today. Flying over Chiribiquete, realize that these lost world mountains are still lost. No scientist has been atop them. In fact, nobody has been atop the Bell Mountain since Schultes in '43. And we'll end up here with the Bell Mountain just to the east of the picture. Let me show you what it looks like today. Not only is this a treasure trove of botanical diversity, not only is it home to three isolated tribes, but it's the greatest treasure trove of pre-Colombian art in the world: over 200,000 paintings. The Dutch scientist Thomas van der Hammen described this as the Sistine Chapel of the Amazon Rainforest. But move from Chiribiquete down to the southeast, again in the Colombian Amazon. Remember, the Colombian Amazon is bigger than New England. The Amazon's a big forest, and Brazil's got a big part of it, but not all of it. Moving down to these two national parks, Cahuinari and Puré in the Colombian Amazon — that's the Brazilian border to the right — it's home to several groups of isolated and uncontacted peoples. To the trained eye, you can look at the roofs of these malocas, these longhouses, and see that there's cultural diversity. These are, in fact, different tribes. As isolated as these areas are, let me show you how the outside world is crowding in. Here we see trade and transport increased in Putumayo. With the diminishment of the Civil War in Colombia, the outside world is showing up. To the north, we have illegal gold mining, also from the east, from Brazil. There's increased hunting and fishing for commercial purposes. We see illegal logging coming from the south, and drug runners are trying to move through the park and get into Brazil. This, in the past, is why you didn't mess with isolated Indians. And if it looks like this picture is out of focus because it was taken in a hurry, here's why. (Laughter) This looks like — (Applause) This looks like a hangar from the Brazilian Amazon. This is an art exhibit in Havana, Cuba. A group called Los Carpinteros. This is their perception of why you shouldn't mess with uncontacted Indians. But the world is changing. These are Mashco-Piros on the Brazil-Peru border who stumbled out of the jungle because they were essentially chased out by drug runners and timber people. And in Peru, there's a very nasty business. It's called human safaris. They will take you in to isolated groups to take their picture. Of course, when you give them clothes, when you give them tools, you also give them diseases. We call these "inhuman safaris." These are Indians again on the Peru border, who were overflown by flights sponsored by missionaries. They want to get in there and turn them into Christians. We know how that turns out. What's to be done? Introduce technology to the contacted tribes, not the uncontacted tribes, in a culturally sensitive way. This is the perfect marriage of ancient shamanic wisdom and 21st century technology. We've done this now with over 30 tribes, mapped, managed and increased protection of over 70 million acres of ancestral rainforest. (Applause) So this allows the Indians to take control of their environmental and cultural destiny. They also then set up guard houses to keep outsiders out. These are Indians, trained as indigenous park rangers, patrolling the borders and keeping the outside world at bay. This is a picture of actual contact. These are Chitonahua Indians on the Brazil-Peru border. They've come out of the jungle asking for help. They were shot at, their malocas, their longhouses, were burned. Some of them were massacred. Using automatic weapons to slaughter uncontacted peoples is the single most despicable and disgusting human rights abuse on our planet today, and it has to stop. (Applause) But let me conclude by saying, this work can be spiritually rewarding, but it's difficult and it can be dangerous. Two colleagues of mine passed away recently in the crash of a small plane. They were serving the forest to protect those uncontacted tribes. So the question is, in conclusion, is what the future holds. These are the Uray people in Brazil. What does the future hold for them, and what does the future hold for us? Let's think differently. Let's make a better world. If the climate's going to change, let's have a climate that changes for the better rather than the worse. Let's live on a planet full of luxuriant vegetation, in which isolated peoples can remain in isolation, can maintain that mystery and that knowledge if they so choose. Let's live in a world where the shamans live in these forests and heal themselves and us with their mystical plants and their sacred frogs. Thanks again. (Applause)
Other people. Everyone is interested in other people. Everyone has relationships with other people, and they're interested in these relationships for a variety of reasons. Good relationships, bad relationships, annoying relationships, agnostic relationships, and what I'm going to do is focus on the central piece of an interaction that goes on in a relationship. So I'm going to take as inspiration the fact that we're all interested in interacting with other people, I'm going to completely strip it of all its complicating features, and I'm going to turn that object, that simplified object, into a scientific probe, and provide the early stages, embryonic stages of new insights into what happens in two brains while they simultaneously interact. But before I do that, let me tell you a couple of things that made this possible. The first is we can now eavesdrop safely on healthy brain activity. Without needles and radioactivity, without any kind of clinical reason, we can go down the street and record from your friends' and neighbors' brains while they do a variety of cognitive tasks, and we use a method called functional magnetic resonance imaging. You've probably all read about it or heard about in some incarnation. Let me give you a two-sentence version of it. So we've all heard of MRIs. MRIs use magnetic fields and radio waves and they take snapshots of your brain or your knee or your stomach, grayscale images that are frozen in time. In the 1990s, it was discovered you could use the same machines in a different mode, and in that mode, you could make microscopic blood flow movies from hundreds of thousands of sites independently in the brain. Okay, so what? In fact, the so what is, in the brain, changes in neural activity, the things that make your brain work, the things that make your software work in your brain, are tightly correlated with changes in blood flow. You make a blood flow movie, you have an independent proxy of brain activity. This has literally revolutionized cognitive science. Take any cognitive domain you want, memory, motor planning, thinking about your mother-in-law, getting angry at people, emotional response, it goes on and on, put people into functional MRI devices, and image how these kinds of variables map onto brain activity. It's in its early stages, and it's crude by some measures, but in fact, 20 years ago, we were at nothing. You couldn't do people like this. You couldn't do healthy people. That's caused a literal revolution, and it's opened us up to a new experimental preparation. Neurobiologists, as you well know, have lots of experimental preps, worms and rodents and fruit flies and things like this. And now, we have a new experimental prep: human beings. We can now use human beings to study and model the software in human beings, and we have a few burgeoning biological measures. Okay, let me give you one example of the kinds of experiments that people do, and it's in the area of what you'd call valuation. Valuation is just what you think it is, you know? If you went and you were valuing two companies against one another, you'd want to know which was more valuable. Cultures discovered the key feature of valuation thousands of years ago. If you want to compare oranges to windshields, what do you do? Well, you can't compare oranges to windshields. They're immiscible. They don't mix with one another. So instead, you convert them to a common currency scale, put them on that scale, and value them accordingly. Well, your brain has to do something just like that as well, and we're now beginning to understand and identify brain systems involved in valuation, and one of them includes a neurotransmitter system whose cells are located in your brainstem and deliver the chemical dopamine to the rest of your brain. I won't go through the details of it, but that's an important discovery, and we know a good bit about that now, and it's just a small piece of it, but it's important because those are the neurons that you would lose if you had Parkinson's disease, and they're also the neurons that are hijacked by literally every drug of abuse, and that makes sense. Drugs of abuse would come in, and they would change the way you value the world. They change the way you value the symbols associated with your drug of choice, and they make you value that over everything else. Here's the key feature though. These neurons are also involved in the way you can assign value to literally abstract ideas, and I put some symbols up here that we assign value to for various reasons. We have a behavioral superpower in our brain, and it at least in part involves dopamine. We can deny every instinct we have for survival for an idea, for a mere idea. No other species can do that. In 1997, the cult Heaven's Gate committed mass suicide predicated on the idea that there was a spaceship hiding in the tail of the then-visible comet Hale-Bopp waiting to take them to the next level. It was an incredibly tragic event. More than two thirds of them had college degrees. But the point here is they were able to deny their instincts for survival using exactly the same systems that were put there to make them survive. That's a lot of control, okay? One thing that I've left out of this narrative is the obvious thing, which is the focus of the rest of my little talk, and that is other people. These same valuation systems are redeployed when we're valuing interactions with other people. So this same dopamine system that gets addicted to drugs, that makes you freeze when you get Parkinson's disease, that contributes to various forms of psychosis, is also redeployed to value interactions with other people and to assign value to gestures that you do when you're interacting with somebody else. Let me give you an example of this. You bring to the table such enormous processing power in this domain that you hardly even notice it. Let me just give you a few examples. So here's a baby. She's three months old. She still poops in her diapers and she can't do calculus. She's related to me. Somebody will be very glad that she's up here on the screen. You can cover up one of her eyes, and you can still read something in the other eye, and I see sort of curiosity in one eye, I see maybe a little bit of surprise in the other. Here's a couple. They're sharing a moment together, and we've even done an experiment where you can cut out different pieces of this frame and you can still see that they're sharing it. They're sharing it sort of in parallel. Now, the elements of the scene also communicate this to us, but you can read it straight off their faces, and if you compare their faces to normal faces, it would be a very subtle cue. Here's another couple. He's projecting out at us, and she's clearly projecting, you know, love and admiration at him. Here's another couple. (Laughter) And I'm thinking I'm not seeing love and admiration on the left. (Laughter) In fact, I know this is his sister, and you can just see him saying, "Okay, we're doing this for the camera, and then afterwards you steal my candy and you punch me in the face." (Laughter) He'll kill me for showing that. All right, so what does this mean? It means we bring an enormous amount of processing power to the problem. It engages deep systems in our brain, in dopaminergic systems that are there to make you chase sex, food and salt. They keep you alive. It gives them the pie, it gives that kind of a behavioral punch which we've called a superpower. So how can we take that and arrange a kind of staged social interaction and turn that into a scientific probe? And the short answer is games. Economic games. So what we do is we go into two areas. One area is called experimental economics. The other area is called behavioral economics. And we steal their games. And we contrive them to our own purposes. So this shows you one particular game called an ultimatum game. Red person is given a hundred dollars and can offer a split to blue. Let's say red wants to keep 70, and offers blue 30. So he offers a 70-30 split with blue. Control passes to blue, and blue says, "I accept it," in which case he'd get the money, or blue says, "I reject it," in which case no one gets anything. Okay? So a rational choice economist would say, well, you should take all non-zero offers. What do people do? People are indifferent at an 80-20 split. At 80-20, it's a coin flip whether you accept that or not. Why is that? You know, because you're pissed off. You're mad. That's an unfair offer, and you know what an unfair offer is. This is the kind of game done by my lab and many around the world. That just gives you an example of the kind of thing that these games probe. The interesting thing is, these games require that you have a lot of cognitive apparatus on line. You have to be able to come to the table with a proper model of another person. You have to be able to remember what you've done. You have to stand up in the moment to do that. Then you have to update your model based on the signals coming back, and you have to do something that is interesting, which is you have to do a kind of depth of thought assay. That is, you have to decide what that other person expects of you. You have to send signals to manage your image in their mind. Like a job interview. You sit across the desk from somebody, they have some prior image of you, you send signals across the desk to move their image of you from one place to a place where you want it to be. We're so good at this we don't really even notice it. These kinds of probes exploit it. Okay? In doing this, what we've discovered is that humans are literal canaries in social exchanges. Canaries used to be used as kind of biosensors in mines. When methane built up, or carbon dioxide built up, or oxygen was diminished, the birds would swoon before people would -- so it acted as an early warning system: Hey, get out of the mine. Things aren't going so well. People come to the table, and even these very blunt, staged social interactions, and they, and there's just numbers going back and forth between the people, and they bring enormous sensitivities to it. So we realized we could exploit this, and in fact, as we've done that, and we've done this now in many thousands of people, I think on the order of five or six thousand. We actually, to make this a biological probe, need bigger numbers than that, remarkably so. But anyway, patterns have emerged, and we've been able to take those patterns, convert them into mathematical models, and use those mathematical models to gain new insights into these exchanges. Okay, so what? Well, the so what is, that's a really nice behavioral measure, the economic games bring to us notions of optimal play. We can compute that during the game. And we can use that to sort of carve up the behavior. Here's the cool thing. Six or seven years ago, we developed a team. It was at the time in Houston, Texas. It's now in Virginia and London. And we built software that'll link functional magnetic resonance imaging devices up over the Internet. I guess we've done up to six machines at a time, but let's just focus on two. So it synchronizes machines anywhere in the world. We synchronize the machines, set them into these staged social interactions, and we eavesdrop on both of the interacting brains. So for the first time, we don't have to look at just averages over single individuals, or have individuals playing computers, or try to make inferences that way. We can study individual dyads. We can study the way that one person interacts with another person, turn the numbers up, and start to gain new insights into the boundaries of normal cognition, but more importantly, we can put people with classically defined mental illnesses, or brain damage, into these social interactions, and use these as probes of that. So we've started this effort. We've made a few hits, a few, I think, embryonic discoveries. We think there's a future to this. But it's our way of going in and redefining, with a new lexicon, a mathematical one actually, as opposed to the standard ways that we think about mental illness, characterizing these diseases, by using the people as birds in the exchanges. That is, we exploit the fact that the healthy partner, playing somebody with major depression, or playing somebody with autism spectrum disorder, or playing somebody with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, we use that as a kind of biosensor, and then we use computer programs to model that person, and it gives us a kind of assay of this. Early days, and we're just beginning, we're setting up sites around the world. Here are a few of our collaborating sites. The hub, ironically enough, is centered in little Roanoke, Virginia. There's another hub in London, now, and the rest are getting set up. We hope to give the data away at some stage. That's a complicated issue about making it available to the rest of the world. But we're also studying just a small part of what makes us interesting as human beings, and so I would invite other people who are interested in this to ask us for the software, or even for guidance on how to move forward with that. Let me leave you with one thought in closing. The interesting thing about studying cognition has been that we've been limited, in a way. We just haven't had the tools to look at interacting brains simultaneously. The fact is, though, that even when we're alone, we're a profoundly social creature. We're not a solitary mind built out of properties that kept it alive in the world independent of other people. In fact, our minds depend on other people. They depend on other people, and they're expressed in other people, so the notion of who you are, you often don't know who you are until you see yourself in interaction with people that are close to you, people that are enemies of you, people that are agnostic to you. So this is the first sort of step into using that insight into what makes us human beings, turning it into a tool, and trying to gain new insights into mental illness. Thanks for having me. (Applause) (Applause)
I'd like to talk a little bit this morning about what happens if we move from design to design thinking. Now this rather old photo up there is actually the first project I was ever hired to do, something like 25 years ago. It's a woodworking machine, or at least a piece of one, and my task was to make this thing a little bit more modern, a little bit easier to use. I thought, at the time, I did a pretty good job. Unfortunately, not very long afterwards the company went out of business. This is the second project that I did. It's a fax machine. I put an attractive shell around some new technology. Again, 18 months later, the product was obsolete. And now, of course, the whole technology is obsolete. Now, I'm a fairly slow learner, but eventually it occurred to me that maybe what passed for design wasn't all that important -- making things more attractive, making them a bit easier to use, making them more marketable. By focusing on a design, maybe just a single product, I was being incremental and not having much of an impact. But I think this small view of design is a relatively recent phenomenon, and in fact really emerged in the latter half of the 20th century as design became a tool of consumerism. So when we talk about design today, and particularly when we read about it in the popular press, we're often talking about products like these. Amusing? Yes. Desirable? Maybe. Important? Not so very. But this wasn't always the way. And I'd like to suggest that if we take a different view of design, and focus less on the object and more on design thinking as an approach, that we actually might see the result in a bigger impact. Now this gentleman, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, designed many great things in his career in the 19th century, including the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol and the Thames tunnel at Rotherhithe. Both great designs and actually very innovative too. His greatest creation runs actually right through here in Oxford. It's called the Great Western Railway. And as a kid I grew up very close to here, and one of my favorite things to do was to cycle along by the side of the railway waiting for the great big express trains to roar past. You can see it represented here in J.M.W. Turner's painting, "Rain, Steam and Speed". Now, what Brunel said that he wanted to achieve for his passengers was the experience of floating across the countryside. Now, this was back in the 19th century. And to do that meant creating the flattest gradients that had ever yet been made, which meant building long viaducts across river valleys -- this is actually the viaduct across the Thames at Maidenhead -- and long tunnels such as the one at Box, in Wiltshire. But he didn't stop there. He didn't stop with just trying to design the best railway journey. He imagined an integrated transportation system in which it would be possible for a passenger to embark on a train in London and disembark from a ship in New York. One journey from London to New York. This is the S.S. Great Western that he built to take care of the second half of that journey. Now, Brunel was working 100 years before the emergence of the design profession, but I think he was using design thinking to solve problems and to create world-changing innovations. Now, design thinking begins with what Roger Martin, the business school professor at the University of Toronto, calls integrative thinking. And that's the ability to exploit opposing ideas and opposing constraints to create new solutions. In the case of design, that means balancing desirability, what humans need, with technical feasibility, and economic viability. With innovations like the Great Western, we can stretch that balance to the absolute limit. So somehow, we went from this to this. Systems thinkers who were reinventing the world, to a priesthood of folks in black turtlenecks and designer glasses working on small things. As our industrial society matured, so design became a profession and it focused on an ever smaller canvas until it came to stand for aesthetics, image and fashion. Now I'm not trying to throw stones here. I'm a fully paid-up member of that priesthood, and somewhere in here I have my designer glasses. There we go. But I do think that perhaps design is getting big again. And that's happening through the application of design thinking to new kinds of problems -- to global warming, to education, healthcare, security, clean water, whatever. And as we see this reemergence of design thinking and we see it beginning to tackle new kinds of problems, there are some basic ideas that I think we can observe that are useful. And I'd like to talk about some of those just for the next few minutes. The first of those is that design is human-centered. It may integrate technology and economics, but it starts with what humans need, or might need. What makes life easier, more enjoyable? What makes technology useful and usable? But that is more than simply good ergonomics, putting the buttons in the right place. It's often about understanding culture and context before we even know where to start to have ideas. So when a team was working on a new vision screening program in India, they wanted to understand what the aspirations and motivations were of these school children to understand how they might play a role in screening their parents. Conversion Sound has developed a high quality, ultra-low-cost digital hearing aid for the developing world. Now, in the West we rely on highly trained technicians to fit these hearing aids. In places like India, those technicians simply don't exist. So it took a team working in India with patients and community health workers to understand how a PDA and an application on a PDA might replace those technicians in a fitting and diagnostic service. Instead of starting with technology, the team started with people and culture. So if human need is the place to start, then design thinking rapidly moves on to learning by making. Instead of thinking about what to build, building in order to think. Now, prototypes speed up the process of innovation, because it is only when we put our ideas out into the world that we really start to understand their strengths and weaknesses. And the faster we do that, the faster our ideas evolve. Now, much has been said and written about the Aravind Eye Institute in Madurai, India. They do an incredible job of serving very poor patients by taking the revenues from those who can afford to pay to cross-subsidize those who cannot. Now, they are very efficient, but they are also very innovative. When I visited them a few years ago, what really impressed me was their willingness to prototype their ideas very early. This is the manufacturing facility for one of their biggest cost breakthroughs. They make their own intraocular lenses. These are the lenses that replace those that are damaged by cataracts. And I think it's partly their prototyping mentality that really allowed them to achieve the breakthrough. Because they brought the cost down from $200 a pair, down to just $4 a pair. Partly they did this by instead of building a fancy new factory, they used the basement of one of their hospitals. And instead of installing the large-scale machines used by western producers, they used low-cost CAD/CAM prototyping technology. They are now the biggest manufacturer of these lenses in the developing world and have recently moved into a custom factory. So if human need is the place to start, and prototyping, a vehicle for progress, then there are also some questions to ask about the destination. Instead of seeing its primary objective as consumption, design thinking is beginning to explore the potential of participation -- the shift from a passive relationship between consumer and producer to the active engagement of everyone in experiences that are meaningful, productive and profitable. So I'd like to take the idea that Rory Sutherland talked about, this notion that intangible things are worth perhaps more than physical things, and take that a little bit further and say that I think the design of participatory systems, in which many more forms of value beyond simply cash are both created and measured, is going to be the major theme, not only for design, but also for our economy as we go forward. So William Beveridge, when he wrote the first of his famous reports in 1942, created what became Britain's welfare state in which he hoped that every citizen would be an active participant in their own social well-being. By the time he wrote his third report, he confessed that he had failed and instead had created a society of welfare consumers. Hilary Cottam, Charlie Leadbeater, and Hugo Manassei of Participle have taken this idea of participation, and in their manifesto entitled Beveridge 4.0, they are suggesting a framework for reinventing the welfare state. So in one of their projects called Southwark Circle, they worked with residents in Southwark, South London and a small team of designers to develop a new membership organization to help the elderly with household tasks. Designs were refined and developed with 150 older people and their families before the service was launched earlier this year. We can take this idea of participation perhaps to its logical conclusion and say that design may have its greatest impact when it's taken out of the hands of designers and put into the hands of everyone. Nurses and practitioners at U.S. healthcare system Kaiser Permanente study the topic of improving the patient experience, and particularly focused on the way that they exchange knowledge and change shift. Through a program of observational research, brainstorming new solutions and rapid prototyping, they've developed a completely new way to change shift. They went from retreating to the nurse's station to discuss the various states and needs of patients, to developing a system that happened on the ward in front of patients, using a simple software tool. By doing this they brought the time that they were away from patients down from 40 minutes to 12 minutes, on average. They increased patient confidence and nurse happiness. When you multiply that by all the nurses in all the wards in 40 hospitals in the system, it resulted, actually, in a pretty big impact. And this is just one of thousands of opportunities in healthcare alone. So these are just some of the kind of basic ideas around design thinking and some of the new kinds of projects that they're being applied to. But I'd like to go back to Brunel here, and suggest a connection that might explain why this is happening now, and maybe why design thinking is a useful tool. And that connection is change. In times of change we need new alternatives, new ideas. Now, Brunel worked at the height of the Industrial Revolution, when all of life and our economy was being reinvented. Now the industrial systems of Brunel's time have run their course, and indeed they are part of the problem today. But, again, we are in the midst of massive change. And that change is forcing us to question quite fundamental aspects of our society -- how we keep ourselves healthy, how we govern ourselves, how we educate ourselves, how we keep ourselves secure. And in these times of change, we need these new choices because our existing solutions are simply becoming obsolete. So why design thinking? Because it gives us a new way of tackling problems. Instead of defaulting to our normal convergent approach where we make the best choice out of available alternatives, it encourages us to take a divergent approach, to explore new alternatives, new solutions, new ideas that have not existed before. But before we go through that process of divergence, there is actually quite an important first step. And that is, what is the question that we're trying to answer? What's the design brief? Now Brunel may have asked a question like this, "How do I take a train from London to New York?" But what are the kinds of questions that we might ask today? So these are some that we've been asked to think about recently. And one in particular, is one that we're working on with the Acumen Fund, in a project that's been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. How might we improve access to safe drinking water for the world's poorest people, and at the same time stimulate innovation amongst local water providers? So instead of having a bunch of American designers come up with new ideas that may or may not have been appropriate, we took a sort of more open, collaborative and participative approach. We teamed designers and investment experts up with 11 water organizations across India. And through workshops they developed innovative new products, services, and business models. We hosted a competition and then funded five of those organizations to develop their ideas. So they developed and iterated these ideas. And then IDEO and Acumen spent several weeks working with them to help design new social marketing campaigns, community outreach strategies, business models, new water vessels for storing water and carts for delivering water. Some of those ideas are just getting launched into the market. And the same process is just getting underway with NGOs in East Africa. So for me, this project shows kind of how far we can go from some of those sort of small things that I was working on at the beginning of my career. That by focusing on the needs of humans and by using prototypes to move ideas along quickly, by getting the process out of the hands of designers, and by getting the active participation of the community, we can tackle bigger and more interesting questions. And just like Brunel, by focusing on systems, we can have a bigger impact. So that's one thing that we've been working on. I'm actually really quite interested, and perhaps more interested to know what this community thinks we could work on. What kinds of questions do we think design thinking could be used to tackle? And if you've got any ideas then feel free, you can post them to Twitter. There is a hash tag there that you can use, #CBDQ. And the list looked something like this a little while ago. And of course you can search to find the questions that you're interested in by using the same hash code. So I'd like to believe that design thinking actually can make a difference, that it can help create new ideas and new innovations, beyond the latest High Street products. To do that I think we have to take a more expansive view of design, more like Brunel, less a domain of a professional priesthood. And the first step is to start asking the right questions. Thank you very much. (Applause)
I'm excited to be here to speak about vets, because I didn't join the Army because I wanted to go to war. I didn't join the Army because I had a lust or a need to go overseas and fight. Frankly, I joined the Army because college is really damn expensive, and they were going to help with that, and I joined the Army because it was what I knew, and it was what I knew that I thought I could do well. I didn't come from a military family. I'm not a military brat. No one in my family ever had joined the military at all, and how I first got introduced to the military was when I was 13 years old and I got sent away to military school, because my mother had been threatening me with this idea of military school ever since I was eight years old. I had some issues when I was coming up, and my mother would always tell me, she's like, "You know, if you don't get this together, I'm going to send you to military school." And I'd look at her, and I'd say, "Mommy, I'll work harder." And then when I was nine years old, she started giving me brochures to show me she wasn't playing around, so I'd look at the brochures, and I'm like, "Okay, Mommy, I can see you're serious, and I'll work harder." And then when I was 10 and 11, my behavior just kept on getting worse. I was on academic and disciplinary probation before I hit double digits, and I first felt handcuffs on my wrists when I was 11 years old. And so when I was 13 years old, my mother came up to me, and she was like, "I'm not going to do this anymore. I'm going to send you to military school." And I looked at her, and I said, "Mommy, I can see you're upset, and I'm going to work harder." And she was like, "No, you're going next week." And that was how I first got introduced to this whole idea of the military, because she thought this was a good idea. I had to disagree with her wholeheartedly when I first showed up there, because literally in the first four days, I had already run away five times from this school. They had these big black gates that surrounded the school, and every time they would turn their backs, I would just simply run out of the black gates and take them up on their offer that if we don't want to be there, we can leave at any time. So I just said, "Well, if that's the case, then I'd like to leave." (Laughter) And it never worked. And I kept on getting lost. But then eventually, after staying there for a little while, and after the end of that first year at this military school, I realized that I actually was growing up. I realized the things that I enjoyed about this school and the thing that I enjoyed about the structure was something that I'd never found before: the fact that I finally felt like I was part of something bigger, part of a team, and it actually mattered to people that I was there, the fact that leadership wasn't just a punchline there, but that it was a real, actually core part of the entire experience. And so when it was time for me to actually finish up high school, I started thinking about what I wanted to do, and just like probably most students, had no idea what that meant or what I wanted to do. And I thought about the people who I respected and admired. I thought about a lot of the people, in particular a lot of the men, in my life who I looked up to. They all happened to wear the uniform of the United States of America, so for me, the question and the answer really became pretty easy. The question of what I wanted to do was filled in very quickly with saying, I guess I'll be an Army officer. So the Army then went through this process and they trained me up, and when I say I didn't join the Army because I wanted to go to war, the truth is, I joined in 1996. There really wasn't a whole lot going on. I didn't ever feel like I was in danger. When I went to my mom, I first joined the Army when I was 17 years old, so I literally needed parental permission to join the Army, so I kind of gave the paperwork to my mom, and she just assumed it was kind of like military school. She was like, "Well, it was good for him before, so I guess I'll just let him keep doing it," having no idea that the paperwork that she was signing was actually signing her son up to become an Army officer. And I went through the process, and again the whole time still just thinking, this is great, maybe I'll serve on a weekend, or two weeks during the year, do drill, and then a couple years after I signed up, a couple years after my mother signed those papers, the whole world changed. And after 9/11, there was an entirely new context about the occupation that I chose. When I first joined, I never joined to fight, but now that I was in, this is exactly what was now going to happen. And I thought about so much about the soldiers who I eventually had to end up leading. I remember when we first, right after 9/11, three weeks after 9/11, I was on a plane heading overseas, but I wasn't heading overseas with the military, I was heading overseas because I got a scholarship to go overseas. I received the scholarship to go overseas and to go study and live overseas, and I was living in England and that was interesting, but at the same time, the same people who I was training with, the same soldiers that I went through all my training with, and we prepared for war, they were now actually heading over to it. They were now about to find themselves in the middle of places the fact is the vast majority of people, the vast majority of us as we were training, couldn't even point out on a map. I spent a couple years finishing graduate school, and the whole entire time while I'm sitting there in buildings at Oxford that were literally built hundreds of years before the United States was even founded, and I'm sitting there talking to dons about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and how that influenced the start of World War I, where the entire time my heart and my head were on my soldiers who were now throwing on Kevlars and grabbing their flak vests and figuring out how exactly do I change around or how exactly do I clean a machine gun in the darkness. That was the new reality. By the time I finished that up and I rejoined my military unit and we were getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan, there were soldiers in my unit who were now on their second and third deployments before I even had my first. I remember walking out with my unit for the first time, and when you join the Army and you go through a combat tour, everyone looks at your shoulder, because on your shoulder is your combat patch. And so immediately as you meet people, you shake their hand, and then your eyes go to their shoulder, because you want to see where did they serve, or what unit did they serve with? And I was the only person walking around with a bare shoulder, and it burned every time someone stared at it. But you get a chance to talk to your soldiers, and you ask them why did they sign up. I signed up because college was expensive. A lot of my soldiers signed up for completely different reasons. They signed up because of a sense of obligation. They signed up because they were angry and they wanted to do something about it. They signed up because their family said this was important. They signed up because they wanted some form of revenge. They signed for a whole collection of different reasons. And now we all found ourselves overseas fighting in these conflicts. And what was amazing to me was that I very naively started hearing this statement that I never fully understood, because right after 9/11, you start hearing this idea where people come up to you and they say, "Well, thank you for your service." And I just kind of followed in and started saying the same things to all my soldiers. This is even before I deployed. But I really had no idea what that even meant. I just said it because it sounded right. I said it because it sounded like the right thing to say to people who had served overseas. "Thank you for your service." But I had no idea what the context was or what that even, what it even meant to the people who heard it. When I first came back from Afghanistan, I thought that if you make it back from conflict, then the dangers were all over. I thought that if you made it back from a conflict zone that somehow you could kind of wipe the sweat off your brow and say, "Whew, I'm glad I dodged that one," without understanding that for so many people, as they come back home, the war keeps going. It keeps playing out in all of our minds. It plays out in all of our memories. It plays out in all of our emotions. Please forgive us if we don't like being in big crowds. Please forgive us when we spend one week in a place that has 100 percent light discipline, because you're not allowed to walk around with white lights, because if anything has a white light, it can be seen from miles away, versus if you use little green or little blue lights, they cannot be seen from far away. So please forgive us if out of nowhere, we go from having 100 percent light discipline to then a week later being back in the middle of Times Square, and we have a difficult time adjusting to that. Please forgive us when you transition back to a family who has completely been maneuvering without you, and now when you come back, it's not that easy to fall back into a sense of normality, because the whole normal has changed. I remember when I came back, I wanted to talk to people. I wanted people to ask me about my experiences. I wanted people to come up to me and tell me, "What did you do?" I wanted people to come up to me and tell me, "What was it like? What was the food like? What was the experience like? How are you doing?" And the only questions I got from people was, "Did you shoot anybody?" And those were the ones who were even curious enough to say anything. Because sometimes there's this fear and there's this apprehension that if I say anything, I'm afraid I'll offend, or I'm afraid I'll trigger something, so the common default is just saying nothing. The problem with that is then it feels like your service was not even acknowledged, like no one even cared. "Thank you for your service," and we move on. What I wanted to better understand was what's behind that, and why "thank you for your service" isn't enough. The fact is, we have literally 2.6 million men and women who are veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan who are all amongst us. Sometimes we know who they are, sometimes we don't, but there is that feeling, the shared experience, the shared bond where we know that that experience and that chapter of our life, while it might be closed, it's still not over. We think about "thank you for your service," and people say, "So what does 'thank you for your service' mean to you?" Well, "Thank you for your service" means to me, it means acknowledging our stories, asking us who we are, understanding the strength that so many people, so many people who we serve with, have, and why that service means so much. "Thank you for your service" means acknowledging the fact that just because we've now come home and we've taken off the uniform does not mean our larger service to this country is somehow over. The fact is, there's still a tremendous amount that can be offered and can be given. When I look at people like our friend Taylor Urruela, who in Iraq loses his leg, had two big dreams in his life. One was to be a soldier. The other was to be a baseball player. He loses his leg in Iraq. He comes back and instead of deciding that, well, now since I've lost my leg, that second dream is over, he decides that he still has that dream of playing baseball, and he starts this group called VETSports, which now works with veterans all over the country and uses sports as a way of healing. People like Tammy Duckworth, who was a helicopter pilot and with the helicopter that she was flying, you need to use both your hands and also your legs to steer, and her helicopter gets hit, and she's trying to steer the chopper, but the chopper's not reacting to her instructions and to her commands. She's trying to land the chopper safely, but the chopper doesn't land safely, and the reason it's not landing safely is because it's not responding to the commands that her legs are giving because her legs were blown off. She barely survives. Medics come and they save her life, but then as she's doing her recuperation back at home, she realizes that, "My job's still not done." And now she uses her voice as a Congresswoman from Illinois to fight and advocate for a collection of issues to include veterans issues. We signed up because we love this country we represent. We signed up because we believe in the idea and we believe in the people to our left and to our right. And the only thing we then ask is that "thank you for your service" needs to be more than just a quote break, that "thank you for your service" means honestly digging in to the people who have stepped up simply because they were asked to, and what that means for us not just now, not just during combat operations, but long after the last vehicle has left and after the last shot has been taken. These are the people who I served with, and these are the people who I honor. So thank you for your service. (Applause)
So it's 1995, I'm in college, and a friend and I go on a road trip from Providence, Rhode Island to Portland, Oregon. And you know, we're young and unemployed, so we do the whole thing on back roads through state parks and national forests -- basically the longest route we can possibly take. And somewhere in the middle of South Dakota, I turn to my friend and I ask her a question that's been bothering me for 2,000 miles. "What's up with the Chinese character I keep seeing by the side of the road?" My friend looks at me totally blankly. There's actually a gentleman in the front row who's doing a perfect imitation of her look. (Laughter) And I'm like, "You know, all the signs we keep seeing with the Chinese character on them." She just stares at me for a few moments, and then she cracks up, because she figures out what I'm talking about. And what I'm talking about is this. (Laughter) Right, the famous Chinese character for picnic area. (Laughter) I've spent the last five years of my life thinking about situations exactly like this -- why we sometimes misunderstand the signs around us, and how we behave when that happens, and what all of this can tell us about human nature. In other words, as you heard Chris say, I've spent the last five years thinking about being wrong. This might strike you as a strange career move, but it actually has one great advantage: no job competition. (Laughter) In fact, most of us do everything we can to avoid thinking about being wrong, or at least to avoid thinking about the possibility that we ourselves are wrong. We get it in the abstract. We all know everybody in this room makes mistakes. The human species, in general, is fallible -- okay fine. But when it comes down to me, right now, to all the beliefs I hold, here in the present tense, suddenly all of this abstract appreciation of fallibility goes out the window -- and I can't actually think of anything I'm wrong about. And the thing is, the present tense is where we live. We go to meetings in the present tense; we go on family vacations in the present tense; we go to the polls and vote in the present tense. So effectively, we all kind of wind up traveling through life, trapped in this little bubble of feeling very right about everything. I think this is a problem. I think it's a problem for each of us as individuals, in our personal and professional lives, and I think it's a problem for all of us collectively as a culture. So what I want to do today is, first of all, talk about why we get stuck inside this feeling of being right. And second, why it's such a problem. And finally, I want to convince you that it is possible to step outside of that feeling and that if you can do so, it is the single greatest moral, intellectual and creative leap you can make. So why do we get stuck in this feeling of being right? One reason, actually, has to do with a feeling of being wrong. So let me ask you guys something -- or actually, let me ask you guys something, because you're right here: How does it feel -- emotionally -- how does it feel to be wrong? Dreadful. Thumbs down. Embarrassing. Okay, wonderful, great. Dreadful, thumbs down, embarrassing -- thank you, these are great answers, but they're answers to a different question. You guys are answering the question: How does it feel to realize you're wrong? (Laughter) Realizing you're wrong can feel like all of that and a lot of other things, right? I mean it can be devastating, it can be revelatory, it can actually be quite funny, like my stupid Chinese character mistake. But just being wrong doesn't feel like anything. I'll give you an analogy. Do you remember that Loony Tunes cartoon where there's this pathetic coyote who's always chasing and never catching a roadrunner? In pretty much every episode of this cartoon, there's a moment where the coyote is chasing the roadrunner and the roadrunner runs off a cliff, which is fine -- he's a bird, he can fly. But the thing is, the coyote runs off the cliff right after him. And what's funny -- at least if you're six years old -- is that the coyote's totally fine too. He just keeps running -- right up until the moment that he looks down and realizes that he's in mid-air. That's when he falls. When we're wrong about something -- not when we realize it, but before that -- we're like that coyote after he's gone off the cliff and before he looks down. You know, we're already wrong, we're already in trouble, but we feel like we're on solid ground. So I should actually correct something I said a moment ago. It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right. (Laughter) So this is one reason, a structural reason, why we get stuck inside this feeling of rightness. I call this error blindness. Most of the time, we don't have any kind of internal cue to let us know that we're wrong about something, until it's too late. But there's a second reason that we get stuck inside this feeling as well -- and this one is cultural. Think back for a moment to elementary school. You're sitting there in class, and your teacher is handing back quiz papers, and one of them looks like this. This is not mine, by the way. (Laughter) So there you are in grade school, and you know exactly what to think about the kid who got this paper. It's the dumb kid, the troublemaker, the one who never does his homework. So by the time you are nine years old, you've already learned, first of all, that people who get stuff wrong are lazy, irresponsible dimwits -- and second of all, that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes. We learn these really bad lessons really well. And a lot of us -- and I suspect, especially a lot of us in this room -- deal with them by just becoming perfect little A students, perfectionists, over-achievers. Right, Mr. CFO, astrophysicist, ultra-marathoner? (Laughter) You're all CFO, astrophysicists, ultra-marathoners, it turns out. Okay, so fine. Except that then we freak out at the possibility that we've gotten something wrong. Because according to this, getting something wrong means there's something wrong with us. So we just insist that we're right, because it makes us feel smart and responsible and virtuous and safe. So let me tell you a story. A couple of years ago, a woman comes into Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for a surgery. Beth Israel's in Boston. It's the teaching hospital for Harvard -- one of the best hospitals in the country. So this woman comes in and she's taken into the operating room. She's anesthetized, the surgeon does his thing -- stitches her back up, sends her out to the recovery room. Everything seems to have gone fine. And she wakes up, and she looks down at herself, and she says, "Why is the wrong side of my body in bandages?" Well the wrong side of her body is in bandages because the surgeon has performed a major operation on her left leg instead of her right one. When the vice president for health care quality at Beth Israel spoke about this incident, he said something very interesting. He said, "For whatever reason, the surgeon simply felt that he was on the correct side of the patient." (Laughter) The point of this story is that trusting too much in the feeling of being on the correct side of anything can be very dangerous. This internal sense of rightness that we all experience so often is not a reliable guide to what is actually going on in the external world. And when we act like it is, and we stop entertaining the possibility that we could be wrong, well that's when we end up doing things like dumping 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or torpedoing the global economy. So this is a huge practical problem. But it's also a huge social problem. Think for a moment about what it means to feel right. It means that you think that your beliefs just perfectly reflect reality. And when you feel that way, you've got a problem to solve, which is, how are you going to explain all of those people who disagree with you? It turns out, most of us explain those people the same way, by resorting to a series of unfortunate assumptions. The first thing we usually do when someone disagrees with us is we just assume they're ignorant. They don't have access to the same information that we do, and when we generously share that information with them, they're going to see the light and come on over to our team. When that doesn't work, when it turns out those people have all the same facts that we do and they still disagree with us, then we move on to a second assumption, which is that they're idiots. (Laughter) They have all the right pieces of the puzzle, and they are too moronic to put them together correctly. And when that doesn't work, when it turns out that people who disagree with us have all the same facts we do and are actually pretty smart, then we move on to a third assumption: they know the truth, and they are deliberately distorting it for their own malevolent purposes. So this is a catastrophe. This attachment to our own rightness keeps us from preventing mistakes when we absolutely need to and causes us to treat each other terribly. But to me, what's most baffling and most tragic about this is that it misses the whole point of being human. It's like we want to imagine that our minds are just these perfectly translucent windows and we just gaze out of them and describe the world as it unfolds. And we want everybody else to gaze out of the same window and see the exact same thing. That is not true, and if it were, life would be incredibly boring. The miracle of your mind isn't that you can see the world as it is. It's that you can see the world as it isn't. We can remember the past, and we can think about the future, and we can imagine what it's like to be some other person in some other place. And we all do this a little differently, which is why we can all look up at the same night sky and see this and also this and also this. And yeah, it is also why we get things wrong. 1,200 years before Descartes said his famous thing about "I think therefore I am," this guy, St. Augustine, sat down and wrote "Fallor ergo sum" -- "I err therefore I am." Augustine understood that our capacity to screw up, it's not some kind of embarrassing defect in the human system, something we can eradicate or overcome. It's totally fundamental to who we are. Because, unlike God, we don't really know what's going on out there. And unlike all of the other animals, we are obsessed with trying to figure it out. To me, this obsession is the source and root of all of our productivity and creativity. Last year, for various reasons, I found myself listening to a lot of episodes of the Public Radio show This American Life. And so I'm listening and I'm listening, and at some point, I start feeling like all the stories are about being wrong. And my first thought was, "I've lost it. I've become the crazy wrongness lady. I just imagined it everywhere," which has happened. But a couple of months later, I actually had a chance to interview Ira Glass, who's the host of the show. And I mentioned this to him, and he was like, "No actually, that's true. In fact," he says, "as a staff, we joke that every single episode of our show has the same crypto-theme. And the crypto-theme is: 'I thought this one thing was going to happen and something else happened instead.' And the thing is," says Ira Glass, "we need this. We need these moments of surprise and reversal and wrongness to make these stories work." And for the rest of us, audience members, as listeners, as readers, we eat this stuff up. We love things like plot twists and red herrings and surprise endings. When it comes to our stories, we love being wrong. But, you know, our stories are like this because our lives are like this. We think this one thing is going to happen and something else happens instead. George Bush thought he was going to invade Iraq, find a bunch of weapons of mass destruction, liberate the people and bring democracy to the Middle East. And something else happened instead. And Hosni Mubarak thought he was going to be the dictator of Egypt for the rest of his life, until he got too old or too sick and could pass the reigns of power onto his son. And something else happened instead. And maybe you thought you were going to grow up and marry your high school sweetheart and move back to your hometown and raise a bunch of kids together. And something else happened instead. And I have to tell you that I thought I was writing an incredibly nerdy book about a subject everybody hates for an audience that would never materialize. And something else happened instead. (Laughter) I mean, this is life. For good and for ill, we generate these incredible stories about the world around us, and then the world turns around and astonishes us. No offense, but this entire conference is an unbelievable monument to our capacity to get stuff wrong. We just spent an entire week talking about innovations and advancements and improvements, but you know why we need all of those innovations and advancements and improvements? Because half the stuff that's the most mind-boggling and world-altering -- TED 1998 -- eh. (Laughter) Didn't really work out that way, did it? (Laughter) Where's my jet pack, Chris? (Laughter) (Applause) So here we are again. And that's how it goes. We come up with another idea. We tell another story. We hold another conference. The theme of this one, as you guys have now heard seven million times, is the rediscovery of wonder. And to me, if you really want to rediscover wonder, you need to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness and look around at each other and look out at the vastness and complexity and mystery of the universe and be able to say, "Wow, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong." Thank you. (Applause) Thank you guys. (Applause)
We're 25, 26 years after the advent of the Macintosh, which was an astoundingly seminal event in the history of human-machine interface and in computation in general. It fundamentally changed the way that people thought about computation, thought about computers, how they used them and who and how many people were able to use them. It was such a radical change, in fact, that the early Macintosh development team in '82, '83, '84 had to write an entirely new operating system from the ground up. Now, this is an interesting little message, and it's a lesson that has since, I think, been forgotten or lost or something, and that is, namely, that the OS is the interface. The interface is the OS. It's like the land and the king (i.e. Arthur) they're inseparable, they are one. And to write a new operating system was not a capricious matter. It wasn't just a matter of tuning up some graphics routines. There were no graphics routines. There were no mouse drivers. So it was a necessity. But in the quarter-century since then, we've seen all of the fundamental supporting technologies go berserk. So memory capacity and disk capacity have been multiplied by something between 10,000 and a million. Same thing for processor speeds. Networks, we didn't have networks at all at the time of the Macintosh's introduction, and that has become the single most salient aspect of how we live with computers. And, of course, graphics: Today 84 dollars and 97 cents at Best Buy buys you more graphics power than you could have gotten for a million bucks from SGI only a decade ago. So we've got that incredible ramp-up. Then, on the side, we've got the Web and, increasingly, the cloud, which is fantastic, but also -- in the regard in which an interface is fundamental -- kind of a distraction. So we've forgotten to invent new interfaces. Certainly we've seen in recent years a lot of change in that regard, and people are starting to wake up about that. So what happens next? Where do we go from there? The problem, as we see it, has to do with a single, simple word: "space," or a single, simple phrase: "real world geometry." Computers and the programming languages that we talk to them in, that we teach them in, are hideously insensate when it comes to space. They don't understand real world space. It's a funny thing because the rest of us occupy it quite frequently and quite well. They also don't understand time, but that's a matter for a separate talk. So what happens if you start to explain space to them? One thing you might get is something like the Luminous Room. The Luminous Room is a system in which it's considered that input and output spaces are co-located. That's a strangely simple, and yet unexplored idea, right? When you use a mouse, your hand is down here on the mouse pad. It's not even on the same plane as what you're talking about: The pixels are up on the display. So here was a room in which all the walls, floors, ceilings, pets, potted plants, whatever was in there, were capable, not only of display but of sensing as well. And that means input and output are in the same space enabling stuff like this. That's a digital storage in a physical container. The contract is the same as with real word objects in real world containers. Has to come back out, whatever you put in. This little design experiment that was a small office here knew a few other tricks as well. If you presented it with a chess board, it tried to figure out what you might mean by that. And if there was nothing for them to do, the chess pieces eventually got bored and hopped away. The academics who were overseeing this work thought that that was too frivolous, so we built deadly serious applications like this optics prototyping workbench in which a toothpaste cap on a cardboard box becomes a laser. The beam splitters and lenses are represented by physical objects, and the system projects down the laser beam path. So you've got an interface that has no interface. You operate the world as you operate the real world, which is to say, with your hands. Similarly, a digital wind tunnel with digital wind flowing from right to left -- not that remarkable in a sense; we didn't invent the mathematics. But if you displayed that on a CRT or flat panel display, it would be meaningless to hold up an arbitrary object, a real world object in that. Here, the real world merges with the simulation. And finally, to pull out all the stops, this is a system called Urp, for urban planners, in which we give architects and urban planners back the models that we confiscated when we insisted that they use CAD systems. And we make the machine meet them half way. It projects down digital shadows, as you see here. And if you introduce tools like this inverse clock, then you can control the sun's position in the sky. That's 8 a.m. shadows. They get a little shorter at 9 a.m. There you are, swinging the sun around. Short shadows at noon and so forth. And we built up a series of tools like this. There are inter-shadowing studies that children can operate, even though they don't know anything about urban planning: To move a building, you simply reach out your hand and you move the building. A material wand makes the building into a sort of Frank Gehry thing that reflects light in all directions. Are you blinding passers by and motorists on the freeways? A zoning tool connects distant structures, a building and a roadway. Are you going to get sued by the zoning commission? And so forth. Now, if these ideas seem familiar or perhaps even a little dated, that's great; they should seem familiar. This work is 15 years old. This stuff was undertaken at MIT and the Media Lab under the incredible direction of Professor Hiroshi Ishii, director of the Tangible Media Group. But it was that work that was seen by Alex McDowell, one of the world's legendary production designers. But Alex was preparing a little, sort of obscure, indie, arthouse film called "Minority Report" for Steven Spielberg, and invited us to come out from MIT and design the interfaces that would appear in that film. And the great thing about it was that Alex was so dedicated to the idea of verisimilitude, the idea that the putative 2054 that we were painting in the film be believable, that he allowed us to take on that design work as if it were an R&D effort. And the result is sort of gratifyingly perpetual. People still reference those sequences in "Minority Report" when they talk about new UI design. So this led full circle, in a strange way, to build these ideas into what we believe is the necessary future of human machine interface: the Spatial Operating Environment, we call it. So here we have a bunch of stuff, some images. And, using a hand, we can actually exercise six degrees of freedom, six degrees of navigational control. And it's fun to fly through Mr. Beckett's eye. And you can come back out through the scary orangutan. And that's all well and good. Let's do something a little more difficult. Here, we have a whole bunch of disparate images. We can fly around them. So navigation is a fundamental issue. You have to be able to navigate in 3D. Much of what we want computers to help us with in the first place is inherently spatial. And the part that isn't spatial can often be spatialized to allow our wetware to make greater sense of it. Now we can distribute this stuff in many different ways. So we can throw it out like that. Let's reset it. We can organize it this way. And, of course, it's not just about navigation, but about manipulation as well. So if we don't like stuff, or we're intensely curious about Ernst Haeckel's scientific falsifications, we can pull them out like that. And then if it's time for analysis, we can pull back a little bit and ask for a different distribution. Let's just come down a bit and fly around. So that's a different way to look at stuff. If you're of a more analytical nature then you might want, actually, to look at this as a color histogram. So now we've got the stuff color-sorted, angle maps onto color. And now, if we want to select stuff, 3D, space, the idea that we're tracking hands in real space becomes really important because we can reach in, not in 2D, not in fake 2D, but in actual 3D. Here are some selection planes. And we'll perform this Boolean operation because we really love yellow and tapirs on green grass. So, from there to the world of real work. Here's a logistics system, a small piece of one that we're currently building. There're a lot of elements. And one thing that's very important is to combine traditional tabular data with three-dimensional and geospatial information. So here's a familiar place. And we'll bring this back here for a second. Maybe select a little bit of that. And bring out this graph. And we should, now, be able to fly in here and have a closer look. These are logistics elements that are scattered across the United States. One thing that three-dimensional interactions and the general idea of imbuing computation with space affords you is a final destruction of that unfortunate one-to-one pairing between human beings and computers. That's the old way, that's the old mantra: one machine, one human, one mouse, one screen. Well, that doesn't really cut it anymore. In the real world, we have people who collaborate; we have people who have to work together, and we have many different displays. And we might want to look at these various images. We might want to ask for some help. The author of this new pointing device is sitting over there, so I can pull this from there to there. These are unrelated machines, right? So the computation is space soluble and network soluble. So I'm going to leave that over there because I have a question for Paul. Paul is the designer of this wand, and maybe its easiest for him to come over here and tell me in person what's going on. So let me get some of these out of the way. Let's pull this apart: I'll go ahead and explode it. Kevin, can you help? Let me see if I can help us find the circuit board. Mind you, it's a sort of gratuitous field-stripping exercise, but we do it in the lab all the time. All right. So collaborative work, whether it's immediately co-located or distant and distinct, is always important. And again, that stuff needs to be undertaken in the context of space. And finally, I'd like to leave you with a glimpse that takes us back to the world of imagery. This is a system called TAMPER, which is a slightly whimsical look at what the future of editing and media manipulation systems might be. We at Oblong believe that media should be accessible in much more fine-grained form. So we have a large number of movies stuck inside here. And let's just pick out a few elements. We can zip through them as a possibility. We can grab elements off the front, where upon they reanimate, come to life, and drag them down onto the table here. We'll go over to Jacques Tati here and grab our blue friend and put him down on the table as well. We may need more than one. And we probably need, well, we probably need a cowboy to be quite honest. (Laughter) Yeah, let's take that one. (Laughter) You see, cowboys and French farce people don't go well together, and the system knows that. Let me leave with one final thought, and that is that one of the greatest English language writers of the last three decades suggested that great art is always a gift. And he wasn't talking about whether the novel costs 24.95 [dollars], or whether you have to spring 70 million bucks to buy the stolen Vermeer; he was talking about the circumstances of its creation and of its existence. And I think that it's time that we asked for the same from technology. Technology is capable of expressing and being imbued with a certain generosity, and we need to demand that, in fact. For some of this kind of technology, ground center is a combination of design, which is crucially important. We can't have advances in technology any longer unless design is integrated from the very start. And, as well, as of efficacy, agency. We're, as human beings, the creatures that create, and we should make sure that our machines aid us in that task and are built in that same image. So I will leave you with that. Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: So to ask the obvious question -- actually this is from Bill Gates -- when? (John Underkoffler: When?) CA: When real? When for us, not just in a lab and on a stage? Can it be for every man, or is this just for corporations and movie producers? JU: No, it has to be for every human being. That's our goal entirely. We won't have succeeded unless we take that next big step. I mean it's been 25 years. Can there really be only one interface? There can't. CA: But does that mean that, at your desk or in your home, you need projectors, cameras? You know, how can it work? JU: No, this stuff will be built into the bezel of every display. It'll be built into architecture. The gloves go away in a matter of months or years. So this is the inevitability about it. CA: So, in your mind, five years time, someone can buy this as part of a standard computer interface? JU: I think in five years time when you buy a computer, you'll get this. CA: Well that's cool. (Applause) The world has a habit of surprising us as to how these things are actually used. What do you think, what in your mind is the first killer app for this? JU: That's a good question, and we ask ourselves that every day. At the moment, our early-adopter customers -- and these systems are deployed out in the real world -- do all the big data intensive, data heavy problems with it. So, whether it's logistics and supply chain management or natural gas and resource extraction, financial services, pharmaceuticals, bioinformatics, those are the topics right now, but that's not a killer app. And I understand what you're asking. CA: C'mon, c'mon. Martial arts, games. C'mon. (Laughter) John, thank you for making science-fiction real. JU: It's been a great pleasure. Thank you to you all. (Applause)
As a matter of fact, I was trying to think about my career since I left the White House, and the best example I have is a cartoon in The New Yorker a couple of years ago. This little boy is looking up at his father, and he says, "Daddy, when I grow up, I want to be a former president." (Laughter) Well, I have had a great blessing as a former president, because I have had an access that very few other people in the world have ever had to get to know so many people around this whole universe. Not only am I familiar with the 50 states in the United States, but also my wife and I have visited more than 145 countries in the world, and the Carter Center has had full-time programs in 80 nations on Earth. And a lot of times, when we go into a country, we not only the meet the king or the president, but we also meet the villagers who live in the most remote areas of Africa. So our overall commitment at the Carter Center is to promote human rights, and knowing the world as I do, I can tell you without any equivocation that the number one abuse of human rights on Earth is, strangely, not addressed quite often, is the abuse of women and girls. (Applause) There are a couple of reasons for this that I'll mention to begin with. First of all is the misinterpretation of religious scriptures, holy scriptures, in the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran and so forth, and these have been misinterpreted by men who are now in the ascendant positions in the synagogues and the churches and in the mosques. And they interpret these rules to make sure that women are ordinarily relegated to a secondary position compared to men in the eyes of God. This is a very serious problem. It's ordinarily not addressed. A number of years ago, in the year 2000, I had been a Baptist, a Southern Baptist for 70 years -- I tell you, I still teach Sunday school every Sunday; I'll be teaching this Sunday as well -- but the Southern Baptist Convention in the year 2000 decided that women should play a secondary position, a subservient position to men. So they issued an edict, in effect, that prevents women from being priests, pastors, deacons in the church, or chaplains in the military, and if a woman teaches a classroom in a Southern Baptist seminary, they cannot teach if a boy is in the room, because you can find verses in the Bible, there's over 30,000 verses in the Bible, that say that a woman shouldn't teach a man, and so forth. But the basic thing is the scriptures are misinterpreted to keep men in an ascendant position. That is an all-pervasive problem, because men can exert that power and if an abusive husband or an employer, for instance, wants to cheat women, they can say that if women are not equal in the eyes of God, why should I treat them as equals myself? Why should I pay them equal pay for doing the same kind of work? The other very serious blight that causes this problem is the excessive resort to violence, and that is increasing tremendously around the world. In the United States of America, for instance, we have had an enormous increase in abuse of poor people, mostly black people and minorities, by putting them in prison. When I was in office as governor of Georgia, one out of every 1,000 Americans were in prison. Nowadays, 7.3 people per 1,000 are in prison. That's a sevenfold increase. And since I left the White House, there's been an 800 percent increase in the number of women who are black who are in prison. We also have [one of the only countries] on Earth that still has the death penalty that is a developed country. And we rank right alongside the countries that are most abusive in all elements of human rights in encouraging the death penalty. We're in California now, and I figured out the other day that California has spent four billion dollars in convicting 13 people for the death penalty. If you add that up, that's 307 million dollars it costs California to send a person to be executed. Nebraska this week just passed a law abolishing the death penalty, because it costs so much. (Applause) So the resort to violence and abuse of poor people and helpless people is another cause of the increase in abuse of women. Let me just go down a very few abuses of women that concern me most, and I'll be fairly brief, because I have a limited amount of time, as you know. One is genital mutilation. Genital mutilation is horrible and not known by American women, but in some countries, many countries, when a child is born that's a girl, very soon in her life, her genitals are completely cut away by a so-called cutter who has a razor blade and, in a non-sterilized way, they remove the exterior parts of a woman's genitalia. And sometimes, in more extreme cases but not very rare cases, they sew the orifice up so the girl can just urinate or menstruate. And then later, when she gets married, the same cutter goes in and opens the orifice up so she can have sex. This is not a rare thing, although it's against the law in most countries. In Egypt, for instance, 91 percent of all the females that live in Egypt today have been sexually mutilated in that way. In some countries, it's more than 98 percent of the women are cut that way before they reach maturity. This is a horrible affliction on all women that live in those countries. Another very serious thing is honor killings, where a family with misinterpretation, again, of a holy scripture -- there's nothing in the Quran that mandates this -- will execute a girl in their family if she is raped or if she marries a man that her father does not approve, or sometimes even if she wears inappropriate clothing. And this is done by members of her own family, so the family becomes murderers when the girl brings so-called disgrace to the family. An analysis was done in Egypt not so long ago by the United Nations and it showed that 75 percent of these murders of a girl are perpetrated by the father, the uncle or the brother, but 25 percent of the murders are conducted by women. Another problem that we have in the world that relates to women particularly is slavery, or human trafficking it's called nowadays. There were about 12.5 million people sold from Africa into slavery in the New World back in the 19th century and the 18th century. There are 30 million people now living in slavery. The United States Department of State now has a mandate from Congress to give a report every year, and the State Department reports that 800,000 people are sold across international borders every year into slavery, and that 80 percent of those sold are women, into sexual slavery. In the United States right this moment, 60,000 people are living in human bondage, or slavery. Atlanta, Georgia, where the Carter Center is located and where I teach at Emory University, they have between 200 and 300 women, people sold into slavery every month. It's the number one place in the nation because of that. Atlanta has the busiest airport in the world, and they also have a lot of passengers that come from the Southern Hemisphere. If a brothel owner wants to buy a girl that has brown or black skin, they can do it for 1,000 dollars. A white-skinned girl brings several times more than that, and the average brothel owner in Atlanta and in the United States now can earn about $35,000 per slave. The sex trade in Atlanta, Georgia, exceeds the total drug trade in Atlanta, Georgia. So this is another very serious problem, and the basic problem is prostitution, because there's not a whorehouse in America that's not known by the local officials, the local policemen, or the chief of police or the mayor and so forth. And this leads to one of the worst problems, and that is that women are bought increasingly and put into sexual slavery in all countries in the world. Sweden has got a good approach to it. About 15 to 20 years ago, Sweden decided to change the law, and women are no longer prosecuted if they are in sexual slavery, but the brothel owners and the pimps and the male customers are prosecuted, and -- (Applause) -- prostitution has gone down. In the United States, we take just the opposite position. For every male arrested for illegal sex trade, 25 women are arrested in the United States of America. Canada, Ireland, I've already said Sweden, France, and other countries are moving now towards this so-called Swedish model. That's another thing that can be done. We have two great institutions in this country that all of us admire: our military and our great university system. In the military, they are now analyzing how many sexual assaults take place. The last report I got, there were 26,000 sexual assaults that took place in the military -- 26,000. Only 3,000, not much more than 1 percent, are actually prosecuted, and the reason is that the commanding officer of any organization -- a ship like my submarine, or a battalion in the Army or a company in the Marines -- the commanding officer has the right under law to decide whether to prosecute a rapist or not, and of course, the last thing they want is for anybody to know that under their command, sexual assaults are taking place, so they do not do it. That law needs to be changed. About one out of four girls who enter American universities will be sexually assaulted before she graduates, and this is now getting a lot of publicity, partially because of my book, but other things, and so 89 universities in America are now condemned by the Department of Education under Title IX because the officials of the universities are not taking care of the women to protect them from sexual assault. The Department of Justice says that more than half of the rapes on a college campus take place by serial rapists, because outside of the university system, if they rape somebody, they'll be prosecuted, but when they get on a university campus, they can rape with impunity. They're not prosecuted. Those are the kinds of things that go on in our society. Another thing that's very serious about the abuse of women and girls is the lack of equal pay for equal work, as you know. (Applause) And this is sometimes misinterpreted, but for full-time employment, a woman in the United States now gets 23 percent less than a man. When I became president, the difference was 39 percent. So we've made some progress, partially because I was president and so forth -- (Applause) (Laughter) -- but in the last 15 years, there's been no progress made, so it's been just about 23 or 24 percent difference for the last 15 years. These are the kind of things that go on. If you take the Fortune 500 companies, 23 of them have women CEOs, out of 500, and those CEOs, I need not tell you, make less on an average than the other CEOs. Well, that's what goes on in our country. Another problem with the United States is we are the most warlike nation on Earth. We have been to war with about 25 different countries since the Second World War. Sometimes, we've had soldiers on the ground fighting. The other times, we've been flying overhead dropping bombs on people. Other times, of course, now, we have drones that attack people and so forth. We've been at war with 25 different countries or more since the Second World War. There was four years, I won't say which ones, where we didn't -- (Applause) -- we didn't drop a bomb, we didn't launch a missile, we didn't fire a bullet. But anyway, those kinds of things, the resort to violence and the misinterpretation of the holy scriptures are what causes, are the basic causes, of abuse of women and girls. There's one more basic cause that I need not mention, and that is that in general, men don't give a damn. (Applause) That's true. The average man that might say, I'm against the abuse of women and girls quietly accepts the privileged position that we occupy, and this is very similar to what I knew when I was a child, when separate but equal had existed. Racial discrimination, legally, had existed for 100 years, from 1865 at the end of the War Between the States, the Civil War, all the way up to the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson got the bills passed for equal rights. But during that time, there were many white people that didn't think that racial discrimination was okay, but they stayed quiet, because they enjoyed the privileges of better jobs, unique access to jury duty, better schools, and everything else, and that's the same thing that exists today, because the average man really doesn't care. Even though they say, "I'm against discrimination against girls and women," they enjoy a privileged position. And it's very difficult to get the majority of men who control the university system, the majority of men that control the military system, the majority of men that control the governments of the world, and the majority of men that control the great religions. So what is the basic thing that we need to do today? I would say the best thing that we could do today is for the women in the powerful nations like this one, and where you come from, Europe and so forth, who have influence and who have freedom to speak and to act, need to take the responsibility on yourselves to be more forceful in demanding an end to racial discrimination against girls and women all over the world. The average woman in Egypt doesn't have much to say about her daughters getting genitally mutilated and so forth. I didn't even go down to detail about that. But I hope that out of this conference, that every woman here will get your husbands to realize that these abuses on the college campuses and the military and so forth and in the future job market, need to protect your daughters and your granddaughters. I have 12 grandchildren, four children, and 10 great-grandchildren, and I think often about them and about the plight that they will face in America, not only if they lived in Egypt or a foreign country, in having equal rights, and I hope that all of you will join me in being a champion for women and girls around the world and protect their human rights. Thank you very much. (Applause)
I'm just going to play a brief video clip. Video: On the fifth of December 1985, a bottle of 1787 Lafitte was sold for 105,000 pounds -- nine times the previous world record. The buyer was Kip Forbes, son of one of the most flamboyant millionaires of the 20th century. The original owner of the bottle turned out to be one of the most enthusiastic wine buffs of the 18th century. Château Lafitte is one of the greatest wines in the world, the prince of any wine cellar. Benjamin Wallace: Now, that's about all the videotape that remains of an event that set off the longest-running mystery in the modern wine world. And the mystery existed because of a gentleman named Hardy Rodenstock. In 1985, he announced to his friends in the wine world that he had made this incredible discovery. Some workmen in Paris had broken through a brick wall, and happened upon this hidden cache of wines -- apparently the property of Thomas Jefferson. 1787, 1784. He wouldn't reveal the exact number of bottles, he would not reveal exactly where the building was and he would not reveal exactly who owned the building. The mystery persisted for about 20 years. It finally began to get resolved in 2005 because of this guy. Bill Koch is a Florida billionaire who owns four of the Jefferson bottles, and he became suspicious. And he ended up spending over a million dollars and hiring ex-FBI and ex-Scotland Yard agents to try to get to the bottom of this. There's now ample evidence that Hardy Rodenstock is a con man, and that the Jefferson bottles were fakes. But for those 20 years, an unbelievable number of really eminent and accomplished figures in the wine world were sort of drawn into the orbit of these bottles. I think they wanted to believe that the most expensive bottle of wine in the world must be the best bottle of wine in the world, must be the rarest bottle of wine in the world. I became increasingly, kind of voyeuristically interested in the question of you know, why do people spend these crazy amounts of money, not only on wine but on lots of things, and are they living a better life than me? So, I decided to embark on a quest. With the generous backing of a magazine I write for sometimes, I decided to sample the very best, or most expensive, or most coveted item in about a dozen categories, which was a very grueling quest, as you can imagine. (Laughter) This was the first one. A lot of the Kobe beef that you see in the U.S. is not the real thing. It may come from Wagyu cattle, but it's not from the original, Appalachian Hyogo Prefecture in Japan. There are very few places in the U.S. where you can try real Kobe, and one of them is Wolfgang Puck's restaurant, Cut, in Los Angeles. I went there, and I ordered the eight-ounce rib eye for 160 dollars. And it arrived, and it was tiny. And I was outraged. It was like, 160 dollars for this? And then I took a bite, and I wished that it was tinier, because Kobe beef is so rich. It's like foie gras -- it's not even like steak. I almost couldn't finish it. I was really happy when I was done. (Laughter) Now, the photographer who took the pictures for this project for some reason posed his dog in a lot of them, so that's why you're going to see this recurring character. Which, I guess, you know, communicates to you that I did not think that one was really worth the price. White truffles. One of the most expensive luxury foods by weight in the world. To try this, I went to a Mario Batali restaurant in Manhattan -- Del Posto. The waiter, you know, came out with the white truffle knob and his shaver, and he shaved it onto my pasta and he said, you know, "Would Signore like the truffles?" And the charm of white truffles is in their aroma. It's not in their taste, really. It's not in their texture. It's in the smell. These white pearlescent flakes hit the noodles, this haunting, wonderful, nutty, mushroomy smell wafted up. 10 seconds passed and it was gone. And then I was left with these little ugly flakes on my pasta that, you know, their purpose had been served, and so I'm afraid to say that this was also a disappointment to me. There were several -- several of these items were disappointments. (Laughter) Yeah. The magazine wouldn't pay for me to go there. (Laughter) They did give me a tour, though. And this hotel suite is 4,300 square feet. It has 360-degree views. It has four balconies. It was designed by the architect I.M. Pei. It comes with its own Rolls Royce and driver. It comes with its own wine cellar that you can draw freely from. When I took the tour, it actually included some Opus One, I was glad to see. 30,000 dollars for a night in a hotel. This is soap that's made from silver nanoparticles, which have antibacterial properties. I washed my face with this this morning in preparation for this. And it, you know, tickled a little bit and it smelled good, but I have to say that nobody here has complimented me on the cleanliness of my face today. (Laughter) But then again, nobody has complimented me on the jeans I'm wearing. These ones GQ did spring for -- I own these -- but I will tell you, not only did I not get a compliment from any of you, I have not gotten a compliment from anybody in the months that I have owned and worn these. I don't think that whether or not you're getting a compliment should be the test of something's value, but I think in the case of a fashion item, an article of clothing, that's a reasonable benchmark. That said, a lot of work goes into these. They are made from handpicked organic Zimbabwean cotton that has been shuttle loomed and then hand-dipped in natural indigo 24 times. But no compliments. (Laughter) Thank you. Armando Manni is a former filmmaker who makes this olive oil from an olive that grows on a single slope in Tuscany. And he goes to great lengths to protect the olive oil from oxygen and light. He uses tiny bottles, the glass is tinted, he tops the olive oil off with an inert gas. And he actually -- once he releases a batch of it, he regularly conducts molecular analyses and posts the results online, so you can go online and look at your batch number and see how the phenolics are developing, and, you know, gauge its freshness. I did a blind taste test of this with 20 people and five other olive oils. It tasted fine. It tasted interesting. It was very green, it was very peppery. But in the blind taste test, it came in last. The olive oil that came in first was actually a bottle of Whole Foods 365 olive oil which had been oxidizing next to my stove for six months. (Laughter) A recurring theme is that a lot of these things are from Japan -- you'll start to notice. I don't play golf, so I couldn't actually road test these, but I did interview a guy who owns them. Even the people who market these clubs -- I mean, they'll say these have four axis shafts which minimize loss of club speed and thereby drive the ball farther -- but they'll say, look, you know, you're not getting 57,000 dollars worth of performance from these clubs. You're paying for the bling, that they're encrusted with gold and platinum. The guy who I interviewed who owns them did say that he's gotten a lot of pleasure out of them, so ... Oh, yeah, you know this one? This is a coffee made from a very unusual process. The luwak is an Asian Palm Civet. It's a cat that lives in trees, and at night it comes down and it prowls the coffee plantations. And apparently it's a very picky eater and it, you know, hones in on only the ripest coffee cherries. And then an enzyme in its digestive tract leeches into the beans, and people with the unenviable job of collecting these cats' leavings then go through the forest collecting the, you know, results and processing it into coffee -- although you actually can buy it in the unprocessed form. That's right. Unrelatedly -- (Laughter) Japan is doing crazy things with toilets. (Laughter) There is now a toilet that has an MP3 player in it. There's one with a fragrance dispenser. There's one that actually analyzes the contents of the bowl and transmits the results via email to your doctor. It's almost like a home medical center -- and that is the direction that Japanese toilet technology is heading in. This one does not have those bells and whistles, but for pure functionality it's pretty much the best -- the Neorest 600. And to try this -- I couldn't get a loaner, but I did go into the Manhattan showroom of the manufacturer, Toto, and they have a bathroom off of the showroom that you can use, which I used. It's fully automated -- you walk towards it, and the seat lifts. The seat is preheated. There's a water jet that cleans you. There's an air jet that dries you. You get up, it flushes by itself. The lid closes, it self-cleans. Not only is it a technological leap forward, but I really do believe it's a bit of a cultural leap forward. I mean, a no hands, no toilet paper toilet. And I want to get one of these. (Laughter) This was another one I could not get a loaner of. Tom Cruise supposedly owns this bed. There's a little plaque on the end that, you know, each buyer gets their name engraved on it. (Laughter) To try this one, the maker of it let me and my wife spend the night in the Manhattan showroom. Lights glaring in off the street, and we had to hire a security guard and all these things. But anyway, we had a great night's sleep. And you spend a third of your life in bed. I don't think it's that bad of a deal. (Laughter) This was a fun one. This is the fastest street-legal car in the world and the most expensive production car. I got to drive this with a chaperone from the company, a professional race car driver, and we drove around the canyons outside of Los Angeles and down on the Pacific Coast Highway. And, you know, when we pulled up to a stoplight the people in the adjacent cars kind of gave us respectful nods. And it was really amazing. It was such a smooth ride. Most of the cars that I drive, if I get up to 80 they start to rattle. I switched lanes on the highway and the driver, this chaperone, said, "You know, you were just going 110 miles an hour." And I had no idea that I was one of those obnoxious people you occasionally see weaving in and out of traffic, because it was just that smooth. And if I was a billionaire, I would get one. (Laughter) This is a completely gratuitous video I'm just going to show of one of the pitfalls of advanced technology. This is Tom Cruise arriving at the "Mission: Impossible III" premiere. When he tries to open the door, you could call it "Mission: Impossible IV." There was one object that I could not get my hands on, and that was the 1947 Cheval Blanc. The '47 Cheval Blanc is probably the most mythologized wine of the 20th century. And Cheval Blanc is kind of an unusual wine for Bordeaux in having a significant percentage of the Cabernet Franc grape. And 1947 was a legendary vintage, especially in the right bank of Bordeaux. And just together, that vintage and that chateau took on this aura that eventually kind of gave it this cultish following. But it's 60 years old. There's not much of it left. What there is of it left you don't know if it's real -- it's considered to be the most faked wine in the world. Not that many people are looking to pop open their one remaining bottle for a journalist. So, I'd about given up trying to get my hands on one of these. I'd put out feelers to retailers, to auctioneers, and it was coming up empty. And then I got an email from a guy named Bipin Desai. Bipin Desai is a U.C. Riverside theoretical physicist who also happens to be the preeminent organizer of rare wine tastings, and he said, "I've got a tasting coming up where we're going to serve the '47 Cheval Blanc." And it was going to be a double vertical -- it was going to be 30 vintages of Cheval Blanc, and 30 vintages of Yquem. And it was an invitation you do not refuse. I went. It was three days, four meals. And at lunch on Saturday, we opened the '47. And you know, it had this fragrant softness, and it smelled a little bit of linseed oil. And then I tasted it, and it, you know, had this kind of unctuous, porty richness, which is characteristic of that wine -- that it sort of resembles port in a lot of ways. There were people at my table who thought it was, you know, fantastic. There were some people who were a little less impressed. And I wasn't that impressed. And I don't -- call my palate a philistine palate -- so it doesn't necessarily mean something that I wasn't impressed, but I was not the only one there who had that reaction. And it wasn't just to that wine. Any one of the wines served at this tasting, if I'd been served it at a dinner party, it would have been, you know, the wine experience of my lifetime, and incredibly memorable. But drinking 60 great wines over three days, they all just blurred together, and it became almost a grueling experience. And I just wanted to finish by mentioning a very interesting study which came out earlier this year from some researchers at Stanford and Caltech. And they gave subjects the same wine, labeled with different price tags. A lot of people, you know, said that they liked the more expensive wine more -- it was the same wine, but they thought it was a different one that was more expensive. But what was unexpected was that these researchers did MRI brain imaging while the people were drinking the wine, and not only did they say they enjoyed the more expensively labeled wine more -- their brain actually registered as experiencing more pleasure from the same wine when it was labeled with a higher price tag. Thank you.
Now when we think of our senses, we don't usually think of the reasons why they probably evolved, from a biological perspective. We don't really think of the evolutionary need to be protected by our senses, but that's probably why our senses really evolved -- to keep us safe, to allow us to live. Really when we think of our senses, or when we think of the loss of the sense, we really think about something more like this: the ability to touch something luxurious, to taste something delicious, to smell something fragrant, to see something beautiful. This is what we want out of our senses. We want beauty; we don't just want function. And when it comes to sensory restoration, we're still very far away from being able to provide beauty. And that's what I'd like to talk to you a little bit about today. Likewise for hearing. When we think about why we hear, we don't often think about the ability to hear an alarm or a siren, although clearly that's an important thing. Really what we want to hear is music. (Music) So many of you know that that's Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. Many of you know that he was deaf, or near profoundly deaf, when he wrote that. Now I'd like to impress upon you how unusual it is that we can hear music. Music is just one of the strangest things that there is. It's acoustic vibrations in the air, little waves of energy in the air that tickle our eardrum. Somehow in tickling our eardrum that transmits energy down our hearing bones, which get converted to a fluid impulse inside the cochlea and then somehow converted into an electrical signal in our auditory nerves that somehow wind up in our brains as a perception of a song or a beautiful piece of music. That process is entirely abstract and very, very unusual. And we could discuss that topic alone for days to really try to figure out, how is it that we hear something that's emotional from something that starts out as a vibration in the air? Turns out that if you have hearing loss, most people that lose their hearing lose it at what's called the cochlea, the inner ear. And it's at the hair cell level that they do this. Now if you had to pick a sense to lose, I have to be very honest with you and say, we're better at restoring hearing than we are at restoring any sense that there is. In fact, nothing even actually comes close to our ability to restore hearing. And as a physician and a surgeon, I can confidently tell my patients that if you had to pick a sense to lose, we are the furthest along medically and surgically with hearing. As a musician, I can tell you that if I had to have a cochlear implant, I'd be heartbroken. I'd just be plainly heartbroken, because I know that music would never sound the same to me. Now this is a video that I'm going to show you of a girl who's born deaf. She's in a very supportive environment. Her mother's doing everything she can. Okay, play that video please. (Video) Mother: That's an owl. Owl, yeah. Owl. Owl. Yeah. Baby. Baby. You want it? (Kiss) Charles Limb: Now despite everything going for this child in terms of family support and simple infused learning, there is a limitation to what a child who's deaf, an infant who was born deaf, has in this world in terms of social, educational, vocational opportunities. I'm not saying that they can't live a beautiful, wonderful life. I'm saying that they're going to face obstacles that most people who have normal hearing will not have to face. Now hearing loss and the treatment for hearing loss has really evolved in the past 200 years. I mean literally, they used to do things like stick ear-shaped objects onto your ears and stick funnels in. And that was the best you could do for hearing loss. Back then you couldn't even look at the eardrum. So it's not too surprising that there were no good treatments for hearing loss. And now today we have the modern multi-channel cochlear implant, which is an outpatient procedure. It's surgically placed inside the inner ear. It takes about an hour and a half to two hours, depending on where it's done, under general anesthesia. And in the end, you achieve something like this where an electrode array is inserted inside the cochlea. Now actually, this is quite crude in comparison to our regular inner ear. But here is that same girl who is implanted now. This is her 10 years later. And this is a video that was taken by my surgical mentor, Dr. John Niparko, who implanted her. If we could play this video please. (Video) John Niparko: So you've written two books? Girl: I have written two books. (Mother: Was the other one a book or a journal entry?) Girl: No, the other one was a book. (Mother: Oh, okay.) JN: Well this book has seven chapters, and the last chapter is entitled "The Good Things About Being Deaf." Do you remember writing that chapter? Girl: Yes I do. I remember writing every chapter. JN: Yeah. Girl: Well sometimes my sister can be kind of annoying. So it comes in handy to not be annoyed by her. JN: I see. And who is that? Girl: Holly. (JN: Okay.) Mother: Her sister. (JN: Her sister.) Girl: My sister. JN: And how can you avoid being annoyed by her? Girl: I just take off my CI, and I don't hear anything. (Laughter) It comes in handy. JN: So you don't want to hear everything that's out there? Girl: No. CL: And so she's phenomenal. And there's no way that you can't look at that as an overwhelming success. It is. It's a huge success story in modern medicine. However, despite this incredible facility that some cochlear implant users display with language, you turn on the radio and all of a sudden they can't hear music almost at all. In fact, most implant users really struggle and dislike music because it sounds so bad. And so when it comes to this idea of restoring beauty to somebody's life, we have a long way to go when it comes to audition. Now there are a lot of reasons for that. I mentioned earlier the fact that music is a different capacity because it's abstract. Language is very different. Language is very precise. In fact, the whole reason we use it is because it has semantic-specificity. When you say a word, what you care is that word was perceived correctly. You don't care that the word sounded pretty when it was spoken. Music is entirely different. When you hear music, if it doesn't sound good, what's the point? There's really very little point in listening to music when it doesn't sound good to you. The acoustics of music are much harder than those of language. And you can see on this figure, that the frequency range and the decibel range, the dynamic range of music is far more heterogeneous. So if we had to design a perfect cochlear implant, what we would try to do is target it to be able to allow music transmission. Because I always view music as the pinnacle of hearing. If you can hear music, you should be able to hear anything. Now the problems begin first with pitch perception. I mean, most of us know that pitch is a fundamental building block of music. And without the ability to perceive pitch well, music and melody is a very difficult thing to do -- forget about a harmony and things like that. Now this is a MIDI arrangement of Rachmaninoff's Prelude. Now if we could just play this. (Music) Okay, now if we consider that in a cochlear implant patient pitch perception could be off as much as two octaves, let's see what happens here when we randomize this to within one semitone. We would be thrilled if we had one semitone pitch perception in cochlear implant users. Go ahead and play this one. (Music) Now my goal in showing you that is to show you that music is not robust to degradation. You distort it a little bit, especially in terms of pitch, and you've changed it. And it might be that you kind of like that. That's kind of hypnotic. But it certainly wasn't the way the music was intended. And you're not hearing the same thing that most people who have normal hearing are hearing. Now the other issue comes with, not just the ability to tell pitches apart, but the ability to tell sounds apart. Most cochlear implant users cannot tell the difference between an instrument. If we could play these two sound clips in succession. (Trumpet) The trumpet. And the second one. (Violin) That's a violin. These have similar wave forms. They're both sustained instruments. Cochlear implant users cannot tell the difference between these instruments. The sound quality, or the sound of the sound is how I like to describe timbre, tone color -- they cannot tell these things whatsoever. This implant is not transmitting the quality of music that usually provides things like warmth. Now if you look at the brain of an individual who has a cochlear implant and you have them listen to speech, have them listen to rhythm and have them listen to melody, what you find is that the auditory cortex is the most active during speech. You would think that because these implants are optimized for speech, they were designed for speech. But actually if you look at melody, what you find is that there's very little cortical activity in implant users compared with normal hearing controls. So for whatever reason, this implant is not successfully stimulating auditory cortices during melody perception. Now the next question is, well how does it really sound? Now we've been doing some studies to really get a sense of what sound quality is like for these implant users. I'm going to play you two clips of Usher, one which is normal and one which has almost no high frequencies, almost no low frequencies and not even that many mid frequencies. Go ahead and play that. (Music) (Limited Frequency Music) I had patients tell me that those sound the same. They cannot differentiate sound quality differences between those two clips. Again, we are very, very far away in just getting to where we want to get to. Now the question comes to mind: Is there any hope? And yes, there is hope. Now I don't know if anybody knows who this is. This is ... does somebody know? This is Beethoven. Now why would we know what Beethoven's skull looks like? Because his grave was exhumed. And it turns out that his temporal bones were harvested when he died to try to look at the cause of his deafness, which is why he has molding clay and his skull is bulging out on the side there. But Beethoven composed music long after he lost his hearing. What that suggests is that, even in the case of hearing loss, the capacity for music remains. The brains remain hardwired for music. I've been very lucky to work with Dr. David Ryugo where I've been working on deaf cats that are white and trying to figure out what happens when we give them cochlear implants. This is a cat that's been trained to respond to a trumpet for food. (Music) Text: Beethoven doesn't excite her. (Music) The "1812 Overture" isn't worth waking for. (Trumpet) But she jumps to action when called to duty! (Trumpet) CL: Now I'm not suggesting that the cat is hearing that trumpet the way we're hearing it. I'm suggesting that with training you can imbue a musical sound with significance, even in a cat. If we were to direct efforts towards training cochlear implant users to hear music -- because right now there's virtually no effort put towards that, no rehabilitative strategies, very little in the way of technological advances to actually improve music -- we would come a long way. Now I want to show you one last video. And this is of a student of mine named Joseph who I had the good fortune to work with for three years in my lab. He's deaf, and he learned to play the piano after he received the cochlear implant. And here's a video of Joseph. (Music) (Video) Joseph: I was born in 1986. And at about four months old, I was diagnosed with profoundly severe hearing loss. Not long after, I was fitted with hearing aids. But although these hearing aids were the most powerful hearing aids on the market at the time, they weren't very helpful. So as a result, I had to rely on lip reading a lot, and I couldn't really hear what people were saying. When I was 12 years old, I was one of the first few people in Singapore who underwent cochlear implantation. And not long after I got my cochlear implant, I started learning how to play piano. And it was absolutely wonderful. Since then, I've never looked back. CL: Joseph is phenomenal. He's brilliant. He is now a medical student at Yale University, and he's contemplating a surgical career -- one of the first deaf individuals to consider a career in surgery. There are almost no deaf surgeons anywhere. And this is really unheard of stuff, and this is all because of this technology. And the fact that he can play the piano like that is a testament to his brain. Truth of the matter is you can play the piano without a cochlear implant, because all you have to do is press the keys at the right time. You don't actually have to hear it. I know he doesn't hear well, because I've heard him do Karaoke. (Laughter) And it's one of the most awful things -- heartwarming, but awful. (Laughter) And so there is certainly a lot of hope, but there's a lot more that needs to be done. So I just want to conclude with the following words. When it comes to restoration of hearing, we have certainly come a long way, a remarkably long way. And we have a much longer way to go when it comes to the idea of restoring perfect hearing. And let me tell you right now, it's fine that we would all be very happy with speech. But I tell you, if we lost our hearing, if anyone here suddenly lost your hearing, you would want perfect hearing back. You wouldn't want decent hearing, you would want perfect hearing. Restoration of basic sensory function is critical. And I don't mean to understate how important it is to restore basic function. But it's really restoration of the ability to perceive beauty where we can get inspiring. And I don't think that we should give up on beauty. And I want to thank you for your time. (Applause)
The job of uncovering the global food waste scandal started for me when I was 15 years old. I bought some pigs. I was living in Sussex. And I started to feed them in the most traditional and environmentally friendly way. I went to my school kitchen, and I said, "Give me the scraps that my school friends have turned their noses up at." I went to the local baker and took their stale bread. I went to the local greengrocer, and I went to a farmer who was throwing away potatoes because they were the wrong shape or size for supermarkets. This was great. My pigs turned that food waste into delicious pork. I sold that pork to my school friends' parents, and I made a good pocket money addition to my teenage allowance. But I noticed that most of the food that I was giving my pigs was in fact fit for human consumption, and that I was only scratching the surface, and that right the way up the food supply chain, in supermarkets, greengrocers, bakers, in our homes, in factories and farms, we were hemorrhaging out food. Supermarkets didn't even want to talk to me about how much food they were wasting. I'd been round the back. I'd seen bins full of food being locked and then trucked off to landfill sites, and I thought, surely there is something more sensible to do with food than waste it. One morning, when I was feeding my pigs, I noticed a particularly tasty-looking sun-dried tomato loaf that used to crop up from time to time. I grabbed hold of it, sat down, and ate my breakfast with my pigs. (Laughter) That was the first act of what I later learned to call freeganism, really an exhibition of the injustice of food waste, and the provision of the solution to food waste, which is simply to sit down and eat food, rather than throwing it away. That became, as it were, a way of confronting large businesses in the business of wasting food, and exposing, most importantly, to the public, that when we're talking about food being thrown away, we're not talking about rotten stuff, we're not talking about stuff that's beyond the pale. We're talking about good, fresh food that is being wasted on a colossal scale. Eventually, I set about writing my book, really to demonstrate the extent of this problem on a global scale. What this shows is a nation-by-nation breakdown of the likely level of food waste in each country in the world. Unfortunately, empirical data, good, hard stats, don't exist, and therefore to prove my point, I first of all had to find some proxy way of uncovering how much food was being wasted. So I took the food supply of every single country and I compared it to what was actually likely to be being consumed in each country. That's based on diet intake surveys, it's based on levels of obesity, it's based on a range of factors that gives you an approximate guess as to how much food is actually going into people's mouths. That black line in the middle of that table is the likely level of consumption with an allowance for certain levels of inevitable waste. There will always be waste. I'm not that unrealistic that I think we can live in a waste-free world. But that black line shows what a food supply should be in a country if they allow for a good, stable, secure, nutritional diet for every person in that country. Any dot above that line, and you'll quickly notice that that includes most countries in the world, represents unnecessary surplus, and is likely to reflect levels of waste in each country. As a country gets richer, it invests more and more in getting more and more surplus into its shops and restaurants, and as you can see, most European and North American countries fall between 150 and 200 percent of the nutritional requirements of their populations. So a country like America has twice as much food on its shop shelves and in its restaurants than is actually required to feed the American people. But the thing that really struck me, when I plotted all this data, and it was a lot of numbers, was that you can see how it levels off. Countries rapidly shoot towards that 150 mark, and then they level off, and they don't really go on rising as you might expect. So I decided to unpack that data a little bit further to see if that was true or false. And that's what I came up with. If you include not just the food that ends up in shops and restaurants, but also the food that people feed to livestock, the maize, the soy, the wheat, that humans could eat but choose to fatten livestock instead to produce increasing amounts of meat and dairy products, what you find is that most rich countries have between three and four times the amount of food that their population needs to feed itself. A country like America has four times the amount of food that it needs. When people talk about the need to increase global food production to feed those nine billion people that are expected on the planet by 2050, I always think of these graphs. The fact is, we have an enormous buffer in rich countries between ourselves and hunger. We've never had such gargantuan surpluses before. In many ways, this is a great success story of human civilization, of the agricultural surpluses that we set out to achieve 12,000 years ago. It is a success story. It has been a success story. But what we have to recognize now is that we are reaching the ecological limits that our planet can bear, and when we chop down forests, as we are every day, to grow more and more food, when we extract water from depleting water reserves, when we emit fossil fuel emissions in the quest to grow more and more food, and then we throw away so much of it, we have to think about what we can start saving. And yesterday, I went to one of the local supermarkets that I often visit to inspect, if you like, what they're throwing away. I found quite a few packets of biscuits amongst all the fruit and vegetables and everything else that was in there. And I thought, well this could serve as a symbol for today. So I want you to imagine that these nine biscuits that I found in the bin represent the global food supply, okay? We start out with nine. That's what's in fields around the world every single year. The first biscuit we're going to lose before we even leave the farm. That's a problem primarily associated with developing work agriculture, whether it's a lack of infrastructure, refrigeration, pasteurization, grain stores, even basic fruit crates, which means that food goes to waste before it even leaves the fields. The next three biscuits are the foods that we decide to feed to livestock, the maize, the wheat and the soya. Unfortunately, our beasts are inefficient animals, and they turn two-thirds of that into feces and heat, so we've lost those two, and we've only kept this one in meat and dairy products. Two more we're going to throw away directly into bins. This is what most of us think of when we think of food waste, what ends up in the garbage, what ends up in supermarket bins, what ends up in restaurant bins. We've lost another two, and we've left ourselves with just four biscuits to feed on. That is not a superlatively efficient use of global resources, especially when you think of the billion hungry people that exist already in the world. Having gone through the data, I then needed to demonstrate where that food ends up. Where does it end up? We're used to seeing the stuff on our plates, but what about all the stuff that goes missing in between? Supermarkets are an easy place to start. This is the result of my hobby, which is unofficial bin inspections. (Laughter) Strange you might think, but if we could rely on corporations to tell us what they were doing in the back of their stores, we wouldn't need to go sneaking around the back, opening up bins and having a look at what's inside. But this is what you can see more or less on every street corner in Britain, in Europe, in North America. It represents a colossal waste of food, but what I discovered whilst I was writing my book was that this very evident abundance of waste was actually the tip of the iceberg. When you start going up the supply chain, you find where the real food waste is happening on a gargantuan scale. Can I have a show of hands if you have a loaf of sliced bread in your house? Who lives in a household where that crust -- that slice at the first and last end of each loaf -- who lives in a household where it does get eaten? Okay, most people, not everyone, but most people, and this is, I'm glad to say, what I see across the world, and yet has anyone seen a supermarket or sandwich shop anywhere in the world that serves sandwiches with crusts on it? (Laughter) I certainly haven't. So I kept on thinking, where do those crusts go? (Laughter) This is the answer, unfortunately: 13,000 slices of fresh bread coming out of this one single factory every single day, day-fresh bread. In the same year that I visited this factory, I went to Pakistan, where people in 2008 were going hungry as a result of a squeeze on global food supplies. We contribute to that squeeze by depositing food in bins here in Britain and elsewhere in the world. We take food off the market shelves that hungry people depend on. Go one step up, and you get to farmers, who throw away sometimes a third or even more of their harvest because of cosmetic standards. This farmer, for example, has invested 16,000 pounds in growing spinach, not one leaf of which he harvested, because there was a little bit of grass growing in amongst it. Potatoes that are cosmetically imperfect, all going for pigs. Parsnips that are too small for supermarket specifications, tomatoes in Tenerife, oranges in Florida, bananas in Ecuador, where I visited last year, all being discarded. This is one day's waste from one banana plantation in Ecuador. All being discarded, perfectly edible, because they're the wrong shape or size. If we do that to fruit and vegetables, you bet we can do it to animals too. Liver, lungs, heads, tails, kidneys, testicles, all of these things which are traditional, delicious and nutritious parts of our gastronomy go to waste. Offal consumption has halved in Britain and America in the last 30 years. As a result, this stuff gets fed to dogs at best, or is incinerated. This man, in Kashgar, Xinjiang province, in Western China, is serving up his national dish. It's called sheep's organs. It's delicious, it's nutritious, and as I learned when I went to Kashgar, it symbolizes their taboo against food waste. I was sitting in a roadside cafe. A chef came to talk to me, I finished my bowl, and halfway through the conversation, he stopped talking and he started frowning into my bowl. I thought, "My goodness, what taboo have I broken? How have I insulted my host?" He pointed at three grains of rice at the bottom of my bowl, and he said, "Clean." (Laughter) I thought, "My God, you know, I go around the world telling people to stop wasting food. This guy has thrashed me at my own game." (Laughter) But it gave me faith. It gave me faith that we, the people, do have the power to stop this tragic waste of resources if we regard it as socially unacceptable to waste food on a colossal scale, if we make noise about it, tell corporations about it, tell governments we want to see an end to food waste, we do have the power to bring about that change. Fish, 40 to 60 percent of European fish are discarded at sea, they don't even get landed. In our homes, we've lost touch with food. This is an experiment I did on three lettuces. Who keeps lettuces in their fridge? Most people. The one on the left was kept in a fridge for 10 days. The one in the middle, on my kitchen table. Not much difference. The one on the right I treated like cut flowers. It's a living organism, cut the slice off, stuck it in a vase of water, it was all right for another two weeks after this. Some food waste, as I said at the beginning, will inevitably arise, so the question is, what is the best thing to do with it? I answered that question when I was 15. In fact, humans answered that question 6,000 years ago: We domesticated pigs to turn food waste back into food. And yet, in Europe, that practice has become illegal since 2001 as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. It's unscientific. It's unnecessary. If you cook food for pigs, just as if you cook food for humans, it is rendered safe. It's also a massive saving of resources. At the moment, Europe depends on importing millions of tons of soy from South America, where its production contributes to global warming, to deforestation, to biodiversity loss, to feed livestock here in Europe. At the same time we throw away millions of tons of food waste which we could and should be feeding them. If we did that, and fed it to pigs, we would save that amount of carbon. If we feed our food waste which is the current government favorite way of getting rid of food waste, to anaerobic digestion, which turns food waste into gas to produce electricity, you save a paltry 448 kilograms of carbon dioxide per ton of food waste. It's much better to feed it to pigs. We knew that during the war. (Laughter) A silver lining: It has kicked off globally, the quest to tackle food waste. Feeding the 5,000 is an event I first organized in 2009. We fed 5,000 people all on food that otherwise would have been wasted. Since then, it's happened again in London, it's happening internationally, and across the country. It's a way of organizations coming together to celebrate food, to say the best thing to do with food is to eat and enjoy it, and to stop wasting it. For the sake of the planet we live on, for the sake of our children, for the sake of all the other organisms that share our planet with us, we are a terrestrial animal, and we depend on our land for food. At the moment, we are trashing our land to grow food that no one eats. Stop wasting food. Thank you very much. (Applause) (Applause)
"Give me liberty or give me death." When Patrick Henry, the governor of Virginia, said these words in 1775, he could never have imagined just how much they would come to resonate with American generations to come. At the time, these words were earmarked and targeted against the British, but over the last 200 years, they've come to embody what many Westerners believe, that freedom is the most cherished value, and that the best systems of politics and economics have freedom embedded in them. Who could blame them? Over the past hundred years, the combination of liberal democracy and private capitalism has helped to catapult the United States and Western countries to new levels of economic development. In the United States over the past hundred years, incomes have increased 30 times, and hundreds of thousands of people have been moved out of poverty. Meanwhile, American ingenuity and innovation has helped to spur industrialization and also helped in the creation and the building of things like household appliances such as refrigerators and televisions, motor vehicles and even the mobile phones in your pockets. It's no surprise, then, that even at the depths of the private capitalism crisis, President Obama said, "The question before us is not whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and to expand freedom is unmatched." Thus, there's understandably a deep-seated presumption among Westerners that the whole world will decide to adopt private capitalism as the model of economic growth, liberal democracy, and will continue to prioritize political rights over economic rights. However, to many who live in the emerging markets, this is an illusion, and even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was signed in 1948, was unanimously adopted, what it did was to mask a schism that has emerged between developed and developing countries, and the ideological beliefs between political and economic rights. This schism has only grown wider. Today, many people who live in the emerging markets, where 90 percent of the world's population lives, believe that the Western obsession with political rights is beside the point, and what is actually important is delivering on food, shelter, education and healthcare. "Give me liberty or give me death" is all well and good if you can afford it, but if you're living on less than one dollar a day, you're far too busy trying to survive and to provide for your family than to spend your time going around trying to proclaim and defend democracy. Now, I know many people in this room and around the world will think, "Well actually, this is hard to grasp," because private capitalism and liberal democracy are held sacrosanct. But I ask you today, what would you do if you had to choose? What if you had to choose between a roof over your head and the right to vote? Over the last 10 years, I've had the privilege to travel to over 60 countries, many of them in the emerging markets, in Latin America, Asia, and my own continent of Africa. I've met with presidents, dissidents, policymakers, lawyers, teachers, doctors and the man on the street, and through these conversations, it's become clear to me that many people in the emerging markets believe that there's actually a split occurring between what people believe ideologically in terms of politics and economics in the West and that which people believe in the rest of the world. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people in the emerging markets don't understand democracy, nor am I saying that they wouldn't ideally like to pick their presidents or their leaders. Of course they would. However, I am saying that on balance, they worry more about where their living standard improvements are going to come from, and how it is their governments can deliver for them, than whether or not the government was elected by democracy. The fact of the matter is that this has become a very poignant question because there is for the first time in a long time a real challenge to the Western ideological systems of politics and economics, and this is a system that is embodied by China. And rather than have private capitalism, they have state capitalism. Instead of liberal democracy, they have de-prioritized the democratic system. And they have also decided to prioritize economic rights over political rights. I put it to you today that it is this system that is embodied by China that is gathering momentum amongst people in the emerging markets as the system to follow, because they believe increasingly that it is the system that will promise the best and fastest improvements in living standards in the shortest period of time. If you will indulge me, I will spend a few moments explaining to you first why economically they've come to this belief. First of all, it's China's economic performance over the past 30 years. She's been able to produce record economic growth and meaningfully move many people out of poverty, specifically putting a meaningful dent in poverty by moving over 300 million people out of indigence. It's not just in economics, but it's also in terms of living standards. We see that in China, 28 percent of people had secondary school access. Today, it's closer to 82 percent. So in its totality, economic improvement has been quite significant. Second, China has been able to meaningfully improve its income inequality without changing the political construct. Today, the United States and China are the two leading economies in the world. They have vastly different political systems and different economic systems, one with private capitalism, another one broadly with state capitalism. However, these two countries have the identical GINI Coefficient, which is a measure of income equality. Perhaps what is more disturbing is that China's income equality has been improving in recent times, whereas that of the United States has been declining. Thirdly, people in the emerging markets look at China's amazing and legendary infrastructure rollout. This is not just about China building roads and ports and railways in her own country -- she's been able to build 85,000 kilometers of road network in China and surpass that of the United States -- but even if you look to places like Africa, China has been able to help tar the distance of Cape Town to Cairo, which is 9,000 miles, or three times the distance of New York to California. Now this is something that people can see and point to. Perhaps it's no surprise that in a 2007 Pew survey, when surveyed, Africans in 10 countries said they thought that the Chinese were doing amazing things to improve their livelihoods by wide margins, by as much as 98 percent. Finally, China is also providing innovative solutions to age-old social problems that the world faces. If you travel to Mogadishu, Mexico City or Mumbai, you find that dilapidated infrastructure and logistics continue to be a stumbling block to the delivery of medicine and healthcare in the rural areas. However, through a network of state-owned enterprises, the Chinese have been able to go into these rural areas, using their companies to help deliver on these healthcare solutions. Ladies and gentlemen, it's no surprise that around the world, people are pointing at what China is doing and saying, "I like that. I want that. I want to be able to do what China's doing. That is the system that seems to work." I'm here to also tell you that there are lots of shifts occurring around what China is doing in the democratic stance. In particular, there is growing doubt among people in the emerging markets, when people now believe that democracy is no longer to be viewed as a prerequisite for economic growth. In fact, countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Chile, not just China, have shown that actually, it's economic growth that is a prerequisite for democracy. In a recent study, the evidence has shown that income is the greatest determinant of how long a democracy can last. The study found that if your per capita income is about 1,000 dollars a year, your democracy will last about eight and a half years. If your per capita income is between 2,000 and 4,000 dollars per year, then you're likely to only get 33 years of democracy. And only if your per capita income is above 6,000 dollars a year will you have democracy come hell or high water. What this is telling us is that we need to first establish a middle class that is able to hold the government accountable. But perhaps it's also telling us that we should be worried about going around the world and shoehorning democracy, because ultimately we run the risk of ending up with illiberal democracies, democracies that in some sense could be worse than the authoritarian governments that they seek to replace. The evidence around illiberal democracies is quite depressing. Freedom House finds that although 50 percent of the world's countries today are democratic, 70 percent of those countries are illiberal in the sense that people don't have free speech or freedom of movement. But also, we're finding from Freedom House in a study that they published last year that freedom has been on the decline every year for the past seven years. What this says is that for people like me who care about liberal democracy, is we've got to find a more sustainable way of ensuring that we have a sustainable form of democracy in a liberal way, and that has its roots in economics. But it also says that as China moves toward being the largest economy in the world, something that is expected to happen by experts in 2016, that this schism between the political and economic ideologies of the West and the rest is likely to widen. What might that world look like? Well, the world could look like more state involvement and state capitalism; greater protectionisms of nation-states; but also, as I just pointed out a moment ago, ever-declining political rights and individual rights. The question that is left for us in general is, what then should the West be doing? And I suggest that they have two options. The West can either compete or cooperate. If the West chooses to compete with the Chinese model, and in effect go around the world and continue to try and push an agenda of private capitalism and liberal democracy, this is basically going against headwinds, but it also would be a natural stance for the West to take because in many ways it is the antithesis of the Chinese model of de-prioritizing democracy, and state capitalism. Now the fact of the matter is, if the West decides to compete, it will create a wider schism. The other option is for the West to cooperate, and by cooperating I mean giving the emerging market countries the flexibility to figure out in an organic way what political and economic system works best for them. Now I'm sure some of you in the room will be thinking, well, this is like ceding to China, and this is a way, in other words, for the West to take a back seat. But I put it to you that if the United States and European countries want to remain globally influential, they may have to consider cooperating in the short term in order to compete, and by that, they might have to focus more aggressively on economic outcomes to help create the middle class and therefore be able to hold government accountable and create the democracies that we really want. The fact of the matter is that instead of going around the world and haranguing countries for engaging with China, the West should be encouraging its own businesses to trade and invest in these regions. Instead of criticizing China for bad behavior, the West should be showing how it is that their own system of politics and economics is the superior one. And instead of shoehorning democracy around the world, perhaps the West should take a leaf out of its own history book and remember that it takes a lot of patience in order to develop the models and the systems that you have today. Indeed, the Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reminds us that it took the United States nearly 170 years from the time that the Constitution was written for there to be equal rights in the United States. Some people would argue that today there is still no equal rights. In fact, there are groups who would argue that they still do not have equal rights under the law. At its very best, the Western model speaks for itself. It's the model that put food on the table. It's the refrigerators. It put a man on the moon. But the fact of the matter is, although people back in the day used to point at the Western countries and say, "I want that, I like that," there's now a new person in town in the form of a country, China. Today, generations are looking at China and saying, "China can produce infrastructure, China can produce economic growth, and we like that." Because ultimately, the question before us, and the question before seven billion people on the planet is, how can we create prosperity? People who care and will pivot towards the model of politics and economics in a very rational way, to those models that will ensure that they can have better living standards in the shortest period of time. As you leave here today, I would like to leave you with a very personal message, which is what it is that I believe we should be doing as individuals, and this is really about being open-minded, open-minded to the fact that our hopes and dreams of creating prosperity for people around the world, creating and meaningfully putting a dent in poverty for hundreds of millions of people, has to be based in being open-minded, because these systems have good things and they have bad things. Just to illustrate, I went into my annals of myself. That's a picture of me. Awww. (Laughter) I was born and raised in Zambia in 1969. At the time of my birth, blacks were not issued birth certificates, and that law only changed in 1973. This is an affidavit from the Zambian government. I bring this to you to tell you that in 40 years, I've gone from not being recognized as a human being to standing in front of the illustrious TED crowd today to talk to you about my views. In this vein, we can increase economic growth. We can meaningfully put a dent in poverty. But also, it's going to require that we look at our assumptions, assumptions and strictures that we've grown up with around democracy, around private capitalism, around what creates economic growth and reduces poverty and creates freedoms. We might have to tear those books up and start to look at other options and be open-minded to seek the truth. Ultimately, it's about transforming the world and making it a better place. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Some years ago, I set out to try to understand if there was a possibility to develop biofuels on a scale that would actually compete with fossil fuels but not compete with agriculture for water, fertilizer or land. So here's what I came up with. Imagine that we build an enclosure where we put it just underwater, and we fill it with wastewater and some form of microalgae that produces oil, and we make it out of some kind of flexible material that moves with waves underwater, and the system that we're going to build, of course, will use solar energy to grow the algae, and they use CO2, which is good, and they produce oxygen as they grow. The algae that grow are in a container that distributes the heat to the surrounding water, and you can harvest them and make biofuels and cosmetics and fertilizer and animal feed, and of course you'd have to make a large area of this, so you'd have to worry about other stakeholders like fishermen and ships and such things, but hey, we're talking about biofuels, and we know the importance of potentially getting an alternative liquid fuel. Why are we talking about microalgae? Here you see a graph showing you the different types of crops that are being considered for making biofuels, so you can see some things like soybean, which makes 50 gallons per acre per year, or sunflower or canola or jatropha or palm, and that tall graph there shows what microalgae can contribute. That is to say, microalgae contributes between 2,000 and 5,000 gallons per acre per year, compared to the 50 gallons per acre per year from soy. So what are microalgae? Microalgae are micro -- that is, they're extremely small, as you can see here a picture of those single-celled organisms compared to a human hair. Those small organisms have been around for millions of years and there's thousands of different species of microalgae in the world, some of which are the fastest-growing plants on the planet, and produce, as I just showed you, lots and lots of oil. Now, why do we want to do this offshore? Well, the reason we're doing this offshore is because if you look at our coastal cities, there isn't a choice, because we're going to use waste water, as I suggested, and if you look at where most of the waste water treatment plants are, they're embedded in the cities. This is the city of San Francisco, which has 900 miles of sewer pipes under the city already, and it releases its waste water offshore. So different cities around the world treat their waste water differently. Some cities process it. Some cities just release the water. But in all cases, the water that's released is perfectly adequate for growing microalgae. So let's envision what the system might look like. We call it OMEGA, which is an acronym for Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae. At NASA, you have to have good acronyms. So how does it work? I sort of showed you how it works already. We put waste water and some source of CO2 into our floating structure, and the waste water provides nutrients for the algae to grow, and they sequester CO2 that would otherwise go off into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. They of course use solar energy to grow, and the wave energy on the surface provides energy for mixing the algae, and the temperature is controlled by the surrounding water temperature. The algae that grow produce oxygen, as I've mentioned, and they also produce biofuels and fertilizer and food and other bi-algal products of interest. And the system is contained. What do I mean by that? It's modular. Let's say something happens that's totally unexpected to one of the modules. It leaks. It's struck by lightning. The waste water that leaks out is water that already now goes into that coastal environment, and the algae that leak out are biodegradable, and because they're living in waste water, they're fresh water algae, which means they can't live in salt water, so they die. The plastic we'll build it out of is some kind of well-known plastic that we have good experience with, and we'll rebuild our modules to be able to reuse them again. So we may be able to go beyond that when thinking about this system that I'm showing you, and that is to say we need to think in terms of the water, the fresh water, which is also going to be an issue in the future, and we're working on methods now for recovering the waste water. The other thing to consider is the structure itself. It provides a surface for things in the ocean, and this surface, which is covered by seaweeds and other organisms in the ocean, will become enhanced marine habitat so it increases biodiversity. And finally, because it's an offshore structure, we can think in terms of how it might contribute to an aquaculture activity offshore. So you're probably thinking, "Gee, this sounds like a good idea. What can we do to try to see if it's real?" Well, I set up laboratories in Santa Cruz at the California Fish and Game facility, and that facility allowed us to have big seawater tanks to test some of these ideas. We also set up experiments in San Francisco at one of the three waste water treatment plants, again a facility to test ideas. And finally, we wanted to see where we could look at what the impact of this structure would be in the marine environment, and we set up a field site at a place called Moss Landing Marine Lab in Monterey Bay, where we worked in a harbor to see what impact this would have on marine organisms. The laboratory that we set up in Santa Cruz was our skunkworks. It was a place where we were growing algae and welding plastic and building tools and making a lot of mistakes, or, as Edison said, we were finding the 10,000 ways that the system wouldn't work. Now, we grew algae in waste water, and we built tools that allowed us to get into the lives of algae so that we could monitor the way they grow, what makes them happy, how do we make sure that we're going to have a culture that will survive and thrive. So the most important feature that we needed to develop were these so-called photobioreactors, or PBRs. These were the structures that would be floating at the surface made out of some inexpensive plastic material that'll allow the algae to grow, and we had built lots and lots of designs, most of which were horrible failures, and when we finally got to a design that worked, at about 30 gallons, we scaled it up to 450 gallons in San Francisco. So let me show you how the system works. We basically take waste water with algae of our choice in it, and we circulate it through this floating structure, this tubular, flexible plastic structure, and it circulates through this thing, and there's sunlight of course, it's at the surface, and the algae grow on the nutrients. But this is a bit like putting your head in a plastic bag. The algae are not going to suffocate because of CO2, as we would. They suffocate because they produce oxygen, and they don't really suffocate, but the oxygen that they produce is problematic, and they use up all the CO2. So the next thing we had to figure out was how we could remove the oxygen, which we did by building this column which circulated some of the water, and put back CO2, which we did by bubbling the system before we recirculated the water. And what you see here is the prototype, which was the first attempt at building this type of column. The larger column that we then installed in San Francisco in the installed system. So the column actually had another very nice feature, and that is the algae settle in the column, and this allowed us to accumulate the algal biomass in a context where we could easily harvest it. So we would remove the algaes that concentrated in the bottom of this column, and then we could harvest that by a procedure where you float the algae to the surface and can skim it off with a net. So we wanted to also investigate what would be the impact of this system in the marine environment, and I mentioned we set up this experiment at a field site in Moss Landing Marine Lab. Well, we found of course that this material became overgrown with algae, and we needed then to develop a cleaning procedure, and we also looked at how seabirds and marine mammals interacted, and in fact you see here a sea otter that found this incredibly interesting, and would periodically work its way across this little floating water bed, and we wanted to hire this guy or train him to be able to clean the surface of these things, but that's for the future. Now really what we were doing, we were working in four areas. Our research covered the biology of the system, which included studying the way algae grew, but also what eats the algae, and what kills the algae. We did engineering to understand what we would need to be able to do to build this structure, not only on the small scale, but how we would build it on this enormous scale that will ultimately be required. I mentioned we looked at birds and marine mammals and looked at basically the environmental impact of the system, and finally we looked at the economics, and what I mean by economics is, what is the energy required to run the system? Do you get more energy out of the system than you have to put into the system to be able to make the system run? And what about operating costs? And what about capital costs? And what about, just, the whole economic structure? So let me tell you that it's not going to be easy, and there's lots more work to do in all four of those areas to be able to really make the system work. But we don't have a lot of time, and I'd like to show you the artist's conception of how this system might look if we find ourselves in a protected bay somewhere in the world, and we have in the background in this image, the waste water treatment plant and a source of flue gas for the CO2, but when you do the economics of this system, you find that in fact it will be difficult to make it work. Unless you look at the system as a way to treat waste water, sequester carbon, and potentially for photovoltaic panels or wave energy or even wind energy, and if you start thinking in terms of integrating all of these different activities, you could also include in such a facility aquaculture. So we would have under this system a shellfish aquaculture where we're growing mussels or scallops. We'd be growing oysters and things that would be producing high value products and food, and this would be a market driver as we build the system to larger and larger scales so that it becomes, ultimately, competitive with the idea of doing it for fuels. So there's always a big question that comes up, because plastic in the ocean has got a really bad reputation right now, and so we've been thinking cradle to cradle. What are we going to do with all this plastic that we're going to need to use in our marine environment? Well, I don't know if you know about this, but in California, there's a huge amount of plastic that's used in fields right now as plastic mulch, and this is plastic that's making these tiny little greenhouses right along the surface of the soil, and this provides warming the soil to increase the growing season, it allows us to control weeds, and, of course, it makes the watering much more efficient. So the OMEGA system will be part of this type of an outcome, and that when we're finished using it in the marine environment, we'll be using it, hopefully, on fields. Where are we going to put this, and what will it look like offshore? Here's an image of what we could do in San Francisco Bay. San Francisco produces 65 million gallons a day of waste water. If we imagine a five-day retention time for this system, we'd need 325 million gallons to accomodate, and that would be about 1,280 acres of these OMEGA modules floating in San Francisco Bay. Well, that's less than one percent of the surface area of the bay. It would produce, at 2,000 gallons per acre per year, it would produce over 2 million gallons of fuel, which is about 20 percent of the biodiesel, or of the diesel that would be required in San Francisco, and that's without doing anything about efficiency. Where else could we potentially put this system? There's lots of possibilities. There's, of course, San Francisco Bay, as I mentioned. San Diego Bay is another example, Mobile Bay or Chesapeake Bay, but the reality is, as sea level rises, there's going to be lots and lots of new opportunities to consider. (Laughter) So what I'm telling you about is a system of integrated activities. Biofuels production is integrated with alternative energy is integrated with aquaculture. I set out to find a pathway to innovative production of sustainable biofuels, and en route I discovered that what's really required for sustainability is integration more than innovation. Long term, I have great faith in our collective and connected ingenuity. I think there is almost no limit to what we can accomplish if we are radically open and we don't care who gets the credit. Sustainable solutions for our future problems are going to be diverse and are going to be many. I think we need to consider everything, everything from alpha to OMEGA. Thank you. (Applause) (Applause) Chris Anderson: Just a quick question for you, Jonathan. Can this project continue to move forward within NASA or do you need some very ambitious green energy fund to come and take it by the throat? Jonathan Trent: So it's really gotten to a stage now in NASA where they would like to spin it out into something which would go offshore, and there are a lot of issues with doing it in the United States because of limited permitting issues and the time required to get permits to do things offshore. It really requires, at this point, people on the outside, and we're being radically open with this technology in which we're going to launch it out there for anybody and everybody who's interested to take it on and try to make it real. CA: So that's interesting. You're not patenting it. You're publishing it. JT: Absolutely. CA: All right. Thank you so much. JT: Thank you. (Applause)
I work with a bunch of mathematicians, philosophers and computer scientists, and we sit around and think about the future of machine intelligence, among other things. Some people think that some of these things are sort of science fiction-y, far out there, crazy. But I like to say, okay, let's look at the modern human condition. (Laughter) This is the normal way for things to be. But if we think about it, we are actually recently arrived guests on this planet, the human species. Think about if Earth was created one year ago, the human species, then, would be 10 minutes old. The industrial era started two seconds ago. Another way to look at this is to think of world GDP over the last 10,000 years, I've actually taken the trouble to plot this for you in a graph. It looks like this. (Laughter) It's a curious shape for a normal condition. I sure wouldn't want to sit on it. (Laughter) Let's ask ourselves, what is the cause of this current anomaly? Some people would say it's technology. Now it's true, technology has accumulated through human history, and right now, technology advances extremely rapidly -- that is the proximate cause, that's why we are currently so very productive. But I like to think back further to the ultimate cause. Look at these two highly distinguished gentlemen: We have Kanzi -- he's mastered 200 lexical tokens, an incredible feat. And Ed Witten unleashed the second superstring revolution. If we look under the hood, this is what we find: basically the same thing. One is a little larger, it maybe also has a few tricks in the exact way it's wired. These invisible differences cannot be too complicated, however, because there have only been 250,000 generations since our last common ancestor. We know that complicated mechanisms take a long time to evolve. So a bunch of relatively minor changes take us from Kanzi to Witten, from broken-off tree branches to intercontinental ballistic missiles. So this then seems pretty obvious that everything we've achieved, and everything we care about, depends crucially on some relatively minor changes that made the human mind. And the corollary, of course, is that any further changes that could significantly change the substrate of thinking could have potentially enormous consequences. Some of my colleagues think we're on the verge of something that could cause a profound change in that substrate, and that is machine superintelligence. Artificial intelligence used to be about putting commands in a box. You would have human programmers that would painstakingly handcraft knowledge items. You build up these expert systems, and they were kind of useful for some purposes, but they were very brittle, you couldn't scale them. Basically, you got out only what you put in. But since then, a paradigm shift has taken place in the field of artificial intelligence. Today, the action is really around machine learning. So rather than handcrafting knowledge representations and features, we create algorithms that learn, often from raw perceptual data. Basically the same thing that the human infant does. The result is A.I. that is not limited to one domain -- the same system can learn to translate between any pairs of languages, or learn to play any computer game on the Atari console. Now of course, A.I. is still nowhere near having the same powerful, cross-domain ability to learn and plan as a human being has. The cortex still has some algorithmic tricks that we don't yet know how to match in machines. So the question is, how far are we from being able to match those tricks? A couple of years ago, we did a survey of some of the world's leading A.I. experts, to see what they think, and one of the questions we asked was, "By which year do you think there is a 50 percent probability that we will have achieved human-level machine intelligence?" We defined human-level here as the ability to perform almost any job at least as well as an adult human, so real human-level, not just within some limited domain. And the median answer was 2040 or 2050, depending on precisely which group of experts we asked. Now, it could happen much, much later, or sooner, the truth is nobody really knows. What we do know is that the ultimate limit to information processing in a machine substrate lies far outside the limits in biological tissue. This comes down to physics. A biological neuron fires, maybe, at 200 hertz, 200 times a second. But even a present-day transistor operates at the Gigahertz. Neurons propagate slowly in axons, 100 meters per second, tops. But in computers, signals can travel at the speed of light. There are also size limitations, like a human brain has to fit inside a cranium, but a computer can be the size of a warehouse or larger. So the potential for superintelligence lies dormant in matter, much like the power of the atom lay dormant throughout human history, patiently waiting there until 1945. In this century, scientists may learn to awaken the power of artificial intelligence. And I think we might then see an intelligence explosion. Now most people, when they think about what is smart and what is dumb, I think have in mind a picture roughly like this. So at one end we have the village idiot, and then far over at the other side we have Ed Witten, or Albert Einstein, or whoever your favorite guru is. But I think that from the point of view of artificial intelligence, the true picture is actually probably more like this: AI starts out at this point here, at zero intelligence, and then, after many, many years of really hard work, maybe eventually we get to mouse-level artificial intelligence, something that can navigate cluttered environments as well as a mouse can. And then, after many, many more years of really hard work, lots of investment, maybe eventually we get to chimpanzee-level artificial intelligence. And then, after even more years of really, really hard work, we get to village idiot artificial intelligence. And a few moments later, we are beyond Ed Witten. The train doesn't stop at Humanville Station. It's likely, rather, to swoosh right by. Now this has profound implications, particularly when it comes to questions of power. For example, chimpanzees are strong -- pound for pound, a chimpanzee is about twice as strong as a fit human male. And yet, the fate of Kanzi and his pals depends a lot more on what we humans do than on what the chimpanzees do themselves. Once there is superintelligence, the fate of humanity may depend on what the superintelligence does. Think about it: Machine intelligence is the last invention that humanity will ever need to make. Machines will then be better at inventing than we are, and they'll be doing so on digital timescales. What this means is basically a telescoping of the future. Think of all the crazy technologies that you could have imagined maybe humans could have developed in the fullness of time: cures for aging, space colonization, self-replicating nanobots or uploading of minds into computers, all kinds of science fiction-y stuff that's nevertheless consistent with the laws of physics. All of this superintelligence could develop, and possibly quite rapidly. Now, a superintelligence with such technological maturity would be extremely powerful, and at least in some scenarios, it would be able to get what it wants. We would then have a future that would be shaped by the preferences of this A.I. Now a good question is, what are those preferences? Here it gets trickier. To make any headway with this, we must first of all avoid anthropomorphizing. And this is ironic because every newspaper article about the future of A.I. has a picture of this: So I think what we need to do is to conceive of the issue more abstractly, not in terms of vivid Hollywood scenarios. We need to think of intelligence as an optimization process, a process that steers the future into a particular set of configurations. A superintelligence is a really strong optimization process. It's extremely good at using available means to achieve a state in which its goal is realized. This means that there is no necessary conenction between being highly intelligent in this sense, and having an objective that we humans would find worthwhile or meaningful. Suppose we give an A.I. the goal to make humans smile. When the A.I. is weak, it performs useful or amusing actions that cause its user to smile. When the A.I. becomes superintelligent, it realizes that there is a more effective way to achieve this goal: take control of the world and stick electrodes into the facial muscles of humans to cause constant, beaming grins. Another example, suppose we give A.I. the goal to solve a difficult mathematical problem. When the A.I. becomes superintelligent, it realizes that the most effective way to get the solution to this problem is by transforming the planet into a giant computer, so as to increase its thinking capacity. And notice that this gives the A.I.s an instrumental reason to do things to us that we might not approve of. Human beings in this model are threats, we could prevent the mathematical problem from being solved. Of course, perceivably things won't go wrong in these particular ways; these are cartoon examples. But the general point here is important: if you create a really powerful optimization process to maximize for objective x, you better make sure that your definition of x incorporates everything you care about. This is a lesson that's also taught in many a myth. King Midas wishes that everything he touches be turned into gold. He touches his daughter, she turns into gold. He touches his food, it turns into gold. This could become practically relevant, not just as a metaphor for greed, but as an illustration of what happens if you create a powerful optimization process and give it misconceived or poorly specified goals. Now you might say, if a computer starts sticking electrodes into people's faces, we'd just shut it off. A, this is not necessarily so easy to do if we've grown dependent on the system -- like, where is the off switch to the Internet? B, why haven't the chimpanzees flicked the off switch to humanity, or the Neanderthals? They certainly had reasons. We have an off switch, for example, right here. (Choking) The reason is that we are an intelligent adversary; we can anticipate threats and plan around them. But so could a superintelligent agent, and it would be much better at that than we are. The point is, we should not be confident that we have this under control here. And we could try to make our job a little bit easier by, say, putting the A.I. in a box, like a secure software environment, a virtual reality simulation from which it cannot escape. But how confident can we be that the A.I. couldn't find a bug. Given that merely human hackers find bugs all the time, I'd say, probably not very confident. So we disconnect the ethernet cable to create an air gap, but again, like merely human hackers routinely transgress air gaps using social engineering. Right now, as I speak, I'm sure there is some employee out there somewhere who has been talked into handing out her account details by somebody claiming to be from the I.T. department. More creative scenarios are also possible, like if you're the A.I., you can imagine wiggling electrodes around in your internal circuitry to create radio waves that you can use to communicate. Or maybe you could pretend to malfunction, and then when the programmers open you up to see what went wrong with you, they look at the source code -- Bam! -- the manipulation can take place. Or it could output the blueprint to a really nifty technology, and when we implement it, it has some surreptitious side effect that the A.I. had planned. The point here is that we should not be confident in our ability to keep a superintelligent genie locked up in its bottle forever. Sooner or later, it will out. I believe that the answer here is to figure out how to create superintelligent A.I. such that even if -- when -- it escapes, it is still safe because it is fundamentally on our side because it shares our values. I see no way around this difficult problem. Now, I'm actually fairly optimistic that this problem can be solved. We wouldn't have to write down a long list of everything we care about, or worse yet, spell it out in some computer language like C++ or Python, that would be a task beyond hopeless. Instead, we would create an A.I. that uses its intelligence to learn what we value, and its motivation system is constructed in such a way that it is motivated to pursue our values or to perform actions that it predicts we would approve of. We would thus leverage its intelligence as much as possible to solve the problem of value-loading. This can happen, and the outcome could be very good for humanity. But it doesn't happen automatically. The initial conditions for the intelligence explosion might need to be set up in just the right way if we are to have a controlled detonation. The values that the A.I. has need to match ours, not just in the familiar context, like where we can easily check how the A.I. behaves, but also in all novel contexts that the A.I. might encounter in the indefinite future. And there are also some esoteric issues that would need to be solved, sorted out: the exact details of its decision theory, how to deal with logical uncertainty and so forth. So the technical problems that need to be solved to make this work look quite difficult -- not as difficult as making a superintelligent A.I., but fairly difficult. Here is the worry: Making superintelligent A.I. is a really hard challenge. Making superintelligent A.I. that is safe involves some additional challenge on top of that. The risk is that if somebody figures out how to crack the first challenge without also having cracked the additional challenge of ensuring perfect safety. So I think that we should work out a solution to the control problem in advance, so that we have it available by the time it is needed. Now it might be that we cannot solve the entire control problem in advance because maybe some elements can only be put in place once you know the details of the architecture where it will be implemented. But the more of the control problem that we solve in advance, the better the odds that the transition to the machine intelligence era will go well. This to me looks like a thing that is well worth doing and I can imagine that if things turn out okay, that people a million years from now look back at this century and it might well be that they say that the one thing we did that really mattered was to get this thing right. Thank you. (Applause)
There's something that I'd like you to see. (Video) Reporter: It's a story that's deeply unsettled millions in China: footage of a two-year-old girl hit by a van and left bleeding in the street by passersby, footage too graphic to be shown. The entire accident is caught on camera. The driver pauses after hitting the child, his back wheels seen resting on her for over a second. Within two minutes, three people pass two-year-old Wang Yue by. The first walks around the badly injured toddler completely. Others look at her before moving off. Peter Singer: There were other people who walked past Wang Yue, and a second van ran over her legs before a street cleaner raised the alarm. She was rushed to hospital, but it was too late. She died. I wonder how many of you, looking at that, said to yourselves just now, "I would not have done that. I would have stopped to help." Raise your hands if that thought occurred to you. As I thought, that's most of you. And I believe you. I'm sure you're right. But before you give yourself too much credit, look at this. UNICEF reports that in 2011, 6.9 million children under five died from preventable, poverty-related diseases. UNICEF thinks that that's good news because the figure has been steadily coming down from 12 million in 1990. That is good. But still, 6.9 million is 19,000 children dying every day. Does it really matter that we're not walking past them in the street? Does it really matter that they're far away? I don't think it does make a morally relevant difference. The fact that they're not right in front of us, the fact, of course, that they're of a different nationality or race, none of that seems morally relevant to me. What is really important is, can we reduce that death toll? Can we save some of those 19,000 children dying every day? And the answer is, yes we can. Each of us spends money on things that we do not really need. You can think what your own habit is, whether it's a new car, a vacation or just something like buying bottled water when the water that comes out of the tap is perfectly safe to drink. You could take the money you're spending on those unnecessary things and give it to this organization, the Against Malaria Foundation, which would take the money you had given and use it to buy nets like this one to protect children like this one, and we know reliably that if we provide nets, they're used, and they reduce the number of children dying from malaria, just one of the many preventable diseases that are responsible for some of those 19,000 children dying every day. Fortunately, more and more people are understanding this idea, and the result is a growing movement: effective altruism. It's important because it combines both the heart and the head. The heart, of course, you felt. You felt the empathy for that child. But it's really important to use the head as well to make sure that what you do is effective and well-directed, and not only that, but also I think reason helps us to understand that other people, wherever they are, are like us, that they can suffer as we can, that parents grieve for the deaths of their children, as we do, and that just as our lives and our well-being matter to us, it matters just as much to all of these people. So I think reason is not just some neutral tool to help you get whatever you want. It does help us to put perspective on our situation. And I think that's why many of the most significant people in effective altruism have been people who have had backgrounds in philosophy or economics or math. And that might seem surprising, because a lot of people think, "Philosophy is remote from the real world; economics, we're told, just makes us more selfish, and we know that math is for nerds." But in fact it does make a difference, and in fact there's one particular nerd who has been a particularly effective altruist because he got this. This is the website of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and if you look at the words on the top right-hand side, it says, "All lives have equal value." That's the understanding, the rational understanding of our situation in the world that has led to these people being the most effective altruists in history, Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. (Applause) No one, not Andrew Carnegie, not John D. Rockefeller, has ever given as much to charity as each one of these three, and they have used their intelligence to make sure that it is highly effective. According to one estimate, the Gates Foundation has already saved 5.8 million lives and many millions more, people, getting diseases that would have made them very sick, even if eventually they survived. Over the coming years, undoubtably the Gates Foundation is going to give a lot more, is going to save a lot more lives. Well, you might say, that's fine if you're a billionaire, you can have that kind of impact. But if I'm not, what can I do? So I'm going to look at four questions that people ask that maybe stand in the way of them giving. They worry how much of a difference they can make. But you don't have to be a billionaire. This is Toby Ord. He's a research fellow in philosophy at the University of Oxford. He became an effective altruist when he calculated that with the money that he was likely to earn throughout his career, an academic career, he could give enough to cure 80,000 people of blindness in developing countries and still have enough left for a perfectly adequate standard of living. So Toby founded an organization called Giving What We Can to spread this information, to unite people who want to share some of their income, and to ask people to pledge to give 10 percent of what they earn over their lifetime to fighting global poverty. Toby himself does better than that. He's pledged to live on 18,000 pounds a year -- that's less than 30,000 dollars -- and to give the rest to those organizations. And yes, Toby is married and he does have a mortgage. This is a couple at a later stage of life, Charlie Bresler and Diana Schott, who, when they were young, when they met, were activists against the Vietnam War, fought for social justice, and then moved into careers, as most people do, didn't really do anything very active about those values, although they didn't abandon them. And then, as they got to the age at which many people start to think of retirement, they returned to them, and they've decided to cut back on their spending, to live modestly, and to give both money and time to helping to fight global poverty. Now, mentioning time might lead you to think, "Well, should I abandon my career and put all of my time into saving some of these 19,000 lives that are lost every day?" One person who's thought quite a bit about this issue of how you can have a career that will have the biggest impact for good in the world is Will Crouch. He's a graduate student in philosophy, and he's set up a website called 80,000 Hours, the number of hours he estimates most people spend on their career, to advise people on how to have the best, most effective career. But you might be surprised to know that one of the careers that he encourages people to consider, if they have the right abilities and character, is to go into banking or finance. Why? Because if you earn a lot of money, you can give away a lot of money, and if you're successful in that career, you could give enough to an aid organization so that it could employ, let's say, five aid workers in developing countries, and each one of them would probably do about as much good as you would have done. So you can quintuple the impact by leading that kind of career. Here's one young man who's taken this advice. His name is Matt Weiger. He was a student at Princeton in philosophy and math, actually won the prize for the best undergraduate philosophy thesis last year when he graduated. But he's gone into finance in New York. He's already earning enough so that he's giving a six-figure sum to effective charities and still leaving himself with enough to live on. Matt has also helped me to set up an organization that I'm working with that has the name taken from the title of a book I wrote, "The Life You Can Save," which is trying to change our culture so that more people think that if we're going to live an ethical life, it's not enough just to follow the thou-shalt-nots and not cheat, steal, maim, kill, but that if we have enough, we have to share some of that with people who have so little. And the organization draws together people of different generations, like Holly Morgan, who's an undergraduate, who's pledged to give 10 percent of the little amount that she has, and on the right, Ada Wan, who has worked directly for the poor, but has now gone to Yale to do an MBA to have more to give. Many people will think, though, that charities aren't really all that effective. So let's talk about effectiveness. Toby Ord is very concerned about this, and he's calculated that some charities are hundreds or even thousands of times more effective than others, so it's very important to find the effective ones. Take, for example, providing a guide dog for a blind person. That's a good thing to do, right? Well, right, it is a good thing to do, but you have to think what else you could do with the resources. It costs about 40,000 dollars to train a guide dog and train the recipient so that the guide dog can be an effective help to a blind person. It costs somewhere between 20 and 50 dollars to cure a blind person in a developing country if they have trachoma. So you do the sums, and you get something like that. You could provide one guide dog for one blind American, or you could cure between 400 and 2,000 people of blindness. I think it's clear what's the better thing to do. But if you want to look for effective charities, this is a good website to go to. GiveWell exists to really assess the impact of charities, not just whether they're well-run, and it's screened hundreds of charities and currently is recommending only three, of which the Against Malaria Foundation is number one. So it's very tough. If you want to look for other recommendations, thelifeyoucansave.com and Giving What We Can both have a somewhat broader list, but you can find effective organizations, and not just in the area of saving lives from the poor. I'm pleased to say that there is now also a website looking at effective animal organizations. That's another cause that I've been concerned about all my life, the immense amount of suffering that humans inflict on literally tens of billions of animals every year. So if you want to look for effective organizations to reduce that suffering, you can go to Effective Animal Activism. And some effective altruists think it's very important to make sure that our species survives at all. So they're looking at ways to reduce the risk of extinction. Here's one risk of extinction that we all became aware of recently, when an asteroid passed close to our planet. Possibly research could help us not only to predict the path of asteroids that might collide with us, but actually to deflect them. So some people think that would be a good thing to give to. There's many possibilities. My final question is, some people will think it's a burden to give. I don't really believe it is. I've enjoyed giving all of my life since I was a graduate student. It's been something fulfilling to me. Charlie Bresler said to me that he's not an altruist. He thinks that the life he's saving is his own. And Holly Morgan told me that she used to battle depression until she got involved with effective altruism, and now is one of the happiest people she knows. I think one of the reasons for this is that being an effective altruist helps to overcome what I call the Sisyphus problem. Here's Sisyphus as portrayed by Titian, condemned by the gods to push a huge boulder up to the top of the hill. Just as he gets there, the effort becomes too much, the boulder escapes, rolls all the way down the hill, he has to trudge back down to push it up again, and the same thing happens again and again for all eternity. Does that remind you of a consumer lifestyle, where you work hard to get money, you spend that money on consumer goods which you hope you'll enjoy using? But then the money's gone, you have to work hard to get more, spend more, and to maintain the same level of happiness, it's kind of a hedonic treadmill. You never get off, and you never really feel satisfied. Becoming an effective altruist gives you that meaning and fulfillment. It enables you to have a solid basis for self-esteem on which you can feel your life was really worth living. I'm going to conclude by telling you about an email that I received while I was writing this talk just a month or so ago. It's from a man named Chris Croy, who I'd never heard of. This is a picture of him showing him recovering from surgery. Why was he recovering from surgery? The email began, "Last Tuesday, I anonymously donated my right kidney to a stranger. That started a kidney chain which enabled four people to receive kidneys." There's about 100 people each year in the U.S. and more in other countries who do that. I was pleased to read it. Chris went on to say that he'd been influenced by my writings in what he did. Well, I have to admit, I'm also somewhat embarrassed by that, because I still have two kidneys. But Chris went on to say that he didn't think that what he'd done was all that amazing, because he calculated that the number of life-years that he had added to people, the extension of life, was about the same that you could achieve if you gave 5,000 dollars to the Against Malaria Foundation. And that did make me feel a little bit better, because I have given more than 5,000 dollars to the Against Malaria Foundation and to various other effective charities. So if you're feeling bad because you still have two kidneys as well, there's a way for you to get off the hook. Thank you. (Applause)
My topic is economic growth in China and India. And the question I want to explore with you is whether or not democracy has helped or has hindered economic growth. You may say this is not fair, because I'm selecting two countries to make a case against democracy. Actually, exactly the opposite is what I'm going to do. I'm going to use these two countries to make an economic argument for democracy, rather than against democracy. The first question there is why China has grown so much faster than India. Over the last 30 years, in terms of the GDP growth rates, China has grown at twice the rate of India. In the last five years, the two countries have begun to converge somewhat in economic growth. But over the last 30 years, China undoubtedly has done much better than India. One simple answer is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai. Look at the skyline of Shanghai. This is the Pudong area. The picture on India is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai in India. The idea there behind these two pictures is that the Chinese government can act above rule of law. It can plan for the long-term benefits of the country and in the process, evict millions of people -- that's just a small technical issue. Whereas in India, you cannot do that, because you have to listen to the public. You're being constrained by the public's opinion. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agrees with that view. In an interview printed in the financial press of India, He said that he wants to make Mumbai another Shanghai. This is an Oxford-trained economist steeped in humanistic values, and yet he agrees with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai. So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth, that emphasizes the following features for promoting economic development: infrastructures, airports, highways, bridges, things like that. And you need a strong government to do that, because you cannot respect private property rights. You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion. You need also state ownership, especially of land assets, in order to build and roll out infrastructures very quickly. The implication of that model is that democracy is a hindrance for economic growth, rather than a facilitator of economic growth. Here's the key question. Just how important are infrastructures for economic growth? This is a key issue. If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth, then you would argue a strong government is necessary to promote growth. If you believe that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe, then you will put less emphasis on strong government. So to illustrate that question, let me give you two countries. And for the sake of brevity, I'll call one country Country 1 and the other country Country 2. Country 1 has a systematic advantage over Country 2 in infrastructures. Country 1 has more telephones, and Country 1 has a longer system of railways. So if I were to ask you, "Which is China and which is India, and which country has grown faster?" if you believe in the infrastructure view, then you will say, "Country 1 must be China. They must have done better, in terms of economic growth. And Country 2 is possibly India." Actually the country with more telephones is the Soviet Union, and the data referred to 1989. After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones, the country collapsed. That's not too good. The picture there is Khrushchev. I know that in 1989 he no longer ruled the Soviet Union, but that's the best picture that I can find. (Laughter) Telephones, infrastructures do not guarantee you economic growth. Country 2, that has fewer telephones, is China. Since 1989, the country has performed at a double-digit rate every year for the last 20 years. If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union other than the fact about their telephones, you would have made a poor prediction about their economic growth in the next two decades. Country 1, that has a longer system of railways, is actually India. And Country 2 is China. This is a very little known fact about the two countries. Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage over India. But for many years, until the late 1990s, China had an infrastructure disadvantage vis-a-vis India. In developing countries, the most common mode of transportation is the railways, and the British built a lot of railways in India. India is the smaller of the two countries, and yet it had a longer system of railways until the late 1990s. So clearly, infrastructure doesn't explain why China did better before the late 1990s, as compared with India. In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide, the evidence is more supportive of the view that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth. The economy grows, government accumulates more resources, and the government can invest in infrastructure -- rather than infrastructure being a cause for economic growth. And this is clearly the story of the Chinese economic growth. Let me look at this question more directly. Is democracy bad for economic growth? Now let's turn to two countries, Country A and Country B. Country A, in 1990, had about $300 per capita GDP as compared with Country B, which had $460 in per capita GDP. By 2008, Country A has surpassed Country B with $700 per capita GDP as compared with $650 per capita GDP. Both countries are in Asia. If I were to ask you, "Which are the two Asian countries? And which one is a democracy?" you may argue, "Well, maybe Country A is China and Country B is India." In fact, Country A is democratic India, and Country B is Pakistan -- the country that has a long period of military rule. And it's very common that we compare India with China. That's because the two countries have about the same population size. But the more natural comparison is actually between India and Pakistan. Those two countries are geographically similar. They have a complicated, but shared common history. By that comparison, democracy looks very, very good in terms of economic growth. So why do economists fall in love with authoritarian governments? One reason is the East Asian Model. In East Asia, we have had successful economic growth stories such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Some of these economies were ruled by authoritarian governments in the 60s and 70s and 1980s. The problem with that view is like asking all the winners of lotteries, "Have you won the lottery?" And they all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery." And then you draw the conclusion the odds of winning the lottery are 100 percent. The reason is you never go and bother to ask the losers who also purchased lottery tickets and didn't end up winning the prize. For each of these successful authoritarian governments in East Asia, there's a matched failure. Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't. Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't. Burma didn't succeed. The Philippines didn't succeed. If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide, there's really no support for the idea that authoritarian governments hold a systematic edge over democracies in terms of economic growth. So the East Asian model has this massive selection bias -- it is known as selecting on a dependent variable, something we always tell our students to avoid. So exactly why did China grow so much faster? I will take you to the Cultural Revolution, when China went mad, and compare that country's performance with India under Indira Gandhi. The question there is: Which country did better, China or India? China was during the Cultural Revolution. It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution, China out-perfomed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about 2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP. So that's when China was mad. The whole country went mad. It must mean that the country had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth to overcome the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution. The advantage the country had was human capital -- nothing else but human capital. This is the world development index indicator data in the early 1990s. And this is the earliest data that I can find. The adult literacy rate in China is 77 percent as compared with 48 percent in India. The contrast in literacy rates is especially sharp between Chinese women and Indian women. I haven't told you about the definition of literacy. In China, the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write 1,500 Chinese characters. In India, the definition of literacy, operating definition of literacy, is the ability, the grand ability, to write your own name in whatever language you happen to speak. The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy is much more substantial than the data here indicated. If you go to other sources of data such as Human Development Index, that data series, go back to the early 1970s, you see exactly the same contrast. China held a huge advantage in terms of human capital vis-a-vis India. Life expectancies: as early as 1965, China had a huge advantage in life expectancy. On average, as a Chinese in 1965, you lived 10 years more than an average Indian. So if you have a choice between being a Chinese and being an Indian, you would want to become a Chinese in order to live 10 years longer. If you made that decision in 1965, the down side of that is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution. So you have to always think carefully about these decisions. If you cannot chose your nationality, then you will want to become an Indian man. Because, as an Indian man, you have about two years of life expectancy advantage vis-a-vis Indian women. This is an extremely strange fact. It's very rare among countries to have this kind of pattern. It shows the systematic discrimination and biases in the Indian society against women. The good news is, by 2006, India has closed the gap between men and women in terms of life expectancy. Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge over Indian men. So India is reverting to the normal. But India still has a lot of work to do in terms of gender equality. These are the two pictures taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province and garment factories in India. In China, it's all women. 60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women in the coastal part of the country, whereas in India, it's all men. Financial Times printed this picture of an Indian textile factory with the title, "India Poised to Overtake China in Textile." By looking at these two pictures, I say no, it won't overtake China for a while. If you look at other East Asian countries, women there play a hugely important role in terms of economic take-off -- in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle associated with East Asia. India still has a long way to go to catch up with China. Then the issue is, what about the Chinese political system? You talk about human capital, you talk about education and public health. What about the political system? Isn't it true that the one-party political system has facilitated economic growth in China? Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that. It depends on a distinction that you draw between statics of the political system and the dynamics of the political system. Statically, China is a one-party system, authoritarian -- there's no question about it. Dynamically, it has changed over time to become less authoritarian and more democratic. When you explain change -- for example, economic growth; economic growth is about change -- when you explain change, you use other things that have changed to explain change, rather than using the constant to explain change. Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change, but a fixed effect only explains changes in interaction with the things that change. In terms of the political changes, they have introduced village elections. They have increased the security of proprietors. And they have increased the security with long-term land leases. There are also financial reforms in rural China. There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China. To me, the pace of political changes is too slow, too gradual. And my own view is the country is going to face some substantial challenges, because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms. But nevertheless, the system has moved in a more liberal direction, moved in a more democratic direction. You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India. In fact, when India was growing at a Hindu rate of growth -- about one percent, two percent a year -- that was when India was least democratic. Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975. The Indian government owned and operated all the TV stations. A little-known fact about India in the 1990s is that the country not only has undertaken economic reforms, the country has also undertaken political reforms by introducing village self-rule, privatization of media and introducing freedom of information acts. So the dynamic perspective fits both with China and in India in terms of the direction. Why do many people believe that India is still a growth disaster? One reason is they are always comparing India with China. But China is a superstar in terms of economic growth. If you are a NBA player and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan, you're going to look not so impressive. But that doesn't mean that you're a bad basketball player. Comparing with a superstar is the wrong benchmark. In fact, if you compare India with the average developing country, even before the more recent period of acceleration of Indian growth -- now India is growing between eight and nine percent -- even before this period, India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth among emerging economies. This is a very impressive record indeed. Let's think about the future: the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant. Which country has the growth momentum? China, I believe, still has some of the excellent raw fundamentals -- mostly the social capital, the public health, the sense of egalitarianism that you don't find in India. But I believe that India has the momentum. It has the improving fundamentals. The government has invested in basic education, has invested in basic health. I believe the government should do more, but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in is the right direction. India has the right institutional conditions for economic growth, whereas China is still struggling with political reforms. I believe that the political reforms are a must for China to maintain its growth. And it's very important to have political reforms, to have widely shared benefits of economic growth. I don't know whether that's going to happen or not, but I'm an optimist. Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal that political reforms will happen in China. Thank you very much. (Applause)
I grew up with my identical twin, who was an incredibly loving brother. Now, one thing about being a twin is that it makes you an expert at spotting favoritism. If his cookie was even slightly bigger than my cookie, I had questions. And clearly, I wasn't starving. (Laughter) When I became a psychologist, I began to notice favoritism of a different kind, and that is how much more we value the body than we do the mind. I spent nine years at university earning my doctorate in psychology, and I can't tell you how many people look at my business card and say, "Oh, a psychologist. So not a real doctor," as if it should say that on my card. (Laughter) This favoritism we show the body over the mind, I see it everywhere. I recently was at a friend's house, and their five-year-old was getting ready for bed. He was standing on a stool by the sink brushing his teeth, when he slipped, and scratched his leg on the stool when he fell. He cried for a minute, but then he got back up, got back on the stool, and reached out for a box of Band-Aids to put one on his cut. Now, this kid could barely tie his shoelaces, but he knew you have to cover a cut, so it doesn't become infected, and you have to care for your teeth by brushing twice a day. We all know how to maintain our physical health and how to practice dental hygiene, right? We've known it since we were five years old. But what do we know about maintaining our psychological health? Well, nothing. What do we teach our children about emotional hygiene? Nothing. How is it that we spend more time taking care of our teeth than we do our minds. Why is it that our physical health is so much more important to us than our psychological health? We sustain psychological injuries even more often than we do physical ones, injuries like failure or rejection or loneliness. And they can also get worse if we ignore them, and they can impact our lives in dramatic ways. And yet, even though there are scientifically proven techniques we could use to treat these kinds of psychological injuries, we don't. It doesn't even occur to us that we should. "Oh, you're feeling depressed? Just shake it off; it's all in your head." Can you imagine saying that to somebody with a broken leg: "Oh, just walk it off; it's all in your leg." (Laughter) It is time we closed the gap between our physical and our psychological health. It's time we made them more equal, more like twins. Speaking of which, my brother is also a psychologist. So he's not a real doctor, either. (Laughter) We didn't study together, though. In fact, the hardest thing I've ever done in my life is move across the Atlantic to New York City to get my doctorate in psychology. We were apart then for the first time in our lives, and the separation was brutal for both of us. But while he remained among family and friends, I was alone in a new country. We missed each other terribly, but international phone calls were really expensive then and we could only afford to speak for five minutes a week. When our birthday rolled around, it was the first we wouldn't be spending together. We decide to splurge, and that week we would talk for 10 minutes. I spent the morning pacing around my room, waiting for him to call -- and waiting and waiting, but the phone didn't ring. Given the time difference, I assumed, "Ok, he's out with friends, he will call later." There were no cell phones then. But he didn't. And I began to realize that after being away for over 10 months, he no longer missed me the way I missed him. I knew he would call in the morning, but that night was one of the saddest and longest nights of my life. I woke up the next morning. I glanced down at the phone, and I realized I had kicked it off the hook when pacing the day before. I stumbled out off bed, I put the phone back on the receiver, and it rang a second later, and it was my brother, and, boy, was he pissed. (Laughter) It was the saddest and longest night of his life as well. Now I tried to explain what happened, but he said, "I don't understand. If you saw I wasn't calling you, why didn't you just pick up the phone and call me?" He was right. Why didn't I call him? I didn't have an answer then, but I do today, and it's a simple one: loneliness. Loneliness creates a deep psychological wound, one that distorts our perceptions and scrambles our thinking. It makes us believe that those around us care much less than they actually do. It make us really afraid to reach out, because why set yourself up for rejection and heartache when your heart is already aching more than you can stand? I was in the grips of real loneliness back then, but I was surrounded by people all day, so it never occurred to me. But loneliness is defined purely subjectively. It depends solely on whether you feel emotionally or socially disconnected from those around you. And I did. There is a lot of research on loneliness, and all of it is horrifying. Loneliness won't just make you miserable, it will kill you. I'm not kidding. Chronic loneliness increases your likelihood of an early death by 14 percent. Loneliness causes high blood pressure, high cholesterol. It even suppress the functioning of your immune system, making you vulnerable to all kinds of illnesses and diseases. In fact, scientists have concluded that taken together, chronic loneliness poses as significant a risk for your longterm health and longevity as cigarette smoking. Now cigarette packs come with warnings saying, "This could kill you." But loneliness doesn't. And that's why it's so important that we prioritize our psychological health, that we practice emotional hygiene. Because you can't treat a psychological wound if you don't even know you're injured. Loneliness isn't the only psychological wound that distorts our perceptions and misleads us. Failure does that as well. I once visited a day care center, where I saw three toddlers play with identical plastic toys. You had to slide the red button, and a cute doggie would pop out. One little girl tried pulling the purple button, then pushing it, and then she just sat back and looked at the box, with her lower lip trembling. The little boy next to her watched this happen, then turned to his box and and burst into tears without even touching it. Meanwhile, another little girl tried everything she could think of until she slid the red button, the cute doggie popped out, and she squealed with delight. So three toddlers with identical plastic toys, but with very different reactions to failure. The first two toddlers were perfectly capable of sliding a red button. The only thing that prevented them from succeeding was that their mind tricked them into believing they could not. Now, adults get tricked this way as well, all the time. In fact, we all have a default set of feelings and beliefs that gets triggered whenever we encounter frustrations and setbacks. Are you aware of how your mind reacts to failure? You need to be. Because if your mind tries to convince you you're incapable of something and you believe it, then like those two toddlers, you'll begin to feel helpless and you'll stop trying too soon, or you won't even try at all. And then you'll be even more convinced you can't succeed. You see, that's why so many people function below their actual potential. Because somewhere along the way, sometimes a single failure convinced them that they couldn't succeed, and they believed it. Once we become convinced of something, it's very difficult to change our mind. I learned that lesson the hard way when I was a teenager with my brother. We were driving with friends down a dark road at night, when a police car stopped us. There had been a robbery in the area and they were looking for suspects. The officer approached the car, and he shined his flashlight on the driver, then on my brother in the front seat, and then on me. And his eyes opened wide and he said, "Where have I seen your face before?" (Laughter) And I said, "In the front seat." (Laughter) But that made no sense to him whatsoever. So now he thought I was on drugs. (Laughter) So he drags me out of the car, he searches me, he marches me over to the police car, and only when he verified I didn't have a police record, could I show him I had a twin in the front seat. But even as we were driving away, you could see by the look on his face he was convinced that I was getting away with something. Our mind is hard to change once we become convinced. So it might be very natural to feel demoralized and defeated after you fail. But you cannot allow yourself to become convinced you can't succeed. You have to fight feelings of helplessness. You have to gain control over the situation. And you have to break this kind of negative cycle before it begins. Our minds and our feelings, they're not the trustworthy friends we thought they were. They are more like a really moody friend, who can be totally supportive one minute, and really unpleasant the next. I once worked with this woman who after 20 years marriage and an extremely ugly divorce, was finally ready for her first date. She had met this guy online, and he seemed nice and he seemed successful, and most importantly, he seemed really into her. So she was very excited, she bought a new dress, and they met at an upscale New York City bar for a drink. Ten minutes into the date, the man stands up and says, "I'm not interested," and walks out. Rejection is extremely painful. The woman was so hurt she couldn't move. All she could do was call a friend. Here's what the friend said: "Well, what do you expect? You have big hips, you have nothing interesting to say, why would a handsome, successful man like that ever go out with a loser like you?" Shocking, right, that a friend could be so cruel? But it would be much less shocking if I told you it wasn't the friend who said that. It's what the woman said to herself. And that's something we all do, especially after a rejection. We all start thinking of all our faults and all our shortcomings, what we wish we were, what we wish we weren't, we call ourselves names. Maybe not as harshly, but we all do it. And it's interesting that we do, because our self-esteem is already hurting. Why would we want to go and damage it even further? We wouldn't make a physical injury worse on purpose. You wouldn't get a cut on your arm and decide, "Oh, I know! I'm going to take a knife and see how much deeper I can make it." But we do that with psychological injuries all the time. Why? Because of poor emotional hygiene. Because we don't prioritize our psychological health. We know from dozens of studies that when your self-esteem is lower, you are more vulnerable to stress and to anxiety, that failures and rejections hurt more and it takes longer to recover from them. So when you get rejected, the first thing you should be doing is to revive your self-esteem, not join Fight Club and beat it into a pulp. When you're in emotional pain, treat yourself with the same compassion you would expect from a truly good friend. We have to catch our unhealthy psychological habits and change them. One of unhealthiest and most common is called rumination. To ruminate means to chew over. It's when your boss yells at you, or your professor makes you feel stupid in class, or you have big fight with a friend and you just can't stop replaying the scene in your head for days, sometimes for weeks on end. Ruminating about upsetting events in this way can easily become a habit, and it's a very costly one. Because by spending so much time focused on upsetting and negative thoughts, you are actually putting yourself at significant risk for developing clinical depression, alcoholism, eating disorders, and even cardiovascular disease. The problem is the urge to ruminate can feel really strong and really important, so it's a difficult habit to stop. I know this for a fact, because a little over a year ago, I developed the habit myself. You see, my twin brother was diagnosed with stage III non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. His cancer was extremly aggressive. He had visible tumors all over his body. And he had to start a harsh course of chemotherapy. And I couldn't stop thinking about what he was going through. I couldn't stop thinking about how much he was suffering, even though he never complained, not once. He had this incredibly positive attitude. His psychological health was amazing. I was physically healthy, but psychologically I was a mess. But I knew what to do. Studies tell us that even a two-minute distraction is sufficient to break the urge to ruminate in that moment. And so each time I had a worrying, upsetting, negative thought, I forced myself to concentrate on something else until the urge passed. And within one week, my whole outlook changed and became more positive and more hopeful. Nine weeks after he started chemotherapy, my brother had a CAT scan, and I was by his side when he got the results. All the tumors were gone. He still had three more rounds of chemotherapy to go, but we knew he would recover. This picture was taken two weeks ago. By taking action when you're lonely, by changing your responses to failure, by protecting your self-esteem, by battling negative thinking, you won't just heal your psychological wounds, you will build emotional resilience, you will thrive. A hundred years ago, people began practicing personal hygiene, and life expectancy rates rose by over 50 percent in just a matter of decades. I believe our quality of life could rise just as dramatically if we all began practicing emotional hygiene. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone was psychologically healthier? If there were less loneliness and less depression? If people knew how to overcome failure? If they felt better about themselves and more empowered? If they were happier and more fulfilled? I can, because that's the world I want to live in, and that's the world my brother wants to live in as well. And if you just become informed and change a few simple habits, well, that's the world we can all live in. Thank you very much. (Applause)
In the 17th century, a woman named Giulia Tofana had a very successful perfume business. For over 50 years she ran it. It sort of ended abruptly when she was executed — (Laughter) — for murdering 600 men. You see, it wasn't a very good perfume. In fact, it was completely odorless and tasteless and colorless, but as a poison, it was the best money could buy, so women flocked to her in order to murder their husbands. It turns out that poisoners were a valued and feared group, because poisoning a human being is a quite difficult thing. The reason is, we have sort of a built-in poison detector. You can see this as early as even in newborn infants. If you are willing to do this, you can take a couple of drops of a bitter substance or a sour substance, and you'll see that face, the tongue stick out, the wrinkled nose, as if they're trying to get rid of what's in their mouth. This reaction expands into adulthood and becomes sort of a full-blown disgust response, no longer just about whether or not we're about to be poisoned, but whenever there's a threat of physical contamination from some source. But the face remains strikingly similar. It has expanded more, though, than just keeping us away from physical contaminants, and there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that, in fact, this emotion of disgust now influences our moral beliefs and even our deeply held political intuitions. Why this might be the case? We can understand this process by understanding a little bit about emotions in general. So the basic human emotions, those kinds of emotions that we share with all other human beings, exist because they motivate us to do good things and they keep us away from doing bad things. So by and large, they are good for our survival. Take the emotion of fear, for instance. It keeps us away from doing things that are really, really risky. This photo taken just before his death — (Laughter) — is actually a — No, one reason this photo is interesting is because most people would not do this, and if they did, they would not live to tell it, because fear would have kicked in a long time ago to a natural predator. Just like fear offers us protective benefits, disgust seems to do the same thing, except for what disgust does is keeps us away from not things that might eat us, or heights, but rather things that might poison us, or give us disease and make us sick. So one of the features of disgust that makes it such an interesting emotion is that it's very, very easy to elicit, in fact more so than probably any of the other basic emotions, and so I'm going to show you that with a couple of images I can probably make you feel disgust. So turn away. I'll tell you when you can turn back. (Laughter) I mean, you see it every day, right? I mean, come on. (Laughter) (Audience: Ewww.) Okay, turn back, if you didn't look. Those probably made a lot of you in the audience feel very, very disgusted, but if you didn't look, I can tell you about some of the other things that have been shown sort of across the world to make people disgusted, things like feces, urine, blood, rotten flesh. These are the sorts of things that it makes sense for us to stay away from, because they might actually contaminate us. In fact, just having a diseased appearance or odd sexual acts, these things are also things that give us a lot of disgust. Darwin was probably one of the first scientists to systematically investigate the human emotions, and he pointed to the universal nature and the strength of the disgust response. This is an anecdote from his travels in South America. "In Tierro del Fuego a native touched with his finger some cold preserved meat while I was eating ... and plainly showed disgust at its softness, whilst I felt utter disgust at my food being touched by a naked savage — (Laughter) — though his hands did not appear dirty." He later wrote, "It's okay, some of my best friends are naked savages." (Laughter) Well it turns out it's not only old-timey British scientists who are this squeamish. I recently got a chance to talk to Richard Dawkins for a documentary, and I was able to disgust him a bunch of times. Here's my favorite. Richard Dawkins: "We've evolved around courtship and sex, are attached to deep-rooted emotions and reactions that are hard to jettison overnight." David Pizarro: So my favorite part of this clip is that Professor Dawkins actually gagged. He jumps back, and he gags, and we had to do it three times, and all three times he gagged. (Laughter) And he was really gagging. I thought he might throw up on me, actually. One of the features, though, of disgust, is not just its universality and its strength, but the way that it works through association. So when one disgusting thing touches a clean thing, that clean thing becomes disgusting, not the other way around. This makes it very useful as a strategy if you want to convince somebody that an object or an individual or an entire social group is disgusting and should be avoided. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum points this out in this quote: "Thus throughout history, certain disgust properties -- sliminess, bad smell, stickiness, decay, foulness -- have been repeatedly and monotonously been associated with ... Jews, women, homosexuals, untouchables, lower-class people -- all of those are imagined as tainted by the dirt of the body." Let me give you just some examples of how, some powerful examples of how this has been used historically. This comes from a Nazi children's book published in 1938: "Just look at these guys! The louse-infested beards, the filthy, protruding ears, those stained, fatty clothes... Jews often have an unpleasant sweetish odor. If you have a good nose, you can smell the Jews." A more modern example comes from people who try to convince us that homosexuality is immoral. This is from an anti-gay website, where they said gays are "worthy of death for their vile ... sex practices." They're like "dogs eating their own vomit and sows wallowing in their own feces." These are disgust properties that are trying to be directly linked to the social group that you should not like. When we were first investigating the role of disgust in moral judgment, one of the things we became interested in was whether or not these sorts of appeals are more likely to work in individuals who are more easily disgusted. So while disgust, along with the other basic emotions, are universal phenomena, it just really is true that some people are easier to disgust than others. You could probably see it in the audience members when I showed you those disgusting images. The way that we measured this was by a scale that was constructed by some other psychologists that simply asked people across a wide variety of situations how likely they are to feel disgust. So here are a couple of examples. "Even if I were hungry, I would not drink a bowl of my favorite soup if it had been stirred by a used but thoroughly washed fly-swatter." "Do you agree or disagree?" (Laughter) "While you are walking through a tunnel under a railroad track, you smell urine. Would you be very disgusted or not at all disgusted?" If you ask enough of these, you can get a general overall score of disgust sensitivity. It turns out that this score is actually meaningful. When you bring people into the laboratory and you ask them if they're willing to engage in safe but disgusting behaviors like eating chocolate that's been baked to look like dog poop, or in this case eating some mealworms that are perfectly healthy but pretty gross, your score on that scale actually predicts whether or not you'll be willing to engage in those behaviors. The first time that we set out to collect data on this and associate it with political or moral beliefs, we found a general pattern -- this is with the psychologists Yoel Inbar and Paul Bloom -- that in fact, across three studies we kept finding that people who reported that they were easily disgusted also reported that they were more politically conservative. Another way to say this, though, is that people who are very liberal are very hard to disgust. (Laughter) In a more recent follow-up study, we were able to look at a much greater sample, a much larger sample. In this case, this is nearly 30,000 U.S. respondents, and we find the same pattern. As you can see, people who are on the very conservative side of answering the political orientation scale are also much more likely to report that they're easily disgusted. This data set also allowed us to statistically control for a number of things that we knew were both related to political orientation and to disgust sensitivity. So we were able to control for gender, age, income, education, even basic personality variables, and the result stays the same. When we actually looked at not just self-reported political orientation, but voting behavior, we were able to look geographically across the nation. What we found was that in regions in which people reported high levels of disgust sensitivity, McCain got more votes. So it not only predicted self-reported political orientation, but actual voting behavior. And also we were able, with this sample, to look across the world, in 121 different countries we asked the same questions, and as you can see, this is 121 countries collapsed into 10 different geographical regions. No matter where you look, what this is plotting is the size of the relationship between disgust sensitivity and political orientation, and no matter where we looked, we saw a very similar effect. Other labs have actually looked at this as well using different measures of disgust sensitivity, so rather than asking people how easily disgusted they are, they hook people up to physiological measures, in this case skin conductance. And what they've demonstrated is that people who report being more politically conservative are also more physiologically aroused when you show them disgusting images like the ones that I showed you. Interestingly, what they also showed in a finding that we kept getting in our previous studies as well was that one of the strongest influences here is that individuals who are very disgust-sensitive not only are more likely to report being politically conservative, but they're also very much more opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality and pretty much a lot of the socio-moral issues in the sexual domain. So physiological arousal predicted, in this study, attitudes toward gay marriage. But even with all these data linking disgust sensitivity and political orientation, one of the questions that remains is what is the causal link here? Is it the case that disgust really is shaping political and moral beliefs? We have to resort to experimental methods to answer this, and so what we can do is actually bring people into the lab and disgust them and compare them to a control group that hasn't been disgusted. It turns out that over the past five years a number of researchers have done this, and by and large the results have all been the same, that when people are feeling disgust, their attitudes shift towards the right of the political spectrum, toward more moral conservatism as well. So this is whether you use a foul odor, a bad taste, from film clips, from post-hypnotic suggestions of disgust, images like the ones I've shown you, even just reminding people that disease is prevalent and they should be wary of it and wash up, right, to keep clean, these all have similar effects on judgment. Let me just give you an example from a recent study that we conducted. We asked participants to just simply give us their opinion of a variety of social groups, and we either made the room smell gross or not. When the room smelled gross, what we saw was that individuals actually reported more negative attitudes toward gay men. Disgust didn't influence attitudes toward all the other social groups that we asked, including African-Americans, the elderly. It really came down to the attitudes they had toward gay men. In another set of studies we actually simply reminded people -- this was at a time when the swine flu was going around -- we reminded people that in order to prevent the spread of the flu that they ought to wash their hands. For some participants, we actually had them take questionnaires next to a sign that reminded them to wash their hands. And what we found was that just taking a questionnaire next to this hand-sanitizing reminder made individuals report being more politically conservative. And when we asked them a variety of questions about the rightness or wrongness of certain acts, what we also found was that simply being reminded that they ought to wash their hands made them more morally conservative. In particular, when we asked them questions about sort of taboo but fairly harmless sexual practices, just being reminded that they ought to wash their hands made them think that they were more morally wrong. Let me give you an example of what I mean by harmless but taboo sexual practice. We gave them scenarios. One of them said a man is house-sitting for his grandmother. When his grandmother's away, he has sex with his girlfriend on his grandma's bed. In another one, we said a woman enjoys masturbating with her favorite teddy bear cuddled next to her. (Laughter) People find these to be more morally abhorrent if they've been reminded to wash their hands. (Laughter) (Laughter) Okay. The fact that emotions influence our judgment should come as no surprise. I mean, that's part of how emotions work. They not only motivate you to behave in certain ways, but they change the way you think. In the case of disgust, what is a little bit more surprising is the scope of this influence. It makes perfect sense, and it's a very good emotion for us to have, that disgust would make me change the way that I perceive the physical world whenever contamination is possible. It makes less sense that an emotion that was built to prevent me from ingesting poison should predict who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. The question of whether disgust ought to influence our moral and political judgments certainly has to be complex, and might depend on exactly what judgments we're talking about, and as a scientist, we have to conclude sometimes that the scientific method is just ill-equipped to answer these sorts of questions. But one thing that I am fairly certain about is, at the very least, what we can do with this research is point to what questions we ought to ask in the first place. Thank you. (Applause)
The following are my opinions, and do not reflect the opinions or policies of any particular prosecutor's office. (Laughter) I am a prosecutor. I believe in law and order. I am the adopted son of a police officer, a Marine and a hairdresser. I believe in accountability and that we should all be safe in our communities. I love my job and the people that do it. I just think that it's our responsibility to do it better. By a show of hands, how many of you, by the age of 25, had either acted up in school, went somewhere you were specifically told to stay out of, or drank alcohol before your legal age? (Laughter) All right. How many of you shoplifted, tried an illegal drug or got into a physical fight -- yes, even with a sibling? Now, how many of you ever spent one day in jail for any of those decisions? How many of you sitting here today think that you're a danger to society or should be defined by those actions of youthful indiscretion? (Laughter) Point taken. When we talk about criminal justice reform, we often focus on a few things, and that's what I want to talk to you about today. But first I'm going to -- since you shared with me, I'm going to give you a confession on my part. I went to law school to make money. I had no interest in being a public servant, I had no interest in criminal law, and I definitely didn't think that I would ever be a prosecutor. Near the end of my first year of law school, I got an internship in the Roxbury Division of Boston Municipal Court. I knew of Roxbury as an impoverished neighborhood in Boston, plagued by gun violence and drug crime. My life and my legal career changed the first day of that internship. I walked into a courtroom, and I saw an auditorium of people who, one by one, would approach the front of that courtroom to say two words and two words only: "Not guilty." They were predominately black and brown. And then a judge, a defense attorney and a prosecutor would make life-altering decisions about that person without their input. They were predominately white. As each person, one by one, approached the front of that courtroom, I couldn't stop but think: How did they get here? I wanted to know their stories. And as the prosecutor read the facts of each case, I was thinking to myself, we could have predicted that. That seems so preventable... not because I was an expert in criminal law, but because it was common sense. Over the course of the internship, I began to recognize people in the auditorium, not because they were criminal masterminds but because they were coming to us for help and we were sending them out without any. My second year of law school I worked as a paralegal for a defense attorney, and in that experience I met many young men accused of murder. Even in our "worst," I saw human stories. And they all contained childhood trauma, victimization, poverty, loss, disengagement from school, early interaction with the police and the criminal justice system, all leading to a seat in a courtroom. Those convicted of murder were condemned to die in prison, and it was during those meetings with those men that I couldn't fathom why we would spend so much money to keep this one person in jail for the next 80 years when we could have reinvested it up front, and perhaps prevented the whole thing from happening in the first place. (Applause) My third year of law school, I defended people accused of small street crimes, mostly mentally ill, mostly homeless, mostly drug-addicted, all in need of help. They would come to us, and we would send them away without that help. They were in need of our assistance. But we weren't giving them any. Prosecuted, adjudged and defended by people who knew nothing about them. The staggering inefficiency is what drove me to criminal justice work. The unfairness of it all made me want to be a defender. The power dynamic that I came to understand made me become a prosecutor. I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about the problem. We know the criminal justice system needs reform, we know there are 2.3 million people in American jails and prisons, making us the most incarcerated nation on the planet. We know there's another seven million people on probation or parole, we know that the criminal justice system disproportionately affects people of color, particularly poor people of color. And we know there are system failures happening everywhere that bring people to our courtrooms. But what we do not discuss is how ill-equipped our prosecutors are to receive them. When we talk about criminal justice reform, we, as a society, focus on three things. We complain, we tweet, we protest about the police, about sentencing laws and about prison. We rarely, if ever, talk about the prosecutor. In the fall of 2009, a young man was arrested by the Boston Police Department. He was 18 years old, he was African American and he was a senior at a local public school. He had his sights set on college but his part-time, minimum-wage job wasn't providing the financial opportunity he needed to enroll in school. In a series of bad decisions, he stole 30 laptops from a store and sold them on the Internet. This led to his arrest and a criminal complaint of 30 felony charges. The potential jail time he faced is what stressed Christopher out the most. But what he had little understanding of was the impact a criminal record would have on his future. I was standing in arraignments that day when Christopher's case came across my desk. And at the risk of sounding dramatic, in that moment, I had Christopher's life in my hands. I was 29 years old, a brand-new prosecutor, and I had little appreciation for how the decisions I would make would impact Christopher's life. Christopher's case was a serious one and it needed to be dealt with as such, but I didn't think branding him a felon for the rest of his life was the right answer. For the most part, prosecutors step onto the job with little appreciation of the impact of our decisions, regardless of our intent. Despite our broad discretion, we learn to avoid risk at all cost, rendering our discretion basically useless. History has conditioned us to believe that somehow, the criminal justice system brings about accountability and improves public safety, despite evidence to the contrary. We're judged internally and externally by our convictions and our trial wins, so prosecutors aren't really incentivized to be creative at our case positions, dispositions, or to take risks on people we might not otherwise. We stick to an outdated method, counterproductive to achieving the very goal that we all want, and that's safer communities. Yet most prosecutors standing in my space would have arraigned Christopher. They have little appreciation for what we can do. Arraigning Christopher would give him a criminal record, making it harder for him to get a job, setting in motion a cycle that defines the failing criminal justice system today. With a criminal record and without a job, Christopher would be unable to find employment, education or stable housing. Without those protective factors in his life, Christopher would be more likely to commit further, more serious crime. The more contact Christopher had with the criminal justice system, the more likely it would be that he would return again and again and again -- all a tremendous social cost to his children, to his family and to his peers. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is a terrible public safety outcome for the rest of us. When I came out of law school, I did the same thing as everybody else. I came out as a prosecutor expected to do justice, but I never learned what justice was in my classes -- none of us do. None of us do. And yet, prosecutors are the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system. Our power is virtually boundless. In most cases, not the judge, not the police, not the legislature, not the mayor, not the governor, not the President can tell us how to prosecute our cases. The decision to arraign Christopher and give him a criminal record was exclusively mine. I would choose whether to prosecute him for 30 felonies, for one felony, for a misdemeanor, or at all. I would choose whether to leverage Christopher into a plea deal or take the case to trial, and ultimately, I would be in a position to ask for Christopher to go to jail. These are decisions that prosecutors make every day unfettered, and we are unaware and untrained of the grave consequences of those decisions. One night this past summer, I was at a small gathering of professional men of color from around the city. As I stood there stuffing free finger sandwiches into my mouth, as you do as public servant -- (Laughter) I noticed across the room, a young man waving and smiling at me and approaching me. And I recognized him, but I couldn't place from where, and before I knew it, this young man was hugging me. And thanking me. "You cared about me, and you changed my life." It was Christopher. See, I never arraigned Christopher. He never faced a judge or a jail, he never had a criminal record. Instead, I worked with Christopher; first on being accountable for his actions, and then, putting him in a position where he wouldn't re-offend. We recovered 75 percent of the computers that he sold and gave them back to Best Buy, and came up with a financial plan to repay for the computers we couldn't recover. Christopher did community service. He wrote an essay reflecting on how this case could impact his future and that of the community. He applied to college, he obtained financial aid, and he went on to graduate from a four-year school. (Applause) After we finished hugging, I looked at his name tag, to learn that Christopher was the manager of a large bank in Boston. Christopher had accomplished -- and making a lot more money than me -- (Laughter) He had accomplished all of this in the six years since I had first seen him in Roxbury Court. I can't take credit for Christopher's journey to success, but I certainly did my part to keep him on the path. There are thousands of Christophers out there, some locked in our jails and prisons. We need thousands of prosecutors to recognize that and to protect them. An employed Christopher is better for public safety than a condemned one. It's a bigger win for all of us. In retrospect, the decision not to throw the book at Christopher makes perfect sense. When I saw him that first day in Roxbury Court, I didn't see a criminal standing there. I saw myself -- a young person in need of intervention. As an individual caught selling a large quantity of drugs in my late teens, I knew firsthand the power of opportunity as opposed to the wrath of the criminal justice system. Along the way, with the help and guidance of my district attorney, my supervisor and judges, I learned the power of the prosecutor to change lives instead of ruining them. And that's how we do it in Boston. We helped a woman who was arrested for stealing groceries to feed her kids get a job. Instead of putting an abused teenager in adult jail for punching another teenager, we secured mental health treatment and community supervision. A runaway girl who was arrested for prostituting, to survive on the streets, needed a safe place to live and grow -- something we could help her with. I even helped a young man who was so afraid of the older gang kids showing up after school, that one morning instead of a lunchbox into his backpack, he put a loaded 9-millimeter. We would spend our time that we'd normally take prepping our cases for months and months for trial down the road by coming up with real solutions to the problems as they presented. Which is the better way to spend our time? How would you prefer your prosecutors to spend theirs? Why are we spending 80 billion dollars on a prison industry that we know is failing, when we could take that money and reallocate it into education, into mental health treatment, into substance abuse treatment and to community investment so we can develop our neighborhoods? (Applause) So why should this matter to you? Well, one, we're spending a lot of money. Our money. It costs 109,000 dollars in some states to lock up a teenager for a year, with a 60 percent chance that that person will return to the very same system. That is a terrible return on investment. Number two: it's the right thing to do. If prosecutors were a part of creating the problem, it's incumbent on us to create a solution and we can do that using other disciplines that have already done the data and research for us. And number three: your voice and your vote can make that happen. The next time there's a local district attorney's election in your jurisdiction, ask candidates these questions. One: What are you doing to make me and my neighbors safer? Two: What data are you collecting, and how are you training your prosecutors to make sure that it's working? And number three: If it's not working for everybody, what are you doing to fix it? If they can't answer the questions, they shouldn't be doing the job. Each one of you that raised your hand at the beginning of this talk is a living, breathing example of the power of opportunity, of intervention, of support and of love. While each of you may have faced your own brand of discipline for whatever malfeasances you committed, barely any of you needed a day in jail to make you the people that you are today -- some of the greatest minds on the planet. Every day, thousands of times a day, prosecutors around the United States wield power so great that it can bring about catastrophe as quickly as it can bring about opportunity, intervention, support and yes, even love. Those qualities are the hallmarks of a strong community, and a strong community is a safe one. If our communities are broken, don't let the lawyers that you elect fix them with outdated, inefficient, expensive methods. Demand more; vote for the prosecutor who's helping people stay out of jail, not putting them in. Demand better. You deserve it, your children deserve it, the people who are tied up in the system deserve it, but most of all, the people that we are sworn to protect and do justice for demand it. We must, we must do better. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) Thank you very much.
What I want you all to do right now is to think of this mammal that I'm going to describe to you. The first thing I'm going to tell you about this mammal is that it is essential for our ecosystems to function correctly. If we remove this mammal from our ecosystems, they simply will not work. That's the first thing. The second thing is that due to the unique sensory abilities of this mammal, if we study this mammal, we're going to get great insight into our diseases of the senses, such as blindness and deafness. And the third really intriguing aspect of this mammal is that I fully believe that the secret of everlasting youth lies deep within its DNA. So are you all thinking? So, magnificent creature, isn't it? Who here thought of a bat? Ah, I can see half the audience agrees with me, and I have a lot of work to do to convince the rest of you. So I have had the good fortune for the past 20 years to study these fascinating and beautiful mammals. One fifth of all living mammals is a bat, and they have very unique attributes. Bats as we know them have been around on this planet for about 64 million years. One of the most unique things that bats do as a mammal is that they fly. Now flight is an inherently difficult thing. Flight within vertebrates has only evolved three times: once in the bats, once in the birds, and once in the pterodactyls. And so with flight, it's very metabolically costly. Bats have learned and evolved how to deal with this. But one other extremely unique thing about bats is that they are able to use sound to perceive their environment. They use echolocation. Now, what I mean by echolocation -- they emit a sound from their larynx out through their mouth or through their nose. This sound wave comes out and it reflects and echoes back off objects in their environment, and the bats then hear these echoes and they turn this information into an acoustic image. And this enables them to orient in complete darkness. Indeed, they do look very strange. We're humans. We're a visual species. When scientists first realized that bats were actually using sound to be able to fly and orient and move at night, we didn't believe it. For a hundred years, despite evidence to show that this is what they were doing, we didn't believe it. Now, if you look at this bat, it looks a little bit alien. Indeed, the very famous philosopher Thomas Nagel once said, "To truly experience an alien life form on this planet, you should lock yourself inside a room with a flying, echolocating bat in complete darkness." And if you look at the actual physical characteristics on the face of this beautiful horseshoe bat, you see a lot of these characteristics are dedicated to be able to make sound and perceive it. Very big ears, strange nose leaves, but teeny-tiny eyes. So again, if you just look at this bat, you realize sound is very important for its survival. Most bats look like the previous one. However, there are a group that do not use echolocation. They do not perceive their environment using sound, and these are the flying foxes. If anybody has ever been lucky enough to be in Australia, you've seen them coming out of the Botanic Gardens in Sydney, and if you just look at their face, you can see they have much, much larger eyes and much smaller ears. So among and within bats is a huge variation in their ability to use sensory perception. Now this is going to be important for what I'm going to tell you later during the talk. Now, if the idea of bats in your belfry terrifies you, and I know some people probably are feeling a little sick looking at very large images of bats, that's probably not that surprising, because here in Western culture, bats have been demonized. Really, of course the famous book "Dracula," written by a fellow Northside Dubliner Bram Stoker, probably is mainly responsible for this. However, I also think it's got to do with the fact that bats come out at night, and we don't really understand them. We're a little frightened by things that can perceive the world slightly differently than us. Bats are usually synonymous with some type of evil events. They are the perpetrators in horror movies, such as this famous "Nightwing." Also, if you think about it, demons always have bat wings, whereas birds, they typically -- or angels have bird wings. Now, this is Western society, and what I hope to do tonight is to convince you of the Chinese traditional culture, that they perceive bats as creatures that bring good luck, and indeed, if you walk into a Chinese home, you may see an image such as this. This is considered the Five Blessings. The Chinese word for "bat" sounds like the Chinese word for "happiness," and they believe that bats bring wealth, health, longevity, virtue and serenity. And indeed, in this image, you have a picture of longevity surrounded by five bats. And what I want to do tonight is to talk to you and to show you that at least three of these blessings are definitely represented by a bat, and that if we study bats we will get nearer to getting each of these blessings. So, wealth -- how can a bat possibly bring us wealth? Now as I said before, bats are essential for our ecosystems to function correctly. And why is this? Bats in the tropics are major pollinators of many plants. They also feed on fruit, and they disperse the seeds of these fruits. Bats are responsible for pollinating the tequila plant, and this is a multi-million dollar industry in Mexico. So indeed, we need them for our ecosystems to function properly. Without them, it's going to be a problem. But most bats are voracious insect predators. It's been estimated in the U.S., in a tiny colony of big brown bats, that they will feed on over a million insects a year, and in the United States of America, right now bats are being threatened by a disease known as white-nose syndrome. It's working its way slowly across the U.S. and wiping out populations of bats, and scientists have estimated that 1,300 metric tons of insects a year are now remaining in the ecosystems due to the loss of bats. Bats are also threatened in the U.S. by their attraction to wind farms. Again, right now bats are looking at a little bit of a problem. They're going to -- They are very threatened in the United States of America alone. Now how can this help us? Well, it has been calculated that if we were to remove bats from the equation, we're going to have to then use insecticides to remove all those pest insects that feed on our agricultural crops. And for one year in the U.S. alone, it's estimated that it's going to cost 22 billion U.S. dollars, if we remove bats. So indeed, bats then do bring us wealth. They maintain the health of our ecosystems, and also they save us money. So again, that's the first blessing. Bats are important for our ecosystems. And what about the second? What about health? Inside every cell in your body lies your genome. Your genome is made up of your DNA, your DNA codes for proteins that enable you to function and interact and be as you are. Now since the new advancements in modern molecular technologies, it is now possible for us to sequence our own genome in a very rapid time and at a very, very reduced cost. Now when we've been doing this, we've realized that there's variations within our genome. So I want you to look at the person beside you. Just have a quick look. And what we need to realize is that every 300 base pairs in your DNA, you're a little bit different. And one of the grand challenges right now in modern molecular medicine is to work out whether this variation makes you more susceptible to diseases, or does this variation just make you different? Again, what does it mean here? What does this variation actually mean? So if we are to capitalize on all of this new molecular data and personalized genomic information that is coming online that we will be able to have in the next few years, we have to be able to differentiate between the two. So how do we do this? Well, I believe we just look at nature's experiments. So through natural selection, over time, mutations, variations that disrupt the function of a protein will not be tolerated over time. Evolution acts as a sieve. It sieves out the bad variation. And so therefore, if you look at the same region of a genome in many mammals that have been evolutionarily distant from each other and are also ecologically divergent, you will get a better understanding of what the evolutionary prior of that site is, i.e., if it is important for the mammal to function, for its survival, it will be the same in all of those different lineages, species, taxa. So therefore, if we were to do this, what we'd need to do is sequence that region in all these different mammals and ascertain if it's the same or if it's different. So if it is the same, this indicates that that site is important for a function, so a disease mutation should fall within that site. So in this case here, if all the mammals that we look at have a yellow-type genome at that site, it probably suggests that purple is bad. This could be even more powerful if you look at mammals that are doing things slightly differently. So say, for example, the region of the genome that I was looking at was a region that's important for vision. If we look at that region in mammals that don't see so well, such as bats, and we find that bats that don't see so well have the purple type, we know that this is probably what's causing this disease. So in my lab, we've been using bats to look at two different types of diseases of the senses. We're looking at blindness. Now why would you do this? Three hundred and fourteen million people are visually impaired, and 45 million of these are blind. So blindness is a big problem, and a lot of these blind disorders come from inherited diseases, so we want to try and better understand which mutations in the gene cause the disease. Also we look at deafness. One in every 1,000 newborn babies are deaf, and when we reach 80, over half of us will also have a hearing problem. Again, there's many underlying genetic causes for this. So what we've been doing in my lab is looking at these unique sensory specialists, the bats, and we have looked at genes that cause blindness when there's a defect in them, genes that cause deafness when there's a defect in them, and now we can predict which sites are most likely to cause disease. So bats are also important for our health, to enable us to better understand how our genome functions. So this is where we are right now, but what about the future? What about longevity? This is where we're going to go, and as I said before, I really believe that the secret of everlasting youth lies within the bat genome. So why should we be interested in aging at all? Well, really, this is a picture drawn from the 1500s of the Fountain of Youth. Aging is considered one of the most familiar, yet the least well-understood, aspects of all of biology, and really, since the dawn of civilization, mankind has sought to avoid it. But we are going to have to understand it a bit better. In Europe alone, by 2050, there is going to be a 70 percent increase of individuals over 65, and 170 percent increase in individuals over 80. As we age, we deteriorate, and this deterioration causes problems for our society, so we have to address it. So how could the secret of everlasting youth actually lie within the bat genome? Does anybody want to hazard a guess over how long this bat could live for? Who -- put up your hands -- who says two years? Nobody? One? How about 10 years? Some? How about 30? How about 40? Okay, it's a whole varied response. This bat is myotis brandtii. It's the longest-living bat. It lived for up to 42 years, and this bat's still alive in the wild today. But what would be so amazing about this? Well, typically, in mammals there is a relationship between body size, metabolic rate, and how long you can live for, and you can predict how long a mammal can live for given its body size. So typically, small mammals live fast, die young. Think of a mouse. But bats are very different. As you can see here on this graph, in blue, these are all other mammals, but bats can live up to nine times longer than expected despite having a really, really high metabolic rate, and the question is, how can they do that? There are 19 species of mammal that live longer than expected, given their body size, than man, and 18 of those are bats. So therefore, they must have something within their DNA that ables them to deal with the metabolic stresses, particularly of flight. They expend three times more energy than a mammal of the same size, but don't seem to suffer the consequences or the effects. So right now, in my lab, we're combining state-of-the-art bat field biology, going out and catching the long-lived bats, with the most up-to-date, modern molecular technology to understand better what it is that they do to stop aging as we do. And hopefully in the next five years, I'll be giving you a TEDTalk on that. Aging is a big problem for humanity, and I believe that by studying bats, we can uncover the molecular mechanisms that enable mammals to achieve extraordinary longevity. If we find out what they're doing, perhaps through gene therapy, we can enable us to do the same thing. Potentially, this means that we could halt aging or maybe even reverse it. Just imagine what that would be like. So really, I don't think we should be thinking of them as flying demons of the night, but more as our superheroes. And the reality is that bats can bring us so much benefit if we just look in the right place. They're good for our ecosystem, they allow us to understand how our genome functions, and they potentially hold the secret to everlasting youth. So tonight, when you walk out of here and you look up in the night skies, and you see this beautiful flying mammal, I want you to smile. Thank you. (Applause)
Well, you know, sometimes the most important things come in the smallest packages. I am going to try to convince you, in the 15 minutes I have, that microbes have a lot to say about questions such as, "Are we alone?" and they can tell us more about not only life in our solar system but also maybe beyond, and this is why I am tracking them down in the most impossible places on Earth, in extreme environments where conditions are really pushing them to the brink of survival. Actually, sometimes me too, when I'm trying to follow them too close. But here's the thing: We are the only advanced civilization in the solar system, but that doesn't mean that there is no microbial life nearby. In fact, the planets and moons you see here could host life -- all of them -- and we know that, and it's a strong possibility. And if we were going to find life on those moons and planets, then we would answer questions such as, are we alone in the solar system? Where are we coming from? Do we have family in the neighborhood? Is there life beyond our solar system? And we can ask all those questions because there has been a revolution in our understanding of what a habitable planet is, and today, a habitable planet is a planet that has a zone where water can stay stable, but to me this is a horizontal definition of habitability, because it involves a distance to a star, but there is another dimension to habitability, and this is a vertical dimension. Think of it as conditions in the subsurface of a planet where you are very far away from a sun, but you still have water, energy, nutrients, which for some of them means food, and a protection. And when you look at the Earth, very far away from any sunlight, deep in the ocean, you have life thriving and it uses only chemistry for life processes. So when you think of it at that point, all walls collapse. You have no limitations, basically. And if you have been looking at the headlines lately, then you will see that we have discovered a subsurface ocean on Europa, on Ganymede, on Enceladus, on Titan, and now we are finding a geyser and hot springs on Enceladus, Our solar system is turning into a giant spa. For anybody who has gone to a spa knows how much microbes like that, right? (Laughter) So at that point, think also about Mars. There is no life possible at the surface of Mars today, but it might still be hiding underground. So, we have been making progress in our understanding of habitability, but we also have been making progress in our understanding of what the signatures of life are on Earth. And you can have what we call organic molecules, and these are the bricks of life, and you can have fossils, and you can minerals, biominerals, which is due to the reaction between bacteria and rocks, and of course you can have gases in the atmosphere. And when you look at those tiny green algae on the right of the slide here, they are the direct descendants of those who have been pumping oxygen a billion years ago in the atmosphere of the Earth. When they did that, they poisoned 90 percent of the life at the surface of the Earth, but they are the reason why you are breathing this air today. But as much as our understanding grows of all of these things, there is one question we still cannot answer, and this is, where are we coming from? And you know, it's getting worse, because we won't be able to find the physical evidence of where we are coming from on this planet, and the reason being is that anything that is older than four billion years is gone. All record is gone, erased by plate tectonics and erosion. This is what I call the Earth's biological horizon. Beyond this horizon we don't know where we are coming from. So is everything lost? Well, maybe not. And we might be able to find evidence of our own origin in the most unlikely place, and this place in Mars. How is this possible? Well clearly at the beginning of the solar system, Mars and the Earth were bombarded by giant asteroids and comets, and there were ejecta from these impacts all over the place. Earth and Mars kept throwing rocks at each other for a very long time. Pieces of rocks landed on the Earth. Pieces of the Earth landed on Mars. So clearly, those two planets may have been seeded by the same material. So yeah, maybe Granddady is sitting there on the surface and waiting for us. But that also means that we can go to Mars and try to find traces of our own origin. Mars may hold that secret for us. This is why Mars is so special to us. But for that to happen, Mars needed to be habitable at the time when conditions were right. So was Mars habitable? We have a number of missions telling us exactly the same thing today. At the time when life appeared on the Earth, Mars did have an ocean, it had volcanoes, it had lakes, and it had deltas like the beautiful picture you see here. This picture was sent by the Curiosity rover only a few weeks ago. It shows the remnants of a delta, and this picture tells us something: water was abundant and stayed founting at the surface for a very long time. This is good news for life. Life chemistry takes a long time to actually happen. So this is extremely good news, but does that mean that if we go there, life will be easy to find on Mars? Not necessarily. Here's what happened: At the time when life exploded at the surface of the Earth, then everything went south for Mars, literally. The atmosphere was stripped away by solar winds, Mars lost its magnetosphere, and then cosmic rays and U.V. bombarded the surface and water escaped to space and went underground. So if we want to be able to understand, if we want to be able to find those traces of the signatures of life at the surface of Mars, if they are there, we need to understand what was the impact of each of these events on the preservation of its record. Only then will we be able to know where those signatures are hiding, and only then will we be able to send our rover to the right places where we can sample those rocks that may be telling us something really important about who we are, or, if not, maybe telling us that somewhere, independently, life has appeared on another planet. So to do that, it's easy. You only need to go back 3.5 billion years ago in the past of a planet. We just need a time machine. Easy, right? Well, actually, it is. Look around you -- that's planet Earth. This is our time machine. Geologists are using it to go back in the past of our own planet. I am using it a little bit differently. I use planet Earth to go in very extreme environments where conditions were similar to those of Mars at the time when the climate changed, and there I'm trying to understand what happened. What are the signatures of life? What is left? How are we going to find it? So for one moment now I'm going to take you with me on a trip into that time machine. And now, what you see here, we are at 4,500 meters in the Andes, but in fact we are less than a billion years after the Earth and Mars formed. The Earth and Mars will have looked pretty much exactly like that -- volcanoes everywhere, evaporating lakes everywhere, minerals, hot springs, and then you see those mounds on the shore of those lakes? Those are built by the descendants of the first organisms that gave us the first fossil on Earth. But if we want to understand what's going on, we need to go a little further. And the other thing about those sites is that exactly like on Mars three and a half billion years ago, the climate is changing very fast, and water and ice are disappearing. But we need to go back to that time when everything changed on Mars, and to do that, we need to go higher. Why is that? Because when you go higher, the atmosphere is getting thinner, it's getting more unstable, the temperature is getting cooler, and you have a lot more U.V. radiation. Basically, you are getting to those conditions on Mars when everything changed. So I was not promising anything about a leisurely trip on the time machine. You are not going to be sitting in that time machine. You have to haul 1,000 pounds of equipment to the summit of this 20,000-foot volcano in the Andes here. That's about 6,000 meters. And you also have to sleep on 42-degree slopes and really hope that there won't be any earthquake that night. But when we get to the summit, we actually find the lake we came for. At this altitude, this lake is experiencing exactly the same conditions as those on Mars three and a half billion years ago. And now we have to change our voyage into an inner voyage inside that lake, and to do that, we have to remove our mountain gear and actually don suits and go for it. But at the time we enter that lake, at the very moment we enter that lake, we are stepping back three and a half billion years in the past of another planet, and then we are going to get the answer came for. Life is everywhere, absolutely everywhere. Everything you see in this picture is a living organism. Maybe not so the diver, but everything else. But this picture is very deceiving. Life is abundant in those lakes, but like in many places on Earth right now and due to climate change, there is a huge loss in biodiversity. In the samples that we took back home, 36 percent of the bacteria in those lakes were composed of three species, and those three species are the ones that have survived so far. Here's another lake, right next to the first one. The red color you see here is not due to minerals. It's actually due to the presence of a tiny algae. In this region, the U.V. radiation is really nasty. Anywhere on Earth, 11 is considered to be extreme. During U.V. storms there, the U.V. Index reaches 43. SPF 30 is not going to do anything to you over there, and the water is so transparent in those lakes that the algae has nowhere to hide, really, and so they are developing their own sunscreen, and this is the red color you see. But they can adapt only so far, and then when all the water is gone from the surface, microbes have only one solution left: They go underground. And those microbes, the rocks you see in that slide here, well, they are actually living inside rocks and they are using the protection of the translucence of the rocks to get the good part of the U.V. and discard the part that could actually damage their DNA. And this is why we are taking our rover to train them to search for life on Mars in these areas, because if there was life on Mars three and a half billion years ago, it had to use the same strategy to actually protect itself. Now, it is pretty obvious that going to extreme environments is helping us very much for the exploration of Mars and to prepare missions. So far, it has helped us to understand the geology of Mars. It has helped to understand the past climate of Mars and its evolution, but also its habitability potential. Our most recent rover on Mars has discovered traces of organics. Yeah, there are organics at the surface of Mars. And it also discovered traces of methane. And we don't know yet if the methane in question is really from geology or biology. Regardless, what we know is that because of the discovery, the hypothesis that there is still life present on Mars today remains a viable one. So by now, I think I have convinced you that Mars is very special to us, but it would be a mistake to think that Mars is the only place in the solar system that is interesting to find potential microbial life. And the reason is because Mars and the Earth could have a common root to their tree of life, but when you go beyond Mars, it's not that easy. Celestial mechanics is not making it so easy for an exchange of material between planets, and so if we were to discover life on those planets, it would be different from us. It would be a different type of life. But in the end, it might be just us, it might be us and Mars, or it can be many trees of life in the solar system. I don't know the answer yet, but I can tell you something: No matter what the result is, no matter what that magic number is, it is going to give us a standard by which we are going to be able to measure the life potential, abundance and diversity beyond our own solar system. And this can be achieved by our generation. This can be our legacy, but only if we dare to explore. Now, finally, if somebody tells you that looking for alien microbes is not cool because you cannot have a philosophical conversation with them, let me show you why and how you can tell them they're wrong. Well, organic material is going to tell you about environment, about complexity and about diversity. DNA, or any information carrier, is going to tell you about adaptation, about evolution, about survival, about planetary changes and about the transfer of information. All together, they are telling us what started as a microbial pathway, and why what started as a microbial pathway sometimes ends up as a civilization or sometimes ends up as a dead end. Look at the solar system, and look at the Earth. On Earth, there are many intelligent species, but only one has achieved technology. Right here in the journey of our own solar system, there is a very, very powerful message that says here's how we should look for alien life, small and big. So yeah, microbes are talking and we are listening, and they are taking us, one planet at a time and one moon at a time, towards their big brothers out there. And they are telling us about diversity, they are telling us about abundance of life, and they are telling us how this life has survived thus far to reach civilization, intelligence, technology and, indeed, philosophy. Thank you. (Applause)
Well, now we're going to the Bahamas to meet a remarkable group of dolphins that I've been working with in the wild for the last 28 years. Now I'm interested in dolphins because of their large brains and what they might be doing with all that brainpower in the wild. And we know they use some of that brainpower for just living complicated lives, but what do we really know about dolphin intelligence? Well, we know a few things. We know that their brain-to-body ratio, which is a physical measure of intelligence, is second only to humans. Cognitively, they can understand artificially-created languages. And they pass self-awareness tests in mirrors. And in some parts of the world, they use tools, like sponges to hunt fish. But there's one big question left: do they have a language, and if so, what are they talking about? So decades ago, not years ago, I set out to find a place in the world where I could observe dolphins underwater to try to crack the code of their communication system. Now in most parts of the world, the water's pretty murky, so it's very hard to observe animals underwater, but I found a community of dolphins that live in these beautiful, clear, shallow sandbanks of the Bahamas which are just east of Florida. And they spend their daytime resting and socializing in the safety of the shallows, but at night, they go off the edge and hunt in deep water. Now, it's not a bad place to be a researcher, either. So we go out for about five months every summer in a 20-meter catamaran, and we live, sleep and work at sea for weeks at a time. My main tool is an underwater video with a hydrophone, which is an underwater microphone, and this is so I can correlate sound and behavior. And most of our work's pretty non-invasive. We try to follow dolphin etiquette while we're in the water, since we're actually observing them physically in the water. Now, Atlantic spotted dolphins are a really nice species to work with for a couple of reasons. They're born without spots, and they get spots with age, and they go through pretty distinct developmental phases, so that's fun to track their behavior. And by about the age of 15, they're fully spotted black and white. Now the mother you see here is Mugsy. She's 35 years old in this shot, but dolphins can actually live into their early 50s. And like all the dolphins in our community, we photographed Mugsy and tracked her little spots and nicks in her dorsal fin, and also the unique spot patterns as she matured over time. Now, young dolphins learn a lot as they're growing up, and they use their teenage years to practice social skills, and at about the age of nine, the females become sexually mature, so they can get pregnant, and the males mature quite a bit later, at around 15 years of age. And dolphins are very promiscuous, and so we have to determine who the fathers are, so we do paternity tests by collecting fecal material out of the water and extracting DNA. So what that means is, after 28 years, we are tracking three generations, including grandmothers and grandfathers. Now, dolphins are natural acousticians. They make sounds 10 times as high and hear sounds 10 times as high as we do. But they have other communication signals they use. They have good vision, so they use body postures to communicate. They have taste, not smell. And they have touch. And sound can actually be felt in the water, because the acoustic impedance of tissue and water's about the same. So dolphins can buzz and tickle each other at a distance. Now, we do know some things about how sounds are used with certain behaviors. Now, the signature whistle is a whistle that's specific to an individual dolphin, and it's like a name. (Dolphin whistling noises) And this is the best-studied sound, because it's easy to measure, really, and you'd find this whistle when mothers and calves are reuniting, for example. Another well studied sound are echolocation clicks. This is the dolphin's sonar. (Dolphin echolocation noises) And they use these clicks to hunt and feed. But they can also tightly pack these clicks together into buzzes and use them socially. For example, males will stimulate a female during a courtship chase. You know, I've been buzzed in the water. (Laughter) Don't tell anyone. It's a secret. And you can really feel the sound. That was my point with that. (Laughter) So dolphins are also political animals, so they have to resolve conflicts. (Dolphin noises) And they use these burst-pulsed sounds as well as their head-to-head behaviors when they're fighting. And these are very unstudied sounds because they're hard to measure. Now this is some video of a typical dolphin fight. (Dolphin noises) So you're going to see two groups, and you're going to see the head-to-head posturing, some open mouths, lots of squawking. There's a bubble. And basically, one of these groups will kind of back off and everything will resolve fine, and it doesn't really escalate into violence too much. Now, in the Bahamas, we also have resident bottlenose that interact socially with the spotted dolphins. For example, they babysit each other's calves. The males have dominance displays that they use when they're chasing each other's females. And the two species actually form temporary alliances when they're chasing sharks away. And one of the mechanisms they use to communicate their coordination is synchrony. They synchronize their sounds and their body postures to look bigger and sound stronger. (Dolphins noises) Now, these are bottlenose dolphins, and you'll see them starting to synchronize their behavior and their sounds. (Dolphin noises) You see, they're synchronizing with their partner as well as the other dyad. I wish I was that coordinated. Now, it's important to remember that you're only hearing the human-audible parts of dolphin sounds, and dolphins make ultrasonic sounds, and we use special equipment in the water to collect these sounds. Now, researchers have actually measured whistle complexity using information theory, and whistles rate very high relative to even human languages. But burst-pulsed sounds is a bit of a mystery. Now, these are three spectragrams. Two are human words, and one is a dolphin vocalizing. So just take a guess in your mind which one is the dolphin. Now, it turns out burst-pulsed sounds actually look a bit like human phonemes. Now, one way to crack the code is to interpret these signals and figure out what they mean, but it's a difficult job, and we actually don't have a Rosetta Stone yet. But a second way to crack the code is to develop some technology, an interface to do two-way communication, and that's what we've been trying to do in the Bahamas and in real time. Now, scientists have used keyboard interfaces to try to bridge the gap with species including chimpanzees and dolphins. This underwater keyboard in Orlando, Florida, at the Epcot Center, was actually the most sophisticated ever two-way interface designed for humans and dolphins to work together under the water and exchange information. So we wanted to develop an interface like this in the Bahamas, but in a more natural setting. And one of the reasons we thought we could do this is because the dolphins were starting to show us a lot of mutual curiosity. They were spontaneously mimicking our vocalizations and our postures, and they were also inviting us into dolphin games. Now, dolphins are social mammals, so they love to play, and one of their favorite games is to drag seaweed, or sargassum in this case, around. And they're very adept. They like to drag it and drop it from appendage to appendage. Now in this footage, the adult is Caroh. She's 25 years old here, and this is her newborn, Cobalt, and he's just learning how to play this game. (Dolphin noises) She's kind of teasing him and taunting him. He really wants that sargassum. Now, when dolphins solicit humans for this game, they'll often sink vertically in the water, and they'll have a little sargassum on their flipper, and they'll sort of nudge it and drop it sometimes on the bottom and let us go get it, and then we'll have a little seaweed keep away game. But when we don't dive down and get it, they'll bring it to the surface and they'll sort of wave it in front of us on their tail and drop it for us like they do their calves, and then we'll pick it up and have a game. And so we started thinking, well, wouldn't it be neat to build some technology that would allow the dolphins to request these things in real time, their favorite toys? So the original vision was to have a keyboard hanging from the boat attached to a computer, and the divers and dolphins would activate the keys on the keypad and happily exchange information and request toys from each other. But we quickly found out that dolphins simply were not going to hang around the boat using a keyboard. They've got better things to do in the wild. They might do it in captivity, but in the wild -- So we built a portable keyboard that we could push through the water, and we labeled four objects they like to play with, the scarf, rope, sargassum, and also had a bow ride, which is a fun activity for a dolphin. (Whistle) And that's the scarf whistle, which is also associated with a visual symbol. And these are artificially created whistles. They're outside the dolphin's normal repertoire, but they're easily mimicked by the dolphins. And I spent four years with my colleagues Adam Pack and Fabienne Delfour, working out in the field with this keyboard using it with each other to do requests for toys while the dolphins were watching. And the dolphins could get in on the game. They could point at the visual object, or they could mimic the whistle. Now this is video of a session. The diver here has a rope toy, and I'm on the keyboard on the left, and I've just played the rope key, and that's the request for the toy from the human. So I've got the rope, I'm diving down, and I'm basically trying to get the dolphin's attention, because they're kind of like little kids. You have to keep their attention. I'm going to drop the rope, see if they come over. Here they come, and then they're going to pick up the rope and drag it around as a toy. Now, I'm at the keyboard on the left, and this is actually the first time that we tried this. I'm going to try to request this toy, the rope toy, from the dolphins using the rope sound. Let's see if they might actually understand what that means. (Whistle) That's the rope whistle. Up come the dolphins, and drop off the rope, yay. Wow. (Applause) So this is only once. We don't know for sure if they really understand the function of the whistles. Okay, so here's a second toy in the water. This is a scarf toy, and I'm trying to lead the dolphin over to the keyboard to show her the visual and the acoustic signal. Now this dolphin, we call her "the scarf thief," because over the years she's absconded with about 12 scarves. In fact, we think she has a boutique somewhere in the Bahamas. So I'm reaching over. She's got the scarf on her right side. And we try to not touch the animals too much, we really don't want to over-habituate them. And I'm trying to lead her back to the keyboard. And the diver there is going to activate the scarf sound to request the scarf. So I try to give her the scarf. Whoop. Almost lost it. But this is the moment where everything becomes possible. The dolphin's at the keyboard. You've got full attention. And this sometimes went on for hours. And I wanted to share this video with you not to show you any big breakthroughs, because they haven't happened yet, but to show you the level of intention and focus that these dolphins have, and interest in the system. And because of this, we really decided we needed some more sophisticated technology. So we joined forces with Georgia Tech, with Thad Starner's wearable computing group, to build us an underwater wearable computer that we're calling CHAT. [CHAT: Cetacean Hearing And Telemetry] Now, instead of pushing a keyboard through the water, the diver's wearing the complete system, and it's acoustic only, so basically the diver activates the sounds on a keypad on the forearm, the sounds go out through an underwater speaker, if a dolphin mimics the whistle or a human plays the whistle, the sounds come in and are localized by two hydrophones. The computer can localize who requested the toy if there's a word match. And the real power of the system is in the real-time sound recognition, so we can respond to the dolphins quickly and accurately. And we're at prototype stage, but this is how we hope it will play out. So Diver A and Diver B both have a wearable computer and the dolphin hears the whistle as a whistle, the diver hears the whistle as a whistle in the water, but also as a word through bone conduction. So Diver A plays the scarf whistle or Diver B plays the sargassum whistle to request a toy from whoever has it. What we hope will happen is that the dolphin mimics the whistle, and if Diver A has the sargassum, if that's the sound that was played and requested, then the diver will give the sargassum to the requesting dolphin and they'll swim away happily into the sunset playing sargassum for forever. Now, how far can this kind of communication go? Well, CHAT is designed specifically to empower the dolphins to request things from us. It's designed to really be two-way. Now, will they learn to mimic the whistles functionally? We hope so and we think so. But as we decode their natural sounds, we're also planning to put those back into the computerized system. For example, right now we can put their own signature whistles in the computer and request to interact with a specific dolphin. Likewise, we can create our own whistles, our own whistle names, and let the dolphins request specific divers to interact with. Now it may be that all our mobile technology will actually be the same technology that helps us communicate with another species down the road. In the case of a dolphin, you know, it's a species that, well, they're probably close to our intelligence in many ways and we might not be able to admit that right now, but they live in quite a different environment, and you still have to bridge the gap with the sensory systems. I mean, imagine what it would be like to really understand the mind of another intelligent species on the planet. Thank you. (Applause)
When I was seven years old and my sister was just five years old, we were playing on top of a bunk bed. I was two years older than my sister at the time -- I mean, I'm two years older than her now -- but at the time it meant she had to do everything that I wanted to do, and I wanted to play war. So we were up on top of our bunk beds. And on one side of the bunk bed, I had put out all of my G.I. Joe soldiers and weaponry. And on the other side were all my sister's My Little Ponies ready for a cavalry charge. There are differing accounts of what actually happened that afternoon, but since my sister is not here with us today, let me tell you the true story -- (Laughter) which is my sister's a little on the clumsy side. Somehow, without any help or push from her older brother at all, Amy disappeared off of the top of the bunk bed and landed with this crash on the floor. I nervously peered over the side of the bed to see what had befallen my fallen sister and saw that she had landed painfully on her hands and knees on all fours on the ground. I was nervous because my parents had charged me with making sure that my sister and I played as safely and as quietly as possible. And seeing as how I had accidentally broken Amy's arm just one week before -- (Laughter) (Laughter ends) heroically pushing her out of the way of an oncoming imaginary sniper bullet, (Laughter) for which I have yet to be thanked, I was trying as hard as I could -- she didn't even see it coming -- I was trying hard to be on my best behavior. And I saw my sister's face, this wail of pain and suffering and surprise threatening to erupt from her mouth and wake my parents from the long winter's nap for which they had settled. So I did the only thing my frantic seven year-old brain could think to do to avert this tragedy. And if you have children, you've seen this hundreds of times. I said, "Amy, wait. Don't cry. Did you see how you landed? No human lands on all fours like that. Amy, I think this means you're a unicorn." (Laughter) Now, that was cheating, because there was nothing she would want more than not to be Amy the hurt five year-old little sister, but Amy the special unicorn. Of course, this option was open to her brain at no point in the past. And you could see how my poor, manipulated sister faced conflict, as her little brain attempted to devote resources to feeling the pain and suffering and surprise she just experienced, or contemplating her new-found identity as a unicorn. And the latter won. Instead of crying or ceasing our play, instead of waking my parents, with all the negative consequences for me, a smile spread across her face and she scrambled back up onto the bunk bed with all the grace of a baby unicorn -- (Laughter) with one broken leg. What we stumbled across at this tender age of just five and seven -- we had no idea at the time -- was was going be at the vanguard of a scientific revolution occurring two decades later in the way that we look at the human brain. We had stumbled across something called positive psychology, which is the reason I'm here today and the reason that I wake up every morning. When I started talking about this research outside of academia, with companies and schools, the first thing they said to never do is to start with a graph. The first thing I want to do is start with a graph. This graph looks boring, but it is the reason I get excited and wake up every morning. And this graph doesn't even mean anything; it's fake data. What we found is -- (Laughter) If I got this data studying you, I would be thrilled, because there's a trend there, and that means that I can get published, which is all that really matters. There is one weird red dot above the curve, there's one weirdo in the room -- I know who you are, I saw you earlier -- that's no problem. That's no problem, as most of you know, because I can just delete that dot. I can delete that dot because that's clearly a measurement error. And we know that's a measurement error because it's messing up my data. (Laughter) So one of the first things we teach people in economics, statistics, business and psychology courses is how, in a statistically valid way, do we eliminate the weirdos. How do we eliminate the outliers so we can find the line of best fit? Which is fantastic if I'm trying to find out how many Advil the average person should be taking -- two. But if I'm interested in your potential, or for happiness or productivity or energy or creativity, we're creating the cult of the average with science. If I asked a question like, "How fast can a child learn how to read in a classroom?" scientists change the answer to "How fast does the average child learn how to read in that classroom?" and we tailor the class towards the average. If you fall below the average, then psychologists get thrilled, because that means you're depressed or have a disorder, or hopefully both. We're hoping for both because our business model is, if you come into a therapy session with one problem, we want to make sure you leave knowing you have ten, so you keep coming back. We'll go back into your childhood if necessary, but eventually we want to make you normal again. But normal is merely average. And positive psychology posits that if we study what is merely average, we will remain merely average. Then instead of deleting those positive outliers, what I intentionally do is come into a population like this one and say, why? Why are some of you high above the curve in terms of intellectual, athletic, musical ability, creativity, energy levels, resiliency in the face of challenge, sense of humor? Whatever it is, instead of deleting you, what I want to do is study you. Because maybe we can glean information, not just how to move people up to the average, but move the entire average up in our companies and schools worldwide. The reason this graph is important to me is, on the news, the majority of the information is not positive. in fact it's negative. Most of it's about murder, corruption, diseases, natural disasters. And very quickly, my brain starts to think that's the accurate ratio of negative to positive in the world. This creates "the medical school syndrome." During the first year of medical training, as you read through a list of all the symptoms and diseases, suddenly you realize you have all of them. (Laughter) I have a brother in-law named Bobo, which is a whole other story. Bobo married Amy the unicorn. Bobo called me on the phone -- (Laughter) from Yale Medical School, and Bobo said, "Shawn, I have leprosy." (Laughter) Which, even at Yale, is extraordinarily rare. But I had no idea how to console poor Bobo because he had just gotten over an entire week of menopause. (Laughter) We're finding it's not necessarily the reality that shapes us, but the lens through which your brain views the world that shapes your reality. And if we can change the lens, not only can we change your happiness, we can change every single educational and business outcome at the same time. I applied to Harvard on a dare. I didn't expect to get in, and my family had no money for college. When I got a military scholarship two weeks later, they let me go. Something that wasn't even a possibility became a reality. I assumed everyone there would see it as a privilege as well, that they'd be excited to be there. Even in a classroom full of people smarter than you, I felt you'd be happy just to be in that classroom. But what I found is, while some people experience that, when I graduated after my four years and then spent the next eight years living in the dorms with the students -- Harvard asked me to; I wasn't that guy. (Laughter) I was an officer to counsel students through the difficult four years. And in my research and my teaching, I found that these students, no matter how happy they were with their original success of getting into the school, two weeks later their brains were focused, not on the privilege of being there, nor on their philosophy or physics, but on the competition, the workload, the hassles, stresses, complaints. When I first went in there, I walked into the freshmen dining hall, which is where my friends from Waco, Texas, which is where I grew up -- I know some of you know this. When they'd visit, they'd look around, and say, "This dining hall looks like something out of Hogwart's." It does, because that was Hogwart's and that's Harvard. And when they see this, they say, "Why do you waste your time studying happiness at Harvard? What does a Harvard student possibly have to be unhappy about?" Embedded within that question is the key to understanding the science of happiness. Because what that question assumes is that our external world is predictive of our happiness levels, when in reality, if I know everything about your external world, I can only predict 10% of your long-term happiness. 90 percent of your long-term happiness is predicted not by the external world, but by the way your brain processes the world. And if we change it, if we change our formula for happiness and success, we can change the way that we can then affect reality. What we found is that only 25% of job successes are predicted by IQ, 75 percent of job successes are predicted by your optimism levels, your social support and your ability to see stress as a challenge instead of as a threat. I talked to a New England boarding school, probably the most prestigious one, and they said, "We already know that. So every year, instead of just teaching our students, we have a wellness week. And we're so excited. Monday night we have the world's leading expert will speak about adolescent depression. Tuesday night it's school violence and bullying. Wednesday night is eating disorders. Thursday night is illicit drug use. And Friday night we're trying to decide between risky sex or happiness." (Laughter) I said, "That's most people's Friday nights." (Laughter) (Applause) Which I'm glad you liked, but they did not like that at all. Silence on the phone. And into the silence, I said, "I'd be happy to speak at your school, but that's not a wellness week, that's a sickness week. You've outlined all the negative things that can happen, but not talked about the positive." The absence of disease is not health. Here's how we get to health: We need to reverse the formula for happiness and success. In the last three years, I've traveled to 45 countries, working with schools and companies in the midst of an economic downturn. And I found that most companies and schools follow a formula for success, which is this: If I work harder, I'll be more successful. And if I'm more successful, then I'll be happier. That undergirds most of our parenting and managing styles, the way that we motivate our behavior. And the problem is it's scientifically broken and backwards for two reasons. Every time your brain has a success, you just changed the goalpost of what success looked like. You got good grades, now you have to get better grades, you got into a good school and after you get into a better one, you got a good job, now you have to get a better job, you hit your sales target, we're going to change it. And if happiness is on the opposite side of success, your brain never gets there. We've pushed happiness over the cognitive horizon, as a society. And that's because we think we have to be successful, then we'll be happier. But our brains work in the opposite order. If you can raise somebody's level of positivity in the present, then their brain experiences what we now call a happiness advantage, which is your brain at positive performs significantly better than at negative, neutral or stressed. Your intelligence rises, your creativity rises, your energy levels rise. In fact, we've found that every single business outcome improves. Your brain at positive is 31% more productive than your brain at negative, neutral or stressed. You're 37% better at sales. Doctors are 19 percent faster, more accurate at coming up with the correct diagnosis when positive instead of negative, neutral or stressed. Which means we can reverse the formula. If we can find a way of becoming positive in the present, then our brains work even more successfully as we're able to work harder, faster and more intelligently. We need to be able to reverse this formula so we can start to see what our brains are actually capable of. Because dopamine, which floods into your system when you're positive, has two functions. Not only does it make you happier, it turns on all of the learning centers in your brain allowing you to adapt to the world in a different way. We've found there are ways that you can train your brain to be able to become more positive. In just a two-minute span of time done for 21 days in a row, we can actually rewire your brain, allowing your brain to actually work more optimistically and more successfully. We've done these things in research now in every company that I've worked with, getting them to write down three new things that they're grateful for for 21 days in a row, three new things each day. And at the end of that, their brain starts to retain a pattern of scanning the world not for the negative, but for the positive first. Journaling about one positive experience you've had over the past 24 hours allows your brain to relive it. Exercise teaches your brain that your behavior matters. We find that meditation allows your brain to get over the cultural ADHD that we've been creating by trying to do multiple tasks at once and allows our brains to focus on the task at hand. And finally, random acts of kindness are conscious acts of kindness. We get people, when they open up their inbox, to write one positive email praising or thanking somebody in their support network. And by doing these activities and by training your brain just like we train our bodies, what we've found is we can reverse the formula for happiness and success, and in doing so, not only create ripples of positivity, but a real revolution. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Six thousand miles of road, 600 miles of subway track, 400 miles of bike lanes and a half a mile of tram track, if you've ever been to Roosevelt Island. These are the numbers that make up the infrastructure of New York City. These are the statistics of our infrastructure. They're the kind of numbers you can find released in reports by city agencies. For example, the Department of Transportation will probably tell you how many miles of road they maintain. The MTA will boast how many miles of subway track there are. Most city agencies give us statistics. This is from a report this year from the Taxi and Limousine Commission, where we learn that there's about 13,500 taxis here in New York City. Pretty interesting, right? But did you ever think about where these numbers came from? Because for these numbers to exist, someone at the city agency had to stop and say, hmm, here's a number that somebody might want want to know. Here's a number that our citizens want to know. So they go back to their raw data, they count, they add, they calculate, and then they put out reports, and those reports will have numbers like this. The problem is, how do they know all of our questions? We have lots of questions. In fact, in some ways there's literally an infinite number of questions that we can ask about our city. The agencies can never keep up. So the paradigm isn't exactly working, and I think our policymakers realize that, because in 2012, Mayor Bloomberg signed into law what he called the most ambitious and comprehensive open data legislation in the country. In a lot of ways, he's right. In the last two years, the city has released 1,000 datasets on our open data portal, and it's pretty awesome. So you go and look at data like this, and instead of just counting the number of cabs, we can start to ask different questions. So I had a question. When's rush hour in New York City? It can be pretty bothersome. When is rush hour exactly? And I thought to myself, these cabs aren't just numbers, these are GPS recorders driving around in our city streets recording each and every ride they take. There's data there, and I looked at that data, and I made a plot of the average speed of taxis in New York City throughout the day. You can see that from about midnight to around 5:18 in the morning, speed increases, and at that point, things turn around, and they get slower and slower and slower until about 8:35 in the morning, when they end up at around 11 and a half miles per hour. The average taxi is going 11 and a half miles per hour on our city streets, and it turns out it stays that way for the entire day. (Laughter) So I said to myself, I guess there's no rush hour in New York City. There's just a rush day. Makes sense. And this is important for a couple of reasons. If you're a transportation planner, this might be pretty interesting to know. But if you want to get somewhere quickly, you now know to set your alarm for 4:45 in the morning and you're all set. New York, right? But there's a story behind this data. This data wasn't just available, it turns out. It actually came from something called a Freedom of Information Law Request, or a FOIL Request. This is a form you can find on the Taxi and Limousine Commission website. In order to access this data, you need to go get this form, fill it out, and they will notify you, and a guy named Chris Whong did exactly that. Chris went down, and they told him, "Just bring a brand new hard drive down to our office, leave it here for five hours, we'll copy the data and you take it back." And that's where this data came from. Now, Chris is the kind of guy who wants to make the data public, and so it ended up online for all to use, and that's where this graph came from. And the fact that it exists is amazing. These GPS recorders -- really cool. But the fact that we have citizens walking around with hard drives picking up data from city agencies to make it public -- it was already kind of public, you could get to it, but it was "public," it wasn't public. And we can do better than that as a city. We don't need our citizens walking around with hard drives. Now, not every dataset is behind a FOIL Request. Here is a map I made with the most dangerous intersections in New York City based on cyclist accidents. So the red areas are more dangerous. And what it shows is first the East side of Manhattan, especially in the lower area of Manhattan, has more cyclist accidents. That might make sense because there are more cyclists coming off the bridges there. But there's other hotspots worth studying. There's Williamsburg. There's Roosevelt Avenue in Queens. And this is exactly the kind of data we need for Vision Zero. This is exactly what we're looking for. But there's a story behind this data as well. This data didn't just appear. How many of you guys know this logo? Yeah, I see some shakes. Have you ever tried to copy and paste data out of a PDF and make sense of it? I see more shakes. More of you tried copying and pasting than knew the logo. I like that. So what happened is, the data that you just saw was actually on a PDF. In fact, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages of PDF put out by our very own NYPD, and in order to access it, you would either have to copy and paste for hundreds and hundreds of hours, or you could be John Krauss. John Krauss was like, I'm not going to copy and paste this data. I'm going to write a program. It's called the NYPD Crash Data Band-Aid, and it goes to the NYPD's website and it would download PDFs. Every day it would search; if it found a PDF, it would download it and then it would run some PDF-scraping program, and out would come the text, and it would go on the Internet, and then people could make maps like that. And the fact that the data's here, the fact that we have access to it -- Every accident, by the way, is a row in this table. You can imagine how many PDFs that is. The fact that we have access to that is great, but let's not release it in PDF form, because then we're having our citizens write PDF scrapers. It's not the best use of our citizens' time, and we as a city can do better than that. Now, the good news is that the de Blasio administration actually recently released this data a few months ago, and so now we can actually have access to it, but there's a lot of data still entombed in PDF. For example, our crime data is still only available in PDF. And not just our crime data, our own city budget. Our city budget is only readable right now in PDF form. And it's not just us that can't analyze it -- our own legislators who vote for the budget also only get it in PDF. So our legislators cannot analyze the budget that they are voting for. And I think as a city we can do a little better than that as well. Now, there's a lot of data that's not hidden in PDFs. This is an example of a map I made, and this is the dirtiest waterways in New York City. Now, how do I measure dirty? Well, it's kind of a little weird, but I looked at the level of fecal coliform, which is a measurement of fecal matter in each of our waterways. The larger the circle, the dirtier the water, so the large circles are dirty water, the small circles are cleaner. What you see is inland waterways. This is all data that was sampled by the city over the last five years. And inland waterways are, in general, dirtier. That makes sense, right? And the bigger circles are dirty. And I learned a few things from this. Number one: Never swim in anything that ends in "creek" or "canal." But number two: I also found the dirtiest waterway in New York City, by this measure, one measure. In Coney Island Creek, which is not the Coney Island you swim in, luckily. It's on the other side. But Coney Island Creek, 94 percent of samples taken over the last five years have had fecal levels so high that it would be against state law to swim in the water. And this is not the kind of fact that you're going to see boasted in a city report, right? It's not going to be the front page on nyc.gov. You're not going to see it there, but the fact that we can get to that data is awesome. But once again, it wasn't super easy, because this data was not on the open data portal. If you were to go to the open data portal, you'd see just a snippet of it, a year or a few months. It was actually on the Department of Environmental Protection's website. And each one of these links is an Excel sheet, and each Excel sheet is different. Every heading is different: you copy, paste, reorganize. When you do you can make maps and that's great, but once again, we can do better than that as a city, we can normalize things. And we're getting there, because there's this website that Socrata makes called the Open Data Portal NYC. This is where 1,100 data sets that don't suffer from the things I just told you live, and that number is growing, and that's great. You can download data in any format, be it CSV or PDF or Excel document. Whatever you want, you can download the data that way. The problem is, once you do, you will find that each agency codes their addresses differently. So one is street name, intersection street, street, borough, address, building, building address. So once again, you're spending time, even when we have this portal, you're spending time normalizing our address fields. And that's not the best use of our citizens' time. We can do better than that as a city. We can standardize our addresses, and if we do, we can get more maps like this. This is a map of fire hydrants in New York City, but not just any fire hydrants. These are the top 250 grossing fire hydrants in terms of parking tickets. (Laughter) So I learned a few things from this map, and I really like this map. Number one, just don't park on the Upper East Side. Just don't. It doesn't matter where you park, you will get a hydrant ticket. Number two, I found the two highest grossing hydrants in all of New York City, and they're on the Lower East Side, and they were bringing in over 55,000 dollars a year in parking tickets. And that seemed a little strange to me when I noticed it, so I did a little digging and it turns out what you had is a hydrant and then something called a curb extension, which is like a seven-foot space to walk on, and then a parking spot. And so these cars came along, and the hydrant -- "It's all the way over there, I'm fine," and there was actually a parking spot painted there beautifully for them. They would park there, and the NYPD disagreed with this designation and would ticket them. And it wasn't just me who found a parking ticket. This is the Google Street View car driving by finding the same parking ticket. So I wrote about this on my blog, on I Quant NY, and the DOT responded, and they said, "While the DOT has not received any complaints about this location, we will review the roadway markings and make any appropriate alterations." And I thought to myself, typical government response, all right, moved on with my life. But then, a few weeks later, something incredible happened. They repainted the spot, and for a second I thought I saw the future of open data, because think about what happened here. For five years, this spot was being ticketed, and it was confusing, and then a citizen found something, they told the city, and within a few weeks the problem was fixed. It's amazing. And a lot of people see open data as being a watchdog. It's not, it's about being a partner. We can empower our citizens to be better partners for government, and it's not that hard. All we need are a few changes. If you're FOILing data, if you're seeing your data being FOILed over and over again, let's release it to the public, that's a sign that it should be made public. And if you're a government agency releasing a PDF, let's pass legislation that requires you to post it with the underlying data, because that data is coming from somewhere. I don't know where, but it's coming from somewhere, and you can release it with the PDF. And let's adopt and share some open data standards. Let's start with our addresses here in New York City. Let's just start normalizing our addresses. Because New York is a leader in open data. Despite all this, we are absolutely a leader in open data, and if we start normalizing things, and set an open data standard, others will follow. The state will follow, and maybe the federal government, Other countries could follow, and we're not that far off from a time where you could write one program and map information from 100 countries. It's not science fiction. We're actually quite close. And by the way, who are we empowering with this? Because it's not just John Krauss and it's not just Chris Whong. There are hundreds of meetups going on in New York City right now, active meetups. There are thousands of people attending these meetups. These people are going after work and on weekends, and they're attending these meetups to look at open data and make our city a better place. Groups like BetaNYC, who just last week released something called citygram.nyc that allows you to subscribe to 311 complaints around your own home, or around your office. You put in your address, you get local complaints. And it's not just the tech community that are after these things. It's urban planners like the students I teach at Pratt. It's policy advocates, it's everyone, it's citizens from a diverse set of backgrounds. And with some small, incremental changes, we can unlock the passion and the ability of our citizens to harness open data and make our city even better, whether it's one dataset, or one parking spot at a time. Thank you. (Applause)
So today I'm going to talk to you about the rise of collaborative consumption. I'm going to explain what it is and try and convince you -- in just 15 minutes -- that this isn't a flimsy idea, or a short-term trend, but a powerful cultural and economic force reinventing not just what we consume, but how we consume. Now I'm going to start with a deceptively simple example. Hands up -- how many of you have books, CDs, DVDs, or videos lying around your house that you probably won't use again, but you can't quite bring yourself to throw away? Can't see all the hands, but it looks like all of you, right? On our shelves at home, we have a box set of the DVD series "24," season six to be precise. I think it was bought for us around three years ago for a Christmas present. Now my husband, Chris, and I love this show. But let's face it, when you've watched it once maybe, or twice, you don't really want to watch it again, because you know how Jack Bauer is going to defeat the terrorists. So there it sits on our shelves obsolete to us, but with immediate latent value to someone else. Now before we go on, I have a confession to make. I lived in New York for 10 years, and I am a big fan of "Sex and the City." Now I'd love to watch the first movie again as sort of a warm-up to the sequel coming out next week. So how easily could I swap our unwanted copy of "24" for a wanted copy of "Sex and the City?" Now you may have noticed there's a new sector emerging called swap-trading. Now the easiest analogy for swap-trading is like an online dating service for all your unwanted media. What it does is use the Internet to create an infinite marketplace to match person A's "haves" with person C's "wants," whatever they may be. The other week, I went on one of these sites, appropriately called Swaptree, and there were over 59,300 items that I could instantly swap for my copy of "24." Lo and behold, there in Reseda, CA was Rondoron who wanted swap his or her "like new" copy of "Sex and the City" for my copy of "24." So in other words, what's happening here is that Swaptree solves my carrying company's sugar rush problem, a problem the economists call "the coincidence of wants," in approximately 60 seconds. What's even more amazing is it will print out a purchase label on the spot, because it knows the weight of the item. Now there are layers of technical wonder behind sites such as Swaptree, but that's not my interest, and nor is swap trading, per se. My passion, and what I've spent the last few years dedicated to researching, is the collaborative behaviors and trust-mechanics inherent in these systems. When you think about it, it would have seemed like a crazy idea, even a few years ago, that I would swap my stuff with a total stranger whose real name I didn't know and without any money changing hands. Yet 99 percent of trades on Swaptree happen successfully, and the one percent that receive a negative rating, it's for relatively minor reasons, like the item didn't arrive on time. So what's happening here? An extremely powerful dynamic that has huge commercial and cultural implications is at play. Namely, that technology is enabling trust between strangers. We now live in a global village where we can mimic the ties that used to happen face to face, but on a scale and in ways that have never been possible before. So what's actually happening is that social networks and real-time technologies are taking us back. We're bartering, trading, swapping, sharing, but they're being reinvented into dynamic and appealing forms. What I find fascinating is that we've actually wired our world to share, whether that's our neighborhood, our school, our office, or our Facebook network, and that's creating an economy of "what's mine is yours." From the mighty eBay, the grandfather of exchange marketplaces, to car-sharing companies such as GoGet, where you pay a monthly fee to rent cars by the hour, to social lending platforms such as Zopa, that will take anyone in this audience with 100 dollars to lend, and match them with a borrower anywhere in the world, we're sharing and collaborating again in ways that I believe are more hip than hippie. I call this "groundswell collaborative consumption." Now before I dig into the different systems of collaborative consumption, I'd like to try and answer the question that every author rightfully gets asked, which is, where did this idea come from? Now I'd like to say I woke up one morning and said, "I'm going to write about collaborative consumption," but actually it was a complicated web of seemingly disconnected ideas. Over the next minute, you're going to see a bit like a conceptual fireworks display of all the dots that went on in my head. The first thing I began to notice: how many big concepts were emerging -- from the wisdom of crowds to smart mobs -- around how ridiculously easy it is to form groups for a purpose. And linked to this crowd mania were examples all around the world -- from the election of a president to the infamous Wikipedia, and everything in between -- on what the power of numbers could achieve. Now, you know when you learn a new word, and then you start to see that word everywhere? That's what happened to me when I noticed that we are moving from passive consumers to creators, to highly enabled collaborators. What's happening is the Internet is removing the middleman, so that anyone from a T-shirt designer to a knitter can make a living selling peer-to-peer. And the ubiquitous force of this peer-to-peer revolution means that sharing is happening at phenomenal rates. I mean, it's amazing to think that, in every single minute of this speech, 25 hours of YouTube video will be loaded. Now what I find fascinating about these examples is how they're actually tapping into our primate instincts. I mean, we're monkeys, and we're born and bred to share and cooperate. And we were doing so for thousands of years, whether it's when we hunted in packs, or farmed in cooperatives, before this big system called hyper-consumption came along and we built these fences and created out own little fiefdoms. But things are changing, and one of the reasons why is the digital natives, or Gen-Y. They're growing up sharing -- files, video games, knowledge. It's second nature to them. So we, the millennials -- I am just a millennial -- are like foot soldiers, moving us from a culture of "me" to a culture of "we." The reason why it's happening so fast is because of mobile collaboration. We now live in a connected age where we can locate anyone, anytime, in real-time, from a small device in our hands. All of this was going through my head towards the end of 2008, when, of course, the great financial crash happened. Thomas Friedman is one of my favorite New York Times columnists, and he poignantly commented that 2008 is when we hit a wall, when Mother Nature and the market both said, "No more." Now we rationally know that an economy built on hyper-consumption is a Ponzi scheme. It's a house of cards. Yet, it's hard for us to individually know what to do. So all of this is a lot of twittering, right? Well it was a lot of noise and complexity in my head, until actually I realized it was happening because of four key drivers. One, a renewed belief in the importance of community, and a very redefinition of what friend and neighbor really means. A torrent of peer-to-peer social networks and real-time technologies, fundamentally changing the way we behave. Three, pressing unresolved environmental concerns. And four, a global recession that has fundamentally shocked consumer behaviors. These four drivers are fusing together and creating the big shift -- away from the 20th century, defined by hyper-consumption, towards the 21st century, defined by collaborative consumption. I generally believe we're at an inflection point where the sharing behaviors -- through sites such as Flickr and Twitter that are becoming second nature online -- are being applied to offline areas of our everyday lives. From morning commutes to the way fashion is designed to the way we grow food, we are consuming and collaborating once again. So my co-author, Roo Rogers, and I have actually gathered thousands of examples from all around the world of collaborative consumption. And although they vary enormously in scale, maturity and purpose, when we dived into them, we realized that they could actually be organized into three clear systems. The first is redistribution markets. Redistribution markets, just like Swaptree, are when you take a used, or pre-owned, item and move it from where it's not needed to somewhere, or someone, where it is. They're increasingly thought of as the fifth 'R' -- reduce, reuse, recycle, repair and redistribute -- because they stretch the life cycle of a product and thereby reduce waste. The second is collaborative lifestyles. This is the sharing of resources of things like money, skills and time. I bet, in a couple of years, that phrases like "coworking" and "couchsurfing" and "time banks" are going to become a part of everyday vernacular. One of my favorite examples of collaborative lifestyles is called Landshare. It's a scheme in the U.K. that matches Mr. Jones, with some spare space in his back garden, with Mrs. Smith, a would-be grower. Together they grow their own food. It's one of those ideas that's so simple, yet brilliant, you wonder why it's never been done before. Now, the third system is product-service systems. This is where you pay for the benefit of the product -- what it does for you -- without needing to own the product outright. This idea is particularly powerful for things that have high-idling capacity. And that can be anything from baby goods to fashions to -- how many of you have a power drill, own a power drill? Right. That power drill will be used around 12 to 13 minutes in its entire lifetime. (Laughter) It's kind of ridiculous, right? Because what you need is the hole, not the drill. (Laughter) (Applause) So why don't you rent the drill, or, even better, rent out your own drill to other people and make some money from it? These three systems are coming together, allowing people to share resources without sacrificing their lifestyles, or their cherished personal freedoms. I'm not asking people to share nicely in the sandpit. So I want to just give you an example of how powerful collaborative consumption can be to change behaviors. The average car costs 8,000 dollars a year to run. Yet, that car sits idle for 23 hours a day. So when you consider these two facts, it starts to make a little less sense that we have to own one outright. So this is where car-sharing companies such as Zipcar and GoGet come in. In 2009, Zipcar took 250 participants from across 13 cities -- and they're all self-confessed car addicts and car-sharing rookies -- and got them to surrender their keys for a month. Instead, these people had to walk, bike, take the train, or other forms of public transport. They could only use their Zipcar membership when absolutely necessary. The results of this challenge after just one month was staggering. It's amazing that 413 lbs were lost just from the extra exercise. But my favorite statistic is that 100 out of the 250 participants did not want their keys back. In other words, the car addicts had lost their urge to own. Now products-service systems have been around for years. Just think of libraries and laundrettes. But I think they're entering a new age, because technology makes sharing frictionless and fun. There's a great quote that was written in the New York Times that said, "Sharing is to ownership what the iPod is to the 8-track, what solar power is to the coal mine." I believe also, our generation, our relationship to satisfying what we want is far less tangible than any other previous generation. I don't want the DVD; I want the movie it carries. I don't want a clunky answering machine; I want the message it saves. I don't want a CD; I want the music it plays. In other words, I don't want stuff; I want the needs or experiences it fulfills. This is fueling a massive shift from where usage trumps possessions -- or as Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine, puts it, "where access is better than ownership." Now as our possessions dematerialize into the cloud, a blurry line is appearing between what's mine, what's yours, and what's ours. I want to give you one example that shows how fast this evolution is happening. This represents an eight-year time span. We've gone from traditional car-ownership to car-sharing companies, such as Zipcar and GoGet, to ride-sharing platforms that match rides to the newest entry, which is peer-to-peer car rental, where you can actually make money out of renting that car that sits idle for 23 hours a day to your neighbor. Now all of these systems require a degree of trust, and the cornerstone to this working is reputation. Now in the old consumer system, our reputation didn't matter so much, because our credit history was far more important that any kind of peer-to-peer review. But now with the Web, we leave a trail. With every spammer we flag, with every idea we post, comment we share, we're actually signaling how well we collaborate, and whether we can or can't be trusted. Let's go back to my first example, Swaptree. I can see that Rondoron has completed 553 trades with a 100 percent success rate. In other words, I can trust him or her. Now mark my words, it's only a matter of time before we're going to be able to perform a Google-like search and see a cumulative picture of our reputation capital. And this reputation capital will determine our access to collaborative consumption. It's a new social currency, so to speak, that could become as powerful as our credit rating. Now as a closing thought, I believe we're actually in a period where we're waking up from this humongous hangover of emptiness and waste, and we're taking a leap to create a more sustainable system built to serve our innate needs for community and individual identity. I believe it will be referred to as a revolution, so to speak -- when society, faced with great challenges, made a seismic shift from individual getting and spending towards a rediscovery of collective good. I'm on a mission to make sharing cool. I'm on a mission to make sharing hip. Because I really believe it can disrupt outdated modes of business, help us leapfrog over wasteful forms of hyper-consumption and teach us when enough really is enough. Thank you very much. (Applause)
So today I'm going to talk to you about the rise of collaborative consumption. I'm going to explain what it is and try and convince you -- in just 15 minutes -- that this isn't a flimsy idea, or a short-term trend, but a powerful cultural and economic force reinventing not just what we consume, but how we consume. Now I'm going to start with a deceptively simple example. Hands up -- how many of you have books, CDs, DVDs, or videos lying around your house that you probably won't use again, but you can't quite bring yourself to throw away? Can't see all the hands, but it looks like all of you, right? On our shelves at home, we have a box set of the DVD series "24," season six to be precise. I think it was bought for us around three years ago for a Christmas present. Now my husband, Chris, and I love this show. But let's face it, when you've watched it once maybe, or twice, you don't really want to watch it again, because you know how Jack Bauer is going to defeat the terrorists. So there it sits on our shelves obsolete to us, but with immediate latent value to someone else. Now before we go on, I have a confession to make. I lived in New York for 10 years, and I am a big fan of "Sex and the City." Now I'd love to watch the first movie again as sort of a warm-up to the sequel coming out next week. So how easily could I swap our unwanted copy of "24" for a wanted copy of "Sex and the City?" Now you may have noticed there's a new sector emerging called swap-trading. Now the easiest analogy for swap-trading is like an online dating service for all your unwanted media. What it does is use the Internet to create an infinite marketplace to match person A's "haves" with person C's "wants," whatever they may be. The other week, I went on one of these sites, appropriately called Swaptree, and there were over 59,300 items that I could instantly swap for my copy of "24." Lo and behold, there in Reseda, CA was Rondoron who wanted swap his or her "like new" copy of "Sex and the City" for my copy of "24." So in other words, what's happening here is that Swaptree solves my carrying company's sugar rush problem, a problem the economists call "the coincidence of wants," in approximately 60 seconds. What's even more amazing is it will print out a postage label on the spot, because it knows the way of the item. Now there are layers of technical wonder behind sites such as Swaptree, but that's not my interest, and nor is swap trading, per se. My passion, and what I've spent the last few years dedicated to researching, is the collaborative behaviors and trust-mechanics inherent in these systems. When you think about it, it would have seemed like a crazy idea, even a few years ago, that I would swap my stuff with a total stranger whose real name I didn't know and without any money changing hands. Yet 99 percent of trades on Swaptree happen successfully, and the one percent that receive a negative rating, it's for relatively minor reasons, like the item didn't arrive on time. So what's happening here? An extremely powerful dynamic that has huge commercial and cultural implications is at play. Namely, that technology is enabling trust between strangers. We now live in a global village where we can mimic the ties that used to happen face to face, but on a scale and in ways that have never been possible before. So what's actually happening is that social networks and real-time technologies are taking us back. We're bartering, trading, swapping, sharing, but they're being reinvented into dynamic and appealing forms. What I find fascinating is that we've actually wired our world to share, whether that's our neighborhood, our school, our office, or our Facebook network, and that's creating an economy of "what's mine is yours." From the mighty eBay, the grandfather of exchange marketplaces, to car-sharing companies such as GoGet, where you pay a monthly fee to rent cars by the hour, to social lending platforms such as Zopa, that will take anyone in this audience with 100 dollars to lend, and match them with a borrower anywhere in the world, we're sharing and collaborating again in ways that I believe are more hip than hippie. I call this "groundswell collaborative consumption." Now before I dig into the different systems of collaborative consumption, I'd like to try and answer the question that every author rightfully gets asked, which is, where did this idea come from? Now I'd like to say I woke up one morning and said, "I'm going to write about collaborative consumption," but actually it was a complicated web of seemingly disconnected ideas. Over the next minute, you're going to see a bit like a conceptual fireworks display of all the dots that went on in my head. The first thing I began to notice: how many big concepts were emerging -- from the wisdom of crowds to smart mobs -- around how ridiculously easy it is to form groups for a purpose. And linked to this crowd mania were examples all around the world -- from the election of a president to the infamous Wikipedia, and everything in between -- on what the power of numbers could achieve. Now, you know when you learn a new word, and then you start to see that word everywhere? That's what happened to me when I noticed that we are moving from passive consumers to creators, to highly enabled collaborators. What's happening is the Internet is removing the middleman, so that anyone from a T-shirt designer to a knitter can make a living selling peer-to-peer. And the ubiquitous force of this peer-to-peer revolution means that sharing is happening at phenomenal rates. I mean, it's amazing to think that, in every single minute of this speech, 25 hours of YouTube video will be loaded. Now what I find fascinating about these examples is how they're actually tapping into our primate instincts. I mean, we're monkeys, and we're born and bred to share and cooperate. And we were doing so for thousands of years, whether it's when we hunted in packs, or farmed in cooperatives, before this big system called hyper-consumption came along and we built these fences and created out own little fiefdoms. But things are changing, and one of the reasons why is the digital natives, or Gen-Y. They're growing up sharing -- files, video games, knowledge. It's second nature to them. So we, the millennials -- I am just a millennial -- are like foot soldiers, moving us from a culture of "me" to a culture of "we." The reason why it's happening so fast is because of mobile collaboration. We now live in a connected age where we can locate anyone, anytime, in real-time, from a small device in our hands. All of this was going through my head towards the end of 2008, when, of course, the great financial crash happened. Thomas Friedman is one of my favorite New York Times columnists, and he poignantly commented that 2008 is when we hit a wall, when Mother Nature and the market both said, "No more." Now we rationally know that an economy built on hyper-consumption is a Ponzi scheme. It's a house of cards. Yet, it's hard for us to individually know what to do. So all of this is a lot of twittering, right? Well it was a lot of noise and complexity in my head, until actually I realized it was happening because of four key drivers. One, a renewed belief in the importance of community, and a very redefinition of what friend and neighbor really means. A torrent of peer-to-peer social networks and real-time technologies, fundamentally changing the way we behave. Three, pressing unresolved environmental concerns. And four, a global recession that has fundamentally shocked consumer behaviors. These four drivers are fusing together and creating the big shift -- away from the 20th century, defined by hyper-consumption, towards the 21st century, defined by collaborative consumption. I generally believe we're at an inflection point where the sharing behaviors -- through sites such as Flickr and Twitter that are becoming second nature online -- are being applied to offline areas of our everyday lives. From morning commutes to the way fashion is designed to the way we grow food, we are consuming and collaborating once again. So my co-author, Roo Rogers, and I have actually gathered thousands of examples from all around the world of collaborative consumption. And although they vary enormously in scale, maturity and purpose, when we dived into them, we realized that they could actually be organized into three clear systems. The first is redistribution markets. Redistribution markets, just like Swaptree, are when you take a used, or pre-owned, item and move it from where it's not needed to somewhere, or someone, where it is. They're increasingly thought of as the fifth 'R' -- reduce, reuse, recycle, repair and redistribute -- because they stretch the life cycle of a product and thereby reduce waste. The second is collaborative lifestyles. This is the sharing of resources of things like money, skills and time. I bet, in a couple of years, that phrases like "coworking" and "couchsurfing" and "time banks" are going to become a part of everyday vernacular. One of my favorite examples of collaborative lifestyles is called Landshare. It's a scheme in the U.K. that matches Mr. Jones, with some spare space in his back garden, with Mrs. Smith, a would-be grower. Together they grow their own food. It's one of those ideas that's so simple, yet brilliant, you wonder why it's never been done before. Now, the third system is product-service systems. This is where you pay for the benefit of the product -- what it does for you -- without needing to own the product outright. This idea is particularly powerful for things that have high-idling capacity. And that can be anything from baby goods to fashions to -- how many of you have a power drill, own a power drill? Right. That power drill will be used around 12 to 13 minutes in its entire lifetime. (Laughter) It's kind of ridiculous, right? Because what you need is the hole, not the drill. (Laughter) (Applause) So why don't you rent the drill, or, even better, rent out your own drill to other people and make some money from it? These three systems are coming together, allowing people to share resources without sacrificing their lifestyles, or their cherished personal freedoms. I'm not asking people to share nicely in the sandpit. So I want to just give you an example of how powerful collaborative consumption can be to change behaviors. The average car costs 8,000 dollars a year to run. Yet, that car sits idle for 23 hours a day. So when you consider these two facts, it starts to make a little less sense that we have to own one outright. So this is where car-sharing companies such as Zipcar and GoGet come in. In 2009, Zipcar took 250 participants from across 13 cities -- and they're all self-confessed car addicts and car-sharing rookies -- and got them to surrender their keys for a month. Instead, these people had to walk, bike, take the train, or other forms of public transport. They could only use their Zipcar membership when absolutely necessary. The results of this challenge after just one month was staggering. It's amazing that 413 lbs were lost just from the extra exercise. But my favorite statistic is that 100 out of the 250 participants did not want their keys back. In other words, the car addicts had lost their urge to own. Now products-service systems have been around for years. Just think of libraries and laundrettes. But I think they're entering a new age, because technology makes sharing frictionless and fun. There's a great quote that was written in the New York Times that said, "Sharing is to ownership what the iPod is to the 8-track, what solar power is to the coal mine." I believe also, our generation, our relationship to satisfying what we want is far less tangible than any other previous generation. I don't want the DVD; I want the movie it carries. I don't want a clunky answering machine; I want the message it saves. I don't want a CD; I want the music it plays. In other words, I don't want stuff; I want the needs or experiences it fulfills. This is fueling a massive shift from where usage trumps possessions -- or as Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine, puts it, "where access is better than ownership." Now as our possessions dematerialize into the cloud, a blurry line is appearing between what's mine, what's yours, and what's ours. I want to give you one example that shows how fast this evolution is happening. This represents an eight-year time span. We've gone from traditional car-ownership to car-sharing companies, such as Zipcar and GoGet, to ride-sharing platforms that match rides to the newest entry, which is peer-to-peer car rental, where you can actually make money out of renting that car that sits idle for 23 hours a day to your neighbor. Now all of these systems require a degree of trust, and the cornerstone to this working is reputation. Now in the old consumer system, our reputation didn't matter so much, because our credit history was far more important that any kind of peer-to-peer review. But now with the Web, we leave a trail. With every spammer we flag, with every idea we post, comment we share, we're actually signaling how well we collaborate, and whether we can or can't be trusted. Let's go back to my first example, Swaptree. I can see that Rondoron has completed 553 trades with a 100 percent success rate. In other words, I can trust him or her. Now mark my words, it's only a matter of time before we're going to be able to perform a Google-like search and see a cumulative picture of our reputation capital. And this reputation capital will determine our access to collaborative consumption. It's a new social currency, so to speak, that could become as powerful as our credit rating. Now as a closing thought, I believe we're actually in a period where we're waking up from this humongous hangover of emptiness and waste, and we're taking a leap to create a more sustainable system built to serve our innate needs for community and individual identity. I believe it will be referred to as a revolution, so to speak -- when society, faced with great challenges, made a seismic shift from individual getting and spending towards a rediscovery of collective good. I'm on a mission to make sharing cool. I'm on a mission to make sharing hip. Because I really believe it can disrupt outdated modes of business, help us leapfrog over wasteful forms of hyper-consumption and teach us when enough really is enough. Thank you very much. (Applause)
I'm going to talk about consciousness. Why consciousness? Well, it's a curiously neglected subject, both in our scientific and our philosophical culture. Now why is that curious? Well, it is the most important aspect of our lives for a very simple, logical reason, namely, it's a necessary condition on anything being important in our lives that we're conscious. You care about science, philosophy, music, art, whatever -- it's no good if you're a zombie or in a coma, right? So consciousness is number one. The second reason is that when people do get interested in it, as I think they should, they tend to say the most appalling things. And then, even when they're not saying appalling things and they're really trying to do serious research, well, it's been slow. Progress has been slow. When I first got interested in this, I thought, well, it's a straightforward problem in biology. Let's get these brain stabbers to get busy and figure out how it works in the brain. So I went over to UCSF and I talked to all the heavy-duty neurobiologists there, and they showed some impatience, as scientists often do when you ask them embarrassing questions. But the thing that struck me is, one guy said in exasperation, a very famous neurobiologist, he said, "Look, in my discipline it's okay to be interested in consciousness, but get tenure first. Get tenure first." Now I've been working on this for a long time. I think now you might actually get tenure by working on consciousness. If so, that's a real step forward. Okay, now why then is this curious reluctance and curious hostility to consciousness? Well, I think it's a combination of two features of our intellectual culture that like to think they're opposing each other but in fact they share a common set of assumptions. One feature is the tradition of religious dualism: Consciousness is not a part of the physical world. It's a part of the spiritual world. It belongs to the soul, and the soul is not a part of the physical world. That's the tradition of God, the soul and immortality. There's another tradition that thinks it's opposed to this but accepts the worst assumption. That tradition thinks that we are heavy-duty scientific materialists: Consciousness is not a part of the physical world. Either it doesn't exist at all, or it's something else, a computer program or some damn fool thing, but in any case it's not part of science. And I used to get in an argument that really gave me a stomachache. Here's how it went. Science is objective, consciousness is subjective, therefore there cannot be a science of consciousness. Okay, so these twin traditions are paralyzing us. It's very hard to get out of these twin traditions. And I have only one real message in this lecture, and that is, consciousness is a biological phenomenon like photosynthesis, digestion, mitosis -- you know all the biological phenomena -- and once you accept that, most, though not all, of the hard problems about consciousness simply evaporate. And I'm going to go through some of them. Okay, now I promised you to tell you some of the outrageous things said about consciousness. One: Consciousness does not exist. It's an illusion, like sunsets. Science has shown sunsets and rainbows are illusions. So consciousness is an illusion. Two: Well, maybe it exists, but it's really something else. It's a computer program running in the brain. Three: No, the only thing that exists is really behavior. It's embarrassing how influential behaviorism was, but I'll get back to that. And four: Maybe consciousness exists, but it can't make any difference to the world. How could spirituality move anything? Now, whenever somebody tells me that, I think, you want to see spirituality move something? Watch. I decide consciously to raise my arm, and the damn thing goes up. (Laughter) Furthermore, notice this: We do not say, "Well, it's a bit like the weather in Geneva. Some days it goes up and some days it doesn't go up." No. It goes up whenever I damn well want it to. Okay. I'm going to tell you how that's possible. Now, I haven't yet given you a definition. You can't do this if you don't give a definition. People always say consciousness is very hard to define. I think it's rather easy to define if you're not trying to give a scientific definition. We're not ready for a scientific definition, but here's a common-sense definition. Consciousness consists of all those states of feeling or sentience or awareness. It begins in the morning when you wake up from a dreamless sleep, and it goes on all day until you fall asleep or die or otherwise become unconscious. Dreams are a form of consciousness on this definition. Now, that's the common-sense definition. That's our target. If you're not talking about that, you're not talking about consciousness. But they think, "Well, if that's it, that's an awful problem. How can such a thing exist as part of the real world?" And this, if you've ever had a philosophy course, this is known as the famous mind-body problem. I think that has a simple solution too. I'm going to give it to you. And here it is: All of our conscious states, without exception, are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher-level or system features. It's about as mysterious as the liquidity of water. Right? The liquidity is not an extra juice squirted out by the H2O molecules. It's a condition that the system is in. And just as the jar full of water can go from liquid to solid depending on the behavior of the molecules, so your brain can go from a state of being conscious to a state of being unconscious, depending on the behavior of the molecules. The famous mind-body problem is that simple. All right? But now we get into some harder questions. Let's specify the exact features of consciousness, so that we can then answer those four objections that I made to it. Well, the first feature is, it's real and irreducible. You can't get rid of it. You see, the distinction between reality and illusion is the distinction between how things consciously seem to us and how they really are. It consciously seems like there's -- I like the French "arc-en-ciel" — it seems like there's an arch in the sky, or it seems like the sun is setting over the mountains. It consciously seems to us, but that's not really happening. But for that distinction between how things consciously seem and how they really are, you can't make that distinction for the very existence of consciousness, because where the very existence of consciousness is concerned, if it consciously seems to you that you are conscious, you are conscious. I mean, if a bunch of experts come to me and say, "We are heavy-duty neurobiologists and we've done a study of you, Searle, and we're convinced you are not conscious, you are a very cleverly constructed robot," I don't think, "Well, maybe these guys are right, you know?" I don't think that for a moment, because, I mean, Descartes may have made a lot of mistakes, but he was right about this. You cannot doubt the existence of your own consciousness. Okay, that's the first feature of consciousness. It's real and irreducible. You cannot get rid of it by showing that it's an illusion in a way that you can with other standard illusions. Okay, the second feature is this one that has been such a source of trouble to us, and that is, all of our conscious states have this qualitative character to them. There's something that it feels like to drink beer which is not what it feels like to do your income tax or listen to music, and this qualitative feel automatically generates a third feature, namely, conscious states are by definition subjective in the sense that they only exist as experienced by some human or animal subject, some self that experiences them. Maybe we'll be able to build a conscious machine. Since we don't know how our brains do it, we're not in a position, so far, to build a conscious machine. Okay. Another feature of consciousness is that it comes in unified conscious fields. So I don't just have the sight of the people in front of me and the sound of my voice and the weight of my shoes against the floor, but they occur to me as part of one single great conscious field that stretches forward and backward. That is the key to understanding the enormous power of consciousness. And we have not been able to do that in a robot. The disappointment of robotics derives from the fact that we don't know how to make a conscious robot, so we don't have a machine that can do this kind of thing. Okay, the next feature of consciousness, after this marvelous unified conscious field, is that it functions causally in our behavior. I gave you a scientific demonstration by raising my hand, but how is that possible? How can it be that this thought in my brain can move material objects? Well, I'll tell you the answer. I mean, we don't know the detailed answer, but we know the basic part of the answer, and that is, there is a sequence of neuron firings, and they terminate where the acetylcholine is secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons. Sorry to use philosophical terminology here, but when it's secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons, a whole lot of wonderful things happen in the ion channels and the damned arm goes up. Now, think of what I told you. One and the same event, my conscious decision to raise my arm has a level of description where it has all of these touchy-feely spiritual qualities. It's a thought in my brain, but at the same time, it's busy secreting acetylcholine and doing all sorts of other things as it makes its way from the motor cortex down through the nerve fibers in the arm. Now, what that tells us is that our traditional vocabularies for discussing these issues are totally obsolete. One and the same event has a level of description where it's neurobiological, and another level of description where it's mental, and that's a single event, and that's how nature works. That's how it's possible for consciousness to function causally. Okay, now with that in mind, with going through these various features of consciousness, let's go back and answer some of those early objections. Well, the first one I said was, consciousness doesn't exist, it's an illusion. Well, I've already answered that. I don't think we need to worry about that. But the second one had an incredible influence, and may still be around, and that is, "Well, if consciousness exists, it's really something else. It's really a digital computer program running in your brain and that's what we need to do to create consciousness is get the right program. Yeah, forget about the hardware. Any hardware will do provided it's rich enough and stable enough to carry the program." Now, we know that that's wrong. I mean, anybody who's thought about computers at all can see that that's wrong, because computation is defined as symbol manipulation, usually thought of as zeros as ones, but any symbols will do. You get an algorithm that you can program in a binary code, and that's the defining trait of the computer program. But we know that that's purely syntactical. That's symbolic. We know that actual human consciousness has something more than that. It's got a content in addition to the syntax. It's got a semantics. Now that argument, I made that argument 30 -- oh my God, I don't want to think about it — more than 30 years ago, but there's a deeper argument implicit in what I've told you, and I want to tell you that argument briefly, and that is, consciousness creates an observer-independent reality. It creates a reality of money, property, government, marriage, CERN conferences, cocktail parties and summer vacations, and all of those are creations of consciousness. Their existence is observer-relative. It's only relative to conscious agents that a piece of paper is money or that a bunch of buildings is a university. Now, ask yourself about computation. Is that absolute, like force and mass and gravitational attraction? Or is it observer-relative? Well, some computations are intrinsic. I add two plus two to get four. That's going on no matter what anybody thinks. But when I haul out my pocket calculator and do the calculation, the only intrinsic phenomenon is the electronic circuit and its behavior. That's the only absolute phenomenon. All the rest is interpreted by us. Computation only exists relative to consciousness. Either a conscious agent is carrying out the computation, or he's got a piece of machinery that admits of a computational interpretation. Now that doesn't mean computation is arbitrary. I spent a lot of money on this hardware. But we have this persistent confusion between objectivity and subjectivity as features of reality and objectivity and subjectivity as features of claims. And the bottom line of this part of my talk is this: You can have a completely objective science, a science where you make objectively true claims, about a domain whose existence is subjective, whose existence is in the human brain consisting of subjective states of sentience or feeling or awareness. So the objection that you can't have an objective science of consciousness because it's subjective and science is objective, that's a pun. That's a bad pun on objectivity and subjectivity. You can make objective claims about a domain that is subjective in its mode of existence, and indeed that's what neurologists do. I mean, you have patients that actually suffer pains, and you try to get an objective science of that. Okay, I promised to refute all these guys, and I don't have an awful lot of time left, but let me refute a couple more of them. I said that behaviorism ought to be one of the great embarrassments of our intellectual culture, because it's refuted the moment you think about it. Your mental states are identical with your behavior? Well, think about the distinction between feeling a pain and engaging in pain behavior. I won't demonstrate pain behavior, but I can tell you I'm not having any pains right now. So it's an obvious mistake. Why did they make the mistake? The mistake was — and you can go back and read the literature on this, you can see this over and over — they think if you accept the irreducible existence of consciousness, you're giving up on science. You're giving up on 300 years of human progress and human hope and all the rest of it. And the message I want to leave you with is, consciousness has to become accepted as a genuine biological phenomenon, as much subject to scientific analysis as any other phenomenon in biology, or, for that matter, the rest of science. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Most of us think of motion as a very visual thing. If I walk across this stage or gesture with my hands while I speak, that motion is something that you can see. But there's a world of important motion that's too subtle for the human eye, and over the past few years, we've started to find that cameras can often see this motion even when humans can't. So let me show you what I mean. On the left here, you see video of a person's wrist, and on the right, you see video of a sleeping infant, but if I didn't tell you that these were videos, you might assume that you were looking at two regular images, because in both cases, these videos appear to be almost completely still. But there's actually a lot of subtle motion going on here, and if you were to touch the wrist on the left, you would feel a pulse, and if you were to hold the infant on the right, you would feel the rise and fall of her chest as she took each breath. And these motions carry a lot of significance, but they're usually too subtle for us to see, so instead, we have to observe them through direct contact, through touch. But a few years ago, my colleagues at MIT developed what they call a motion microscope, which is software that finds these subtle motions in video and amplifies them so that they become large enough for us to see. And so, if we use their software on the left video, it lets us see the pulse in this wrist, and if we were to count that pulse, we could even figure out this person's heart rate. And if we used the same software on the right video, it lets us see each breath that this infant takes, and we can use this as a contact-free way to monitor her breathing. And so this technology is really powerful because it takes these phenomena that we normally have to experience through touch and it lets us capture them visually and non-invasively. So a couple years ago, I started working with the folks that created that software, and we decided to pursue a crazy idea. We thought, it's cool that we can use software to visualize tiny motions like this, and you can almost think of it as a way to extend our sense of touch. But what if we could do the same thing with our ability to hear? What if we could use video to capture the vibrations of sound, which are just another kind of motion, and turn everything that we see into a microphone? Now, this is a bit of a strange idea, so let me try to put it in perspective for you. Traditional microphones work by converting the motion of an internal diaphragm into an electrical signal, and that diaphragm is designed to move readily with sound so that its motion can be recorded and interpreted as audio. But sound causes all objects to vibrate. Those vibrations are just usually too subtle and too fast for us to see. So what if we record them with a high-speed camera and then use software to extract tiny motions from our high-speed video, and analyze those motions to figure out what sounds created them? This would let us turn visible objects into visual microphones from a distance. And so we tried this out, and here's one of our experiments, where we took this potted plant that you see on the right and we filmed it with a high-speed camera while a nearby loudspeaker played this sound. (Music: "Mary Had a Little Lamb") And so here's the video that we recorded, and we recorded it at thousands of frames per second, but even if you look very closely, all you'll see are some leaves that are pretty much just sitting there doing nothing, because our sound only moved those leaves by about a micrometer. That's one ten-thousandth of a centimeter, which spans somewhere between a hundredth and a thousandth of a pixel in this image. So you can squint all you want, but motion that small is pretty much perceptually invisible. But it turns out that something can be perceptually invisible and still be numerically significant, because with the right algorithms, we can take this silent, seemingly still video and we can recover this sound. (Music: "Mary Had a Little Lamb") (Applause) So how is this possible? How can we get so much information out of so little motion? Well, let's say that those leaves move by just a single micrometer, and let's say that that shifts our image by just a thousandth of a pixel. That may not seem like much, but a single frame of video may have hundreds of thousands of pixels in it, and so if we combine all of the tiny motions that we see from across that entire image, then suddenly a thousandth of a pixel can start to add up to something pretty significant. On a personal note, we were pretty psyched when we figured this out. (Laughter) But even with the right algorithm, we were still missing a pretty important piece of the puzzle. You see, there are a lot of factors that affect when and how well this technique will work. There's the object and how far away it is; there's the camera and the lens that you use; how much light is shining on the object and how loud your sound is. And even with the right algorithm, we had to be very careful with our early experiments, because if we got any of these factors wrong, there was no way to tell what the problem was. We would just get noise back. And so a lot of our early experiments looked like this. And so here I am, and on the bottom left, you can kind of see our high-speed camera, which is pointed at a bag of chips, and the whole thing is lit by these bright lamps. And like I said, we had to be very careful in these early experiments, so this is how it went down. (Video) Abe Davis: Three, two, one, go. Mary had a little lamb! Little lamb! Little lamb! (Laughter) AD: So this experiment looks completely ridiculous. (Laughter) I mean, I'm screaming at a bag of chips -- (Laughter) -- and we're blasting it with so much light, we literally melted the first bag we tried this on. (Laughter) But ridiculous as this experiment looks, it was actually really important, because we were able to recover this sound. (Audio) Mary had a little lamb! Little lamb! Little lamb! (Applause) AD: And this was really significant, because it was the first time we recovered intelligible human speech from silent video of an object. And so it gave us this point of reference, and gradually we could start to modify the experiment, using different objects or moving the object further away, using less light or quieter sounds. And we analyzed all of these experiments until we really understood the limits of our technique, because once we understood those limits, we could figure out how to push them. And that led to experiments like this one, where again, I'm going to speak to a bag of chips, but this time we've moved our camera about 15 feet away, outside, behind a soundproof window, and the whole thing is lit by only natural sunlight. And so here's the video that we captured. And this is what things sounded like from inside, next to the bag of chips. (Audio) Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow, and everywhere that Mary went, that lamb was sure to go. AD: And here's what we were able to recover from our silent video captured outside behind that window. (Audio) Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow, and everywhere that Mary went, that lamb was sure to go. (Applause) AD: And there are other ways that we can push these limits as well. So here's a quieter experiment where we filmed some earphones plugged into a laptop computer, and in this case, our goal was to recover the music that was playing on that laptop from just silent video of these two little plastic earphones, and we were able to do this so well that I could even Shazam our results. (Laughter) (Music: "Under Pressure" by Queen) (Applause) And we can also push things by changing the hardware that we use. Because the experiments I've shown you so far were done with a camera, a high-speed camera, that can record video about a 100 times faster than most cell phones, but we've also found a way to use this technique with more regular cameras, and we do that by taking advantage of what's called a rolling shutter. You see, most cameras record images one row at a time, and so if an object moves during the recording of a single image, there's a slight time delay between each row, and this causes slight artifacts that get coded into each frame of a video. And so what we found is that by analyzing these artifacts, we can actually recover sound using a modified version of our algorithm. So here's an experiment we did where we filmed a bag of candy while a nearby loudspeaker played the same "Mary Had a Little Lamb" music from before, but this time, we used just a regular store-bought camera, and so in a second, I'll play for you the sound that we recovered, and it's going to sound distorted this time, but listen and see if you can still recognize the music. (Audio: "Mary Had a Little Lamb") And so, again, that sounds distorted, but what's really amazing here is that we were able to do this with something that you could literally run out and pick up at a Best Buy. So at this point, a lot of people see this work, and they immediately think about surveillance. And to be fair, it's not hard to imagine how you might use this technology to spy on someone. But keep in mind that there's already a lot of very mature technology out there for surveillance. In fact, people have been using lasers to eavesdrop on objects from a distance for decades. But what's really new here, what's really different, is that now we have a way to picture the vibrations of an object, which gives us a new lens through which to look at the world, and we can use that lens to learn not just about forces like sound that cause an object to vibrate, but also about the object itself. And so I want to take a step back and think about how that might change the ways that we use video, because we usually use video to look at things, and I've just shown you how we can use it to listen to things. But there's another important way that we learn about the world: that's by interacting with it. We push and pull and poke and prod things. We shake things and see what happens. And that's something that video still won't let us do, at least not traditionally. So I want to show you some new work, and this is based on an idea I had just a few months ago, so this is actually the first time I've shown it to a public audience. And the basic idea is that we're going to use the vibrations in a video to capture objects in a way that will let us interact with them and see how they react to us. So here's an object, and in this case, it's a wire figure in the shape of a human, and we're going to film that object with just a regular camera. So there's nothing special about this camera. In fact, I've actually done this with my cell phone before. But we do want to see the object vibrate, so to make that happen, we're just going to bang a little bit on the surface where it's resting while we record this video. So that's it: just five seconds of regular video, while we bang on this surface, and we're going to use the vibrations in that video to learn about the structural and material properties of our object, and we're going to use that information to create something new and interactive. And so here's what we've created. And it looks like a regular image, but this isn't an image, and it's not a video, because now I can take my mouse and I can start interacting with the object. And so what you see here is a simulation of how this object would respond to new forces that we've never seen before, and we created it from just five seconds of regular video. (Applause) And so this is a really powerful way to look at the world, because it lets us predict how objects will respond to new situations, and you could imagine, for instance, looking at an old bridge and wondering what would happen, how would that bridge hold up if I were to drive my car across it. And that's a question that you probably want to answer before you start driving across that bridge. And of course, there are going to be limitations to this technique, just like there were with the visual microphone, but we found that it works in a lot of situations that you might not expect, especially if you give it longer videos. So for example, here's a video that I captured of a bush outside of my apartment, and I didn't do anything to this bush, but by capturing a minute-long video, a gentle breeze caused enough vibrations that we could learn enough about this bush to create this simulation. (Applause) And so you could imagine giving this to a film director, and letting him control, say, the strength and direction of wind in a shot after it's been recorded. Or, in this case, we pointed our camera at a hanging curtain, and you can't even see any motion in this video, but by recording a two-minute-long video, natural air currents in this room created enough subtle, imperceptible motions and vibrations that we could learn enough to create this simulation. And ironically, we're kind of used to having this kind of interactivity when it comes to virtual objects, when it comes to video games and 3D models, but to be able to capture this information from real objects in the real world using just simple, regular video, is something new that has a lot of potential. So here are the amazing people who worked with me on these projects. (Applause) And what I've shown you today is only the beginning. We've just started to scratch the surface of what you can do with this kind of imaging, because it gives us a new way to capture our surroundings with common, accessible technology. And so looking to the future, it's going to be really exciting to explore what this can tell us about the world. Thank you. (Applause)
You probably don't know me, but I am one of those .01 percenters that you hear about and read about, and I am by any reasonable definition a plutocrat. And tonight, what I would like to do is speak directly to other plutocrats, to my people, because it feels like it's time for us all to have a chat. Like most plutocrats, I too am a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, cofounded or funded over 30 companies across a range of industries. I was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com. I cofounded a company called aQuantive that we sold to Microsoft for 6.4 billion dollars. My friends and I, we own a bank. I tell you this — (Laughter) — unbelievable, right? I tell you this to show that my life is like most plutocrats. I have a broad perspective on capitalism and business, and I have been rewarded obscenely for that with a life that most of you all can't even imagine: multiple homes, a yacht, my own plane, etc., etc., etc. But let's be honest: I am not the smartest person you've ever met. I am certainly not the hardest working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all. I can't write a word of code. Truly, my success is the consequence of spectacular luck, of birth, of circumstance and of timing. But I am actually pretty good at a couple of things. One, I have an unusually high tolerance for risk, and the other is I have a good sense, a good intuition about what will happen in the future, and I think that that intuition about the future is the essence of good entrepreneurship. So what do I see in our future today, you ask? I see pitchforks, as in angry mobs with pitchforks, because while people like us plutocrats are living beyond the dreams of avarice, the other 99 percent of our fellow citizens are falling farther and farther behind. In 1980, the top one percent of Americans shared about eight percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans shared 18 percent. Thirty years later, today, the top one percent shares over 20 percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans share 12 or 13. If the trend continues, the top one percent will share over 30 percent of national [income] in another 30 years, while the bottom 50 percent of Americans will share just six. You see, the problem isn't that we have some inequality. Some inequality is necessary for a high-functioning capitalist democracy. The problem is that inequality is at historic highs today and it's getting worse every day. And if wealth, power, and income continue to concentrate at the very tippy top, our society will change from a capitalist democracy to a neo-feudalist rentier society like 18th-century France. That was France before the revolution and the mobs with the pitchforks. So I have a message for my fellow plutocrats and zillionaires and for anyone who lives in a gated bubble world: Wake up. Wake up. It cannot last. Because if we do not do something to fix the glaring economic inequities in our society, the pitchforks will come for us, for no free and open society can long sustain this kind of rising economic inequality. It has never happened. There are no examples. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state or an uprising. The pitchforks will come for us if we do not address this. It's not a matter of if, it's when. And it will be terrible when they come for everyone, but particularly for people like us plutocrats. I know I must sound like some liberal do-gooder. I'm not. I'm not making a moral argument that economic inequality is wrong. What I am arguing is that rising economic inequality is stupid and ultimately self-defeating. Rising inequality doesn't just increase our risks from pitchforks, but it's also terrible for business too. So the model for us rich guys should be Henry Ford. When Ford famously introduced the $5 day, which was twice the prevailing wage at the time, he didn't just increase the productivity of his factories, he converted exploited autoworkers who were poor into a thriving middle class who could now afford to buy the products that they made. Ford intuited what we now know is true, that an economy is best understood as an ecosystem and characterized by the same kinds of feedback loops you find in a natural ecosystem, a feedback loop between customers and businesses. Raising wages increases demand, which increases hiring, which in turn increases wages and demand and profits, and that virtuous cycle of increasing prosperity is precisely what is missing from today's economic recovery. And this is why we need to put behind us the trickle-down policies that so dominate both political parties and embrace something I call middle-out economics. Middle-out economics rejects the neoclassical economic idea that economies are efficient, linear, mechanistic, that they tend towards equilibrium and fairness, and instead embraces the 21st-century idea that economies are complex, adaptive, ecosystemic, that they tend away from equilibrium and toward inequality, that they're not efficient at all but are effective if well managed. This 21st-century perspective allows you to clearly see that capitalism does not work by [efficiently] allocating existing resources. It works by [efficiently] creating new solutions to human problems. The genius of capitalism is that it is an evolutionary solution-finding system. It rewards people for solving other people's problems. The difference between a poor society and a rich society, obviously, is the degree to which that society has generated solutions in the form of products for its citizens. The sum of the solutions that we have in our society really is our prosperity, and this explains why companies like Google and Amazon and Microsoft and Apple and the entrepreneurs who created those companies have contributed so much to our nation's prosperity. This 21st-century perspective also makes clear that what we think of as economic growth is best understood as the rate at which we solve problems. But that rate is totally dependent upon how many problem solvers — diverse, able problem solvers — we have, and thus how many of our fellow citizens actively participate, both as entrepreneurs who can offer solutions, and as customers who consume them. But this maximizing participation thing doesn't happen by accident. It doesn't happen by itself. It requires effort and investment, which is why all highly prosperous capitalist democracies are characterized by massive investments in the middle class and the infrastructure that they depend on. We plutocrats need to get this trickle-down economics thing behind us, this idea that the better we do, the better everyone else will do. It's not true. How could it be? I earn 1,000 times the median wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff, do I? I actually bought two pairs of these pants, what my partner Mike calls my manager pants. I could have bought 2,000 pairs, but what would I do with them? (Laughter) How many haircuts can I get? How often can I go out to dinner? No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get, we can never drive a great national economy. Only a thriving middle class can do that. There's nothing to be done, my plutocrat friends might say. Henry Ford was in a different time. Maybe we can't do some things. Maybe we can do some things. June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called "The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage." The good people at Forbes magazine, among my biggest admirers, called it "Nick Hanauer's near-insane proposal." And yet, just 350 days after that article was published, Seattle's Mayor Ed Murray signed into law an ordinance raising the minimum wage in Seattle to 15 dollars an hour, more than double what the prevailing federal $7.25 rate is. How did this happen, reasonable people might ask. It happened because a group of us reminded the middle class that they are the source of growth and prosperity in capitalist economies. We reminded them that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers, and need more employees. We reminded them that when businesses pay workers a living wage, taxpayers are relieved of the burden of funding the poverty programs like food stamps and medical assistance and rent assistance that those workers need. We reminded them that low-wage workers make terrible taxpayers, and that when you raise the minimum wage for all businesses, all businesses benefit yet all can compete. Now the orthodox reaction, of course, is raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Right? Your politician's always echoing that trickle-down idea by saying things like, "Well, if you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it." Are you sure? Because there's some contravening evidence. Since 1980, the wages of CEOs in our country have gone from about 30 times the median wage to 500 times. That's raising the price of employment. And yet, to my knowledge, I have never seen a company outsource its CEO's job, automate their job, export the job to China. In fact, we appear to be employing more CEOs and senior managers than ever before. So too for technology workers and financial services workers, who earn multiples of the median wage and yet we employ more and more of them, so clearly you can raise the price of employment and get more of it. I know that most people think that the $15 minimum wage is this insane, risky economic experiment. We disagree. We believe that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is actually the continuation of a logical economic policy. It is allowing our city to kick your city's ass. Because, you see, Washington state already has the highest minimum wage of any state in the nation. We pay all workers $9.32, which is almost 30 percent more than the federal minimum of 7.25, but crucially, 427 percent more than the federal tipped minimum of 2.13. If trickle-down thinkers were right, then Washington state should have massive unemployment. Seattle should be sliding into the ocean. And yet, Seattle is the fastest-growing big city in the country. Washington state is generating small business jobs at a higher rate than any other major state in the nation. The restaurant business in Seattle? Booming. Why? Because the fundamental law of capitalism is, when workers have more money, businesses have more customers and need more workers. When restaurants pay restaurant workers enough so that even they can afford to eat in restaurants, that's not bad for the restaurant business. That's good for it, despite what some restaurateurs may tell you. Is it more complicated than I'm making out? Of course it is. There are a lot of dynamics at play. But can we please stop insisting that if low-wage workers earn a little bit more, unemployment will skyrocket and the economy will collapse? There is no evidence for it. The most insidious thing about trickle-down economics is not the claim that if the rich get richer, everyone is better off. It is the claim made by those who oppose any increase in the minimum wage that if the poor get richer, that will be bad for the economy. This is nonsense. So can we please dispense with this rhetoric that says that rich guys like me and my plutocrat friends made our country? We plutocrats know, even if we don't like to admit it in public, that if we had been born somewhere else, not here in the United States, we might very well be just some dude standing barefoot by the side of a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that they don't have good entrepreneurs in other places, even very, very poor places. It's just that that's all that those entrepreneurs' customers can afford. So here's an idea for a new kind of economics, a new kind of politics that I call new capitalism. Let's acknowledge that capitalism beats the alternatives, but also that the more people we include, both as entrepreneurs and as customers, the better it works. Let's by all means shrink the size of government, but not by slashing the poverty programs, but by ensuring that workers are paid enough so that they actually don't need those programs. Let's invest enough in the middle class to make our economy fairer and more inclusive, and by fairer, more truly competitive, and by more truly competitive, more able to generate the solutions to human problems that are the true drivers of growth and prosperity. Capitalism is the greatest social technology ever invented for creating prosperity in human societies, if it is well managed, but capitalism, because of the fundamental multiplicative dynamics of complex systems, tends towards, inexorably, inequality, concentration and collapse. The work of democracies is to maximize the inclusion of the many in order to create prosperity, not to enable the few to accumulate money. Government does create prosperity and growth, by creating the conditions that allow both entrepreneurs and their customers to thrive. Balancing the power of capitalists like me and workers isn't bad for capitalism. It's essential to it. Programs like a reasonable minimum wage, affordable healthcare, paid sick leave, and the progressive taxation necessary to pay for the important infrastructure necessary for the middle class like education, R and D, these are indispensable tools shrewd capitalists should embrace to drive growth, because no one benefits from it like us. Many economists would have you believe that their field is an objective science. I disagree, and I think that it is equally a tool that humans use to enforce and encode our social and moral preferences and prejudices about status and power, which is why plutocrats like me have always needed to find persuasive stories to tell everyone else about why our relative positions are morally righteous and good for everyone: like, we are indispensable, the job creators, and you are not; like, tax cuts for us create growth, but investments in you will balloon our debt and bankrupt our great country; that we matter; that you don't. For thousands of years, these stories were called divine right. Today, we have trickle-down economics. How obviously, transparently self-serving all of this is. We plutocrats need to see that the United States of America made us, not the other way around; that a thriving middle class is the source of prosperity in capitalist economies, not a consequence of it. And we should never forget that even the best of us in the worst of circumstances are barefoot by the side of a dirt road selling fruit. Fellow plutocrats, I think it may be time for us to recommit to our country, to commit to a new kind of capitalism which is both more inclusive and more effective, a capitalism that will ensure that America's economy remains the most dynamic and prosperous in the world. Let's secure the future for ourselves, our children and their children. Or alternatively, we could do nothing, hide in our gated communities and private schools, enjoy our planes and yachts — they're fun — and wait for the pitchforks. Thank you. (Applause)
I cannot forget them. Their names were Aslan, Alik, Andrei, Fernanda, Fred, Galina, Gunnhild, Hans, Ingeborg, Matti, Natalya, Nancy, Sheryl, Usman, Zarema, and the list is longer. For many, their existence, their humanity, has been reduced to statistics, coldly recorded as "security incidents." For me, they were colleagues belonging to that community of humanitarian aid workers that tried to bring a bit of comfort to the victims of the wars in Chechnya in the '90s. They were nurses, logisticians, shelter experts, paralegals, interpreters. And for this service, they were murdered, their families torn apart, and their story largely forgotten. No one was ever sentenced for these crimes. I cannot forget them. They live in me somehow, their memories giving me meaning every day. But they are also haunting the dark street of my mind. As humanitarian aid workers, they made the choice to be at the side of the victim, to provide some assistance, some comfort, some protection, but when they needed protection themselves, it wasn't there. When you see the headlines of your newspaper these days with the war in Iraq or in Syria -- aid worker abducted, hostage executed -- but who were they? Why were they there? What motivated them? How did we become so indifferent to these crimes? This is why I am here today with you. We need to find better ways to remember them. We also need to explain the key values to which they dedicated their lives. We also need to demand justice. When in '96 I was sent by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to the North Caucasus, I knew some of the risks. Five colleagues had been killed, three had been seriously injured, seven had already been taken hostage. So we were careful. We were using armored vehicles, decoy cars, changing patterns of travel, changing homes, all sorts of security measures. Yet on a cold winter night of January '98, it was my turn. When I entered my flat in Vladikavkaz with a guard, we were surrounded by armed men. They took the guard, they put him on the floor, they beat him up in front of me, tied him, dragged him away. I was handcuffed, blindfolded, and forced to kneel, as the silencer of a gun pressed against my neck. When it happens to you, there is no time for thinking, no time for praying. My brain went on automatic, rewinding quickly the life I'd just left behind. It took me long minutes to figure out that those masked men there were not there to kill me, but that someone, somewhere, had ordered my kidnapping. Then a process of dehumanization started that day. I was no more than just a commodity. I normally don't talk about this, but I'd like to share a bit with you some of those 317 days of captivity. I was kept in an underground cellar, total darkness, for 23 hours and 45 minutes every day, and then the guards would come, normally two. They would bring a big piece of bread, a bowl of soup, and a candle. That candle would burn for 15 minutes, 15 minutes of precious light, and then they would take it away, and I returned to darkness. I was chained by a metal cable to my bed. I could do only four small steps. I always dreamt of the fifth one. And no TV, no radio, no newspaper, no one to talk to. I had no towel, no soap, no toilet paper, just two metal buckets open, one for water, for one waste. Can you imagine that mock execution can be a pastime for guards when they are sadistic or when they are just bored or drunk? We are breaking my nerves very slowly. Isolation and darkness are particularly difficult to describe. How do you describe nothing? There are no words for the depths of loneliness I reached in that very thin border between sanity and madness. In the darkness, sometimes I played imaginary games of checkers. I would start with the black, play with the white, back to the black trying to trick the other side. I don't play checkers anymore. I was tormented by the thoughts of my family and my colleague, the guard, Edik. I didn't know what had happened to him. I was trying not to think, I tried to fill up my time by doing all sorts of physical exercise on the spot. I tried to pray, I tried all sorts of memorization games. But darkness also creates images and thoughts that are not normal. One part of your brain wants you to resist, to shout, to cry, and the other part of the brain orders you to shut up and just go through it. It's a constant internal debate; there is no one to arbitrate. Once a guard came to me, very aggressively, and he told me, "Today you're going to kneel and beg for your food." I wasn't in a good mood, so I insulted him. I insulted his mother, I insulted his ancestors. The consequence was moderate: he threw the food into my waste. The day after he came back with the same demand. He got the same answer, which had the same consequence. Four days later, the body was full of pain. I didn't know hunger hurt so much when you have so little. So when the guards came down, I knelt. I begged for my food. Submission was the only way for me to make it to another candle. After my kidnapping, I was transferred from North Ossetia to Chechnya, three days of slow travel in the trunks of different cars, and upon arrival, I was interrogated for 11 days by a guy called Ruslan. The routine was always the same: a bit more light, 45 minutes. He would come down to the cellar, he would ask the guards to tie me on the chair, and he would turn on the music loud. And then he would yell questions. He would scream. He would beat me. I'll spare you the details. There are many questions I could not understand, and there are some questions I did not want to understand. The length of the interrogation was the duration of the tape: 15 songs, 45 minutes. I would always long for the last song. On one day, one night in that cellar, I don't know what it was, I heard a child crying above my head, a boy, maybe two or three years old. Footsteps, confusion, people running. So when Ruslan came the day after, before he put the first question to me, I asked him, "How is your son today? Is he feeling better?" Ruslan was taken by surprise. He was furious that the guards may have leaked some details about his private life. I kept talking about NGOs supplying medicines to local clinics that may help his son to get better. And we talked about education, we talked about families. He talked to me about his children. I talked to him about my daughters. And then he'd talk about guns, about cars, about women, and I had to talk about guns, about cars, about women. And we talked until the last song on the tape. Ruslan was the most brutal man I ever met. He did not touch me anymore. He did not ask any other questions. I was no longer just a commodity. Two days after, I was transferred to another place. There, a guard came to me, very close -- it was quite unusual -- and he said with a very soft voice, he said, "I'd like to thank you for the assistance your organization provided my family when we were displaced in nearby Dagestan." What could I possibly reply? It was so painful. It was like a blade in the belly. It took me weeks of internal thinking to try to reconcile the good reasons we had to assist that family and the soldier of fortune he became. He was young, he was shy. I never saw his face. He probably meant well. But in those 15 seconds, he made me question everything we did, all the sacrifices. He made me think also how they see us. Until then, I had assumed that they know why we are there and what we are doing. One cannot assume this. Well, explaining why we do this is not that easy, even to our closest relatives. We are not perfect, we are not superior, we are not the world's fire brigade, we are not superheroes, we don't stop wars, we know that humanitarian response is not a substitute for political solution. Yet we do this because one life matters. Sometimes that's the only difference you make -- one individual, one family, a small group of individuals -- and it matters. When you have a tsunami, an earthquake or a typhoon, you see teams of rescuers coming from all over the world, searching for survivors for weeks. Why? Nobody questions this. Every life matters, or every life should matter. This is the same for us when we help refugees, people displaced within their country by conflict, or stateless persons, I know many people, when they are confronted by overwhelming suffering, they feel powerless and they stop there. It's a pity, because there are so many ways people can help. We don't stop with that feeling. We try to do whatever we can to provide some assistance, some protection, some comfort. We have to. We can't do otherwise. It's what makes us feel, I don't know, simply human. That's a picture of me the day of my release. Months after my release, I met the then-French prime minister. The second thing he told me: "You were totally irresponsible to go to the North Caucasus. You don't know how many problems you've created for us." It was a short meeting. (Laughter) I think helping people in danger is responsible. In that war, that nobody seriously wanted to stop, and we have many of these today, bringing some assistance to people in need and a bit of protection was not just an act of humanity, it was making a real difference for the people. Why could he not understand this? We have a responsibility to try. You've heard about that concept: Responsibility to Protect. Outcomes may depend on various parameters. We may even fail, but there is worse than failing -- it's not even trying when we can. Well, if you are met this way, if you sign up for this sort of job, your life is going to be full of joy and sadness, because there are a lot of people we cannot help, a lot of people we cannot protect, a lot of people we did not save. I call them my ghost, and by having witnessed their suffering from close, you take a bit of that suffering on yourself. Many young humanitarian workers go through their first experience with a lot of bitterness. They are thrown into situations where they are witness, but they are powerless to bring any change. They have to learn to accept it and gradually turn this into positive energy. It's difficult. Many don't succeed, but for those who do, there is no other job like this. You can see the difference you make every day. Humanitarian aid workers know the risk they are taking in conflict areas or in post-conflict environments, yet our life, our job, is becoming increasingly life-threatening, and the sanctity of our life is fading. Do you know that since the millennium, the number of attacks on humanitarian aid workers has tripled? 2013 broke new records: 155 colleagues killed, 171 seriously wounded, 134 abducted. So many broken lives. Until the beginning of the civil war in Somalia in the late '80s, humanitarian aid workers were sometimes victims of what we call collateral damages, but by and large we were not the target of these attacks. This has changed. Look at this picture. Baghdad, August 2003: 24 colleagues were killed. Gone are the days when a U.N. blue flag or a Red Cross would automatically protect us. Criminal groups and some political groups have cross-fertilized over the last 20 years, and they've created these sort of hybrids with whom we have no way of communicating. Humanitarian principles are tested, questioned, and often ignored, but perhaps more importantly, we have abandoned the search for justice. There seems to be no consequence whatsoever for attacks against humanitarian aid workers. After my release, I was told not to seek any form of justice. It won't do you any good, that's what I was told. Plus, you're going to put in danger the life of other colleagues. It took me years to see the sentencing of three people associated with my kidnapping, but this was the exception. There was no justice for any of the humanitarian aid workers killed or abducted in Chechnya between '95 and '99, and it's the same all over the world. This is unacceptable. This is inexcusable. Attacks on humanitarian aid workers are war crimes in international law. Those crimes should not go unpunished. We must end this cycle of impunity. We must consider that those attacks against humanitarian aid workers are attacks against humanity itself. That makes me furious. I know I'm very lucky compared to the refugees I work for. I don't know what it is to have seen my whole town destroyed. I don't know what it is to have seen my relatives shot in front of me. I don't know what it is to lose the protection of my country. I also know that I'm very lucky compared to other hostages. Four days before my eventful release, four hostages were beheaded a few miles away from where I was kept in captivity. Why them? Why am I here today? No easy answer. I was received with a lot of support that I got from my relatives, from colleagues, from friends, from people I didn't know. They have helped me over the years to come out of the darkness. Not everyone was treated with the same attention. How many of my colleagues, after a traumatic incident, took their own life? I can count nine that I knew personally. How many of my colleagues went through a difficult divorce after a traumatic experience because they could not explain anything anymore to their spouse? I've lost that count. There is a price for this type of life. In Russia, all war monuments have this beautiful inscription at the top. It says, (In Russian) "No one is forgotten, nothing is forgotten." I do not forget my lost colleagues. I cannot forget anything. I call on you to remember their dedication and demand that humanitarian aid workers around the world be better protected. We should not let that light of hope they have brought to be switched off. After my ordeal, a lot of colleagues asked me, "But why do you continue? Why do you do this sort of job? Why do you have to go back to it?" My answer was very simple: If I had quit, that would have meant my kidnapper had won. They would have taken my soul and my humanity. Thank you. (Applause)
So I want to talk today about money and happiness, which are two things that a lot of us spend a lot of our time thinking about, either trying to earn them or trying to increase them. And a lot of us resonate with this phrase. So we see it in religions and self-help books, that money can't buy happiness. And I want to suggest today that, in fact, that's wrong. (Laughter) I'm at a business school, so that's what we do. So that's wrong, and, in fact, if you think that, you're actually just not spending it right. So that instead of spending it the way you usually spend it, maybe if you spent it differently, that might work a little bit better. And before I tell you the ways that you can spend it that will make you happier, let's think about the ways we usually spend it that don't, in fact, make us happier. We had a little natural experiment. So CNN, a little while ago, wrote this interesting article on what happens to people when they win the lottery. It turns out people think when they win the lottery their lives are going to be amazing. This article's about how their lives get ruined. So what happens when people win the lottery is, number one, they spend all the money and go into debt, and number two, all of their friends and everyone they've ever met find them and bug them for money. And it ruins their social relationships, in fact. So they have more debt and worse friendships than they had before they won the lottery. What was interesting about the article was people started commenting on the article, readers of the thing. And instead of talking about how it had made them realize that money doesn't lead to happiness, everyone instantly started saying, "You know what I would do if I won the lottery ... ?" and fantasizing about what they'd do. And here's just two of the ones we saw that are just really interesting to think about. One person wrote in, "When I win, I'm going to buy my own little mountain and have a little house on top." (Laughter) And another person wrote, "I would fill a big bathtub with money and get in the tub while smoking a big fat cigar and sipping a glass of champagne." This is even worse now: "Then I'd have a picture taken and dozens of glossies made. Anyone begging for money or trying to extort from me would receive a copy of the picture and nothing else." (Laughter) And so many of the comments were exactly of this type, where people got money and, in fact, it made them antisocial. So I told you that it ruins people's lives and that their friends bug them. It also, money often makes us feel very selfish and we do things only for ourselves. Well maybe the reason that money doesn't make us happy is that we're always spending it on the wrong things, and in particular, that we're always spending it on ourselves. And we thought, I wonder what would happen if we made people spend more of their money on other people. So instead of being antisocial with your money, what if you were a little more prosocial with your money? And we thought, let's make people do it and see what happens. So let's have some people do what they usually do and spend money on themselves, and let's make some people give money away, and measure their happiness and see if, in fact, they get happier. So the first way that we did this. On one Vancouver morning, we went out on the campus at University of British Columbia and we approached people and said, "Do you want to be in an experiment?" They said, "Yes." We asked them how happy they were, and then we gave them an envelope. And one of the envelopes had things in it that said, "By 5:00 pm today, spend this money on yourself." So we gave some examples of what you could spend it on. Other people, in the morning, got a slip of paper that said, "By 5:00 pm today, spend this money on somebody else." Also inside the envelope was money. And we manipulated how much money we gave them. So some people got this slip of paper and five dollars. Some people got this slip of paper and 20 dollars. We let them go about their day. They did whatever they wanted to do. We found out that they did in fact spend it in the way that we asked them to. We called them up at night and asked them, "What'd you spend it on, and how happy do you feel now?" What did they spend it on? Well these are college undergrads, so a lot of what they spent it on for themselves were things like earrings and makeup. One woman said she bought a stuffed animal for her niece. People gave money to homeless people. Huge effect here of Starbucks. (Laughter) So if you give undergraduates five dollars, it looks like coffee to them and they run over to Starbucks and spend it as fast as they can. But some people bought a coffee for themselves, the way they usually would, but other people said that they bought a coffee for somebody else. So the very same purchase, just targeted toward yourself or targeted toward somebody else. What did we find when we called them back at the end of the day? People who spent money on other people got happier. People who spent money on themselves, nothing happened. It didn't make them less happy, it just didn't do much for them. And the other thing we saw is the amount of money doesn't matter that much. So people thought that 20 dollars would be way better than five dollars. In fact, it doesn't matter how much money you spent. What really matters is that you spent it on somebody else rather than on yourself. We see this again and again when we give people money to spend on other people instead of on themselves. Of course, these are undergraduates in Canada -- not the world's most representative population. They're also fairly wealthy and affluent and all these other sorts of things. We wanted to see if this holds true everywhere in the world or just among wealthy countries. So we went, in fact, to Uganda and ran a very similar experiment. So imagine, instead of just people in Canada, we said, "Name the last time you spent money on yourself or other people. Describe it. How happy did it make you?" Or in Uganda, "Name the last time you spent money on yourself or other people and describe that." And then we asked them how happy they are again. And what we see is sort of amazing because there's human universals on what you do with your money and then real cultural differences on what you do as well. So for example, one guy from Uganda says this. He said, "I called a girl I wished to love." They basically went out on a date, and he says at the end that he didn't "achieve" her up till now. Here's a guy from Canada. Very similar thing. "I took my girlfriend out for dinner. We went to a movie, we left early, and then went back to her room for ... " only cake -- just a piece of cake. Human universal -- so you spend money on other people, you're being nice to them. Maybe you have something in mind, maybe not. But then we see extraordinary differences. So look at these two. This is a woman from Canada. We say, "Name a time you spent money on somebody else." She says, "I bought a present for my mom. I drove to the mall in my car, bought a present, gave it to my mom." Perfectly nice thing to do. It's good to get gifts for people that you know. Compare that to this woman from Uganda. "I was walking and met a long-time friend whose son was sick with malaria. They had no money, they went to a clinic and I gave her this money." This isn't $10,000, it's the local currency. So it's a very small amount of money, in fact. But enormously different motivations here. This is a real medical need, literally a life-saving donation. Above, it's just kind of, I bought a gift for my mother. What we see again though is that the specific way that you spend on other people isn't nearly as important as the fact that you spend on other people in order to make yourself happy, which is really quite important. So you don't have to do amazing things with your money to make yourself happy. You can do small, trivial things and yet still get these benefits from doing this. These are only two countries. We also wanted to go even broader and look at every country in the world if we could to see what the relationship is between money and happiness. We got data from the Gallup Organization, which you know from all the political polls that have been happening lately. They ask people, "Did you donate money to charity recently?" and they ask them, "How happy are you with your life in general?" And we can see what the relationship is between those two things. Are they positively correlated? Giving money makes you happy. Or are they negatively correlated? On this map, green will mean they're positively correlated and red means they're negatively correlated. And you can see, the world is crazily green. So in almost every country in the world where we have this data, people who give money to charity are happier people that people who don't give money to charity. I know you're all looking at that red country in the middle. I would be a jerk and not tell you what it is, but in fact, it's Central African Republic. You can make up stories. Maybe it's different there for some reason or another. Just below that to the right is Rwanda though, which is amazingly green. So almost everywhere we look we see that giving money away makes you happier than keeping it for yourself. What about your work life, which is where we spend all the rest of our time when we're not with the people we know. We decided to infiltrate some companies and do a very similar thing. So these are sales teams in Belgium. They work in teams; they go out and sell to doctors and try to get them to buy drugs. So we can look and see how well they sell things as a function of being a member of a team. Some teams, we give people on the team some money for themselves and say, "Spend it however you want on yourself," just like we did with the undergrads in Canada. But other teams we say, "Here's 15 euro. Spend it on one of your teammates this week. Buy them something as a gift or a present and give it to them. And then we can see, well now we've got teams that spend on themselves and we've got these prosocial teams who we give money to make the team a little bit better. The reason I have a ridiculous pinata there is one of the teams pooled their money and bought a pinata, and they all got around and smashed the pinata and all the candy fell out and things like that. A very silly, trivial thing to do, but think of the difference on a team that didn't do that at all, that got 15 euro, put it in their pocket, maybe bought themselves a coffee, or teams that had this prosocial experience where they all bonded together to buy something and do a group activity. What we see is that, in fact, the teams that are prosocial sell more stuff than the teams that only got money for themselves. And one way to think about it is for every 15 euro you give people for themselves, they put it in their pocket, they don't do anything different than they did before. You don't get any money from that. You actually lose money because it doesn't motivate them to perform any better. But when you give them 15 euro to spend on their teammates, they do so much better on their teams that you actually get a huge win on investing this kind of money. And I realize that you're probably thinking to yourselves, this is all fine, but there's a context that's incredibly important for public policy and I can't imagine it would work there. And basically that if he doesn't show me that it works here, I don't believe anything he said. And I know what you're all thinking about are dodgeball teams. (Laughter) This was a huge criticism that we got to say, if you can't show it with dodgeball teams, this is all stupid. So we went out and found these dodgeball teams and infiltrated them. And we did the exact same thing as before. So some teams, we give people on the team money, they spend it on themselves. Other teams, we give them money to spend on their dodgeball teammates. The teams that spend money on themselves are just the same winning percentages as they were before. The teams that we give the money to spend on each other, they become different teams and, in fact, they dominate the league by the time they're done. Across all of these different contexts -- your personal life, you work life, even silly things like intramural sports -- we see spending on other people has a bigger return for you than spending on yourself. And so I'll just say, I think if you think money can't buy happiness you're not spending it right. The implication is not you should buy this product instead of that product and that's the way to make yourself happier. It's in fact, that you should stop thinking about which product to buy for yourself and try giving some of it to other people instead. And we luckily have an opportunity for you. DonorsChoose.org is a non-profit for mainly public school teachers in low-income schools. They post projects, so they say, "I want to teach Huckleberry Finn to my class and we don't have the books," or "I want a microscope to teach my students science and we don't have a microscope." You and I can go on and buy it for them. The teacher writes you a thank you note. The kids write you a thank you note. Sometimes they send you pictures of them using the microscope. It's an extraordinary thing. Go to the website and start yourself on the process of thinking, again, less about "How can I spend money on myself?" and more about "If I've got five dollars or 15 dollars, what can I do to benefit other people?" Because ultimately when you do that, you'll find that you'll benefit yourself much more. Thank you. (Applause)
If you are a blind child in India, you will very likely have to contend with at least two big pieces of bad news. The first bad news is that the chances of getting treatment are extremely slim to none, and that's because most of the blindness alleviation programs in the country are focused on adults, and there are very, very few hospitals that are actually equipped to treat children. In fact, if you were to be treated, you might well end up being treated by a person who has no medical credentials as this case from Rajasthan illustrates. This is a three-year-old orphan girl who had cataracts. So, her caretakers took her to the village medicine man, and instead of suggesting to the caretakers that the girl be taken to a hospital, the person decided to burn her abdomen with red-hot iron bars to drive out the demons. The second piece of bad news will be delivered to you by neuroscientists, who will tell you that if you are older than four or five years of age, that even if you have your eye corrected, the chances of your brain learning how to see are very, very slim -- again, slim or none. So when I heard these two things, it troubled me deeply, both because of personal reasons and scientific reasons. So let me first start with the personal reason. It'll sound corny, but it's sincere. That's my son, Darius. As a new father, I have a qualitatively different sense of just how delicate babies are, what our obligations are towards them and how much love we can feel towards a child. I would move heaven and earth in order to get treatment for Darius, and for me to be told that there might be other Dariuses who are not getting treatment, that's just viscerally wrong. So that's the personal reason. Scientific reason is that this notion from neuroscience of critical periods -- that if the brain is older than four or five years of age, it loses its ability to learn -- that doesn't sit well with me, because I don't think that idea has been tested adequately. The birth of the idea is from David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel's work, two researchers who were at Harvard, and they got the Nobel Prize in 1981 for their studies of visual physiology, which are remarkably beautiful studies, but I believe some of their work has been extrapolated into the human domain prematurely. So, they did their work with kittens, with different kinds of deprivation regiments, and those studies, which date back to the '60s, are now being applied to human children. So I felt that I needed to do two things. One: provide care to children who are currently being deprived of treatment. That's the humanitarian mission. And the scientific mission would be to test the limits of visual plasticity. And these two missions, as you can tell, thread together perfectly. One adds to the other; in fact, one would be impossible without the other. So, to implement these twin missions, a few years ago, I launched Project Prakash. Prakash, as many of you know, is the Sanskrit word for light, and the idea is that in bringing light into the lives of children, we also have a chance of shedding light on some of the deepest mysteries of neuroscience. And the logo -- even though it looks extremely Irish, it's actually derived from the Indian symbol of Diya, an earthen lamp. The Prakash, the overall effort has three components: outreach, to identify children in need of care; medical treatment; and in subsequent study. And I want to show you a short video clip that illustrates the first two components of this work. This is an outreach station conducted at a school for the blind. (Text: Most of the children are profoundly and permanently blind ...) Pawan Sinha: So, because this is a school for the blind, many children have permanent conditions. That's a case of microphthalmos, which is malformed eyes, and that's a permanent condition; it cannot be treated. That's an extreme of micropthalmos called enophthalmos. But, every so often, we come across children who show some residual vision, and that is a very good sign that the condition might actually be treatable. So, after that screening, we bring the children to the hospital. That's the hospital we're working with in Delhi, the Schroff Charity Eye Hospital. It has a very well-equipped pediatric ophthalmic center, which was made possible in part by a gift from the Ronald McDonald charity. So, eating burgers actually helps. (Text: Such examinations allow us to improve eye-health in many children, and ... ... help us find children who can participate in Project Prakash.) PS: So, as I zoom in to the eyes of this child, you will see the cause of his blindness. The whites that you see in the middle of his pupils are congenital cataracts, so opacities of the lens. In our eyes, the lens is clear, but in this child, the lens has become opaque, and therefore he can't see the world. So, the child is given treatment. You'll see shots of the eye. Here's the eye with the opaque lens, the opaque lens extracted and an acrylic lens inserted. And here's the same child three weeks post-operation, with the right eye open. (Applause) Thank you. So, even from that little clip, you can begin to get the sense that recovery is possible, and we have now provided treatment to over 200 children, and the story repeats itself. After treatment, the child gains significant functionality. In fact, the story holds true even if you have a person who got sight after several years of deprivation. We did a paper a few years ago about this woman that you see on the right, SRD, and she got her sight late in life, and her vision is remarkable at this age. I should add a tragic postscript to this -- she died two years ago in a bus accident. So, hers is just a truly inspiring story -- unknown, but inspiring story. So when we started finding these results, as you might imagine, it created quite a bit of stir in the scientific and the popular press. Here's an article in Nature that profiled this work, and another one in Time. So, we were fairly convinced -- we are convinced -- that recovery is feasible, despite extended visual deprivation. The next obvious question to ask: What is the process of recovery? So, the way we study that is, let's say we find a child who has light sensitivity. The child is provided treatment, and I want to stress that the treatment is completely unconditional; there is no quid pro quo. We treat many more children then we actually work with. Every child who needs treatment is treated. After treatment, about every week, we run the child on a battery of simple visual tests in order to see how their visual skills are coming on line. And we try to do this for as long as possible. This arc of development gives us unprecedented and extremely valuable information about how the scaffolding of vision gets set up. What might be the causal connections between the early developing skills and the later developing ones? And we've used this general approach to study many different visual proficiencies, but I want to highlight one particular one, and that is image parsing into objects. So, any image of the kind that you see on the left, be it a real image or a synthetic image, it's made up of little regions that you see in the middle column, regions of different colors, different luminances. The brain has this complex task of putting together, integrating, subsets of these regions into something that's more meaningful, into what we would consider to be objects, as you see on the right. And nobody knows how this integration happens, and that's the question we asked with Project Prakash. So, here's what happens very soon after the onset of sight. Here's a person who had gained sight just a couple of weeks ago, and you see Ethan Myers, a graduate student from MIT, running the experiment with him. His visual-motor coordination is quite poor, but you get a general sense of what are the regions that he's trying to trace out. If you show him real world images, if you show others like him real world images, they are unable to recognize most of the objects because the world to them is over-fragmented; it's made up of a collage, a patchwork, of regions of different colors and luminances. And that's what's indicated in the green outlines. When you ask them, "Even if you can't name the objects, just point to where the objects are," these are the regions that they point to. So the world is this complex patchwork of regions. Even the shadow on the ball becomes its own object. Interestingly enough, you give them a few months, and this is what happens. Doctor: How many are these? Patient: These are two things. Doctor: What are their shapes? Patient: Their shapes ... This one is a circle, and this is a square. PS: A very dramatic transformation has come about. And the question is: What underlies this transformation? It's a profound question, and what's even more amazing is how simple the answer is. The answer lies in motion and that's what I want to show you in the next clip. Doctor: What shape do you see here? Patient: I can't make it out. Doctor: Now? Patient: Triangle. Doctor: How many things are these? Now, how many things are these? Patient: Two. Doctor: What are these things? Patient: A square and a circle. PS: And we see this pattern over and over again. The one thing the visual system needs in order to begin parsing the world is dynamic information. So the inference we are deriving from this, and several such experiments, is that dynamic information processing, or motion processing, serves as the bedrock for building the rest of the complexity of visual processing; it leads to visual integration and eventually to recognition. This simple idea has far reaching implications. And let me just quickly mention two, one, drawing from the domain of engineering, and one from the clinic. So, from the perspective of engineering, we can ask: Goven that we know that motion is so important for the human visual system, can we use this as a recipe for constructing machine-based vision systems that can learn on their own, that don't need to be programmed by a human programmer? And that's what we're trying to do. I'm at MIT, at MIT you need to apply whatever basic knowledge you gain. So we are creating Dylan, which is a computational system with an ambitious goal of taking in visual inputs of the same kind that a human child would receive, and autonomously discovering: What are the objects in this visual input? So, don't worry about the internals of Dylan. Here, I'm just going to talk about how we test Dylan. The way we test Dylan is by giving it inputs, as I said, of the same kind that a baby, or a child in Project Prakash would get. But for a long time we couldn't quite figure out: Wow can we get these kinds of video inputs? So, I thought, could we have Darius serve as our babycam carrier, and that way get the inputs that we feed into Dylan? So that's what we did. (Laughter) I had to have long conversations with my wife. (Laughter) In fact, Pam, if you're watching this, please forgive me. So, we modified the optics of the camera in order to mimic the baby's visual acuity. As some of you might know, babyies are born pretty much legally blind. Their acuity -- our acuity is 20/20; babies' acuity is like 20/800, so they are looking at the world in a very, very blurry fashion. Here's what a baby-cam video looks like. (Laughter) (Applause) Thankfully, there isn't any audio to go with this. What's amazing is that working with such highly degraded input, the baby, very quickly, is able to discover meaning in such input. But then two or three days afterward, babies begin to pay attention to their mother's or their father's face. How does that happen? We want Dylan to be able to do that, and using this mantra of motion, Dylan actually can do that. So, given that kind of video input, with just about six or seven minutes worth of video, Dylan can begin to extract patterns that include faces. So, it's an important demonstration of the power of motion. The clinical implication, it comes from the domain of autism. Visual integration has been associated with autism by several researchers. When we saw that, we asked: Could the impairment in visual integration be the manifestation of something underneath, of dynamic information processing deficiencies in autism? Because, if that hypothesis were to be true, it would have massive repercussions in our understanding of what's causing the many different aspects of the autism phenotype. What you're going to see are video clips of two children -- one neurotypical, one with autism, playing Pong. So, while the child is playing Pong, we are tracking where they're looking. In red are the eye movement traces. This is the neurotypical child, and what you see is that the child is able to make cues of the dynamic information to predict where the ball is going to go. Even before the ball gets to a place, the child is already looking there. Contrast this with a child with autism playing the same game. Instead of anticipating, the child always follows where the ball has been. The efficiency of the use of dynamic information seems to be significantly compromised in autism. So we are pursuing this line of work and hopefully we'll have more results to report soon. Looking ahead, if you think of this disk as representing all of the children we've treated so far, this is the magnitude of the problem. The red dots are the children we have not treated. So, there are many, many more children who need to be treated, and in order to expand the scope of the project, we are planning on launching The Prakash Center for Children, which will have a dedicated pediatric hospital, a school for the children we are treating and also a cutting-edge research facility. The Prakash Center will integrate health care, education and research in a way that truly creates the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. So, to summarize: Prakash, in its five years of existence, it's had an impact in multiple areas, ranging from basic neuroscience plasticity and learning in the brain, to clinically relevant hypotheses like in autism, the development of autonomous machine vision systems, education of the undergraduate and graduate students, and most importantly in the alleviation of childhood blindness. And for my students and I, it's been just a phenomenal experience because we have gotten to do interesting research, while at the same time helping the many children that we have worked with. Thank you very much. (Applause)
So over the long course of human history, the infectious disease that's killed more humans than any other is malaria. It's carried in the bites of infected mosquitos, and it's probably our oldest scourge. We may have had malaria since we evolved from the apes. And to this day, malaria takes a huge toll on our species. We've got 300 million cases a year and over half a million deaths. Now this really makes no sense. We've known how to cure malaria since the 1600s. That's when Jesuit missionaries in Peru discovered the bark of the cinchona tree, and inside that bark was quinine, still an effective cure for malaria to this day. So we've known how to cure malaria for centuries. We've known how to prevent malaria since 1897. That's when the British army surgeon Ronald Ross discovered that it was mosquitos that carried malaria, not bad air or miasmas, as was previously thought. So malaria should be a relatively simple disease to solve, and yet to this day, hundreds of thousands of people are going to die from the bite of a mosquito. Why is that? This is a question that's personally intrigued me for a long time. I grew up as the daughter of Indian immigrants visiting my cousins in India every summer, and because I had no immunity to the local malarias, I was made to sleep under this hot, sweaty mosquito net every night while my cousins, they were allowed to sleep out on the terrace and have this nice, cool night breeze wafting over them. And I really hated the mosquitos for that. But at the same time, I come from a Jain family, and Jainism is a religion that espouses a very extreme form of nonviolence. So Jains are not supposed to eat meat. We're not supposed to walk on grass, because you could, you know, inadvertently kill some insects when you walk on grass. We're certainly not supposed to swat mosquitos. So the fearsome power of this little insect was apparent to me from a very young age, and it's one reason why I spent five years as a journalist trying to understand, why has malaria been such a horrible scourge for all of us for so very long? And I think there's three main reasons why. Those three reasons add up to the fourth reason, which is probably the biggest reason of all. The first reason is certainly scientific. This little parasite that causes malaria, it's probably one of the most complex and wily pathogens known to humankind. It lives half its life inside the cold-blooded mosquito and half its life inside the warm-blooded human. These two environments are totally different, but not only that, they're both utterly hostile. So the insect is continually trying to fight off the parasite, and so is the human body continually trying to fight it off. This little creature survives under siege like that, but not only does it survive, it has thrived. It has spread. It has more ways to evade attack than we know. It's a shape-shifter, for one thing. Just as a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, the malaria parasite transforms itself like that seven times in its life cycle. And each of those life stages not only looks totally different from each other, they have totally different physiology. So say you came up with some great drug that worked against one stage of the parasite's life cycle. It might do nothing at all to any of the other stages. It can hide in our bodies, undetected, unbeknownst to us, for days, for weeks, for months, for years, in some cases even decades. So the parasite is a very big scientific challenge to tackle, but so is the mosquito that carries the parasite. Only about 12 species of mosquitos carry most of the world's malaria, and we know quite a bit about the kinds of watery habitats that they specialize in. So you might think, then, well, why don't we just avoid the places where the killer mosquitos live? Right? We could avoid the places where the killer grizzly bears live and we avoid the places where the killer crocodiles live. But say you live in the tropics and you walk outside your hut one day and you leave some footprints in the soft dirt around your home. Or say your cow does, or say your pig does, and then, say, it rains, and that footprint fills up with a little bit of water. That's it. You've created the perfect malarial mosquito habitat that's right outside your door. So it's not easy for us to extricate ourselves from these insects. We kind of create places that they love to live just by living our own lives. So there's a huge scientific challenge, but there's a huge economic challenge too. Malaria occurs in some of the poorest and most remote places on Earth, and there's a reason for that. If you're poor, you're more likely to get malaria. If you're poor, you're more likely to live in rudimentary housing on marginal land that's poorly drained. These are places where mosquitos breed. You're less likely to have door screens or window screens. You're less likely to have electricity and all the indoor activities that electricity makes possible, so you're outside more. You're getting bitten by mosquitos more. So poverty causes malaria, but what we also know now is that malaria itself causes poverty. For one thing, it strikes hardest during harvest season, so exactly when farmers need to be out in the fields collecting their crops, they're home sick with a fever. But it also predisposes people to death from all other causes. So this has happened historically. We've been able to take malaria out of a society. Everything else stays the same, so we still have bad food, bad water, bad sanitation, all the things that make people sick. But just if you take malaria out, deaths from everything else go down. And the economist Jeff Sachs has actually quantified what this means for a society. What it means is, if you have malaria in your society, your economic growth is depressed by 1.3 percent every year, year after year after year, just this one disease alone. So this poses a huge economic challenge, because say you do come up with your great drug or your great vaccine -- how do you deliver it in a place where there's no roads, there's no infrastructure, there's no electricity for refrigeration to keep things cold, there's no clinics, there's no clinicians to deliver these things where they're needed? So there's a huge economic challenge in taming malaria. But along with the scientific challenge and the economic challenge, there's also a cultural challenge, and this is probably the part about malaria that people don't like to talk about. And it's the paradox that the people who have the most malaria in the world tend to care about it the least. This has been the finding of medical anthropologists again and again. They ask people in malarious parts of the world, "What do you think about malaria?" And they don't say, "It's a killer disease. We're scared of it." They say, "Malaria is a normal problem of life." And that was certainly my personal experience. When I told my relatives in India that I was writing a book about malaria, they kind of looked at me like I told them I was writing a book about warts or something. Like, why would you write about something so boring, so ordinary? You know? And it's simple risk perception, really. A child in Malawi, for example, she might have 12 episodes of malaria before the age of two, but if she survives, she'll continue to get malaria throughout her life, but she's much less likely to die of it. And so in her lived experience, malaria is something that comes and goes. And that's actually true for most of the world's malaria. Most of the world's malaria comes and goes on its own. It's just, there's so much malaria that this tiny fraction of cases that end in death add up to this big, huge number. So I think people in malarious parts of the world must think of malaria the way those of us who live in the temperate world think of cold and flu. Right? Cold and flu have a huge burden on our societies and on our own lives, but we don't really even take the most rudimentary precautions against it because we consider it normal to get cold and flu during cold and flu season. And so this poses a huge cultural challenge in taming malaria, because if people think it's normal to have malaria, then how do you get them to run to the doctor to get diagnosed, to pick up their prescription, to get it filled, to take the drugs, to put on the repellents, to tuck in the bed nets? This is a huge cultural challenge in taming this disease. So take all that together. We've got a disease. It's scientifically complicated, it's economically challenging to deal with, and it's one for which the people who stand to benefit the most care about it the least. And that adds up to the biggest problem of all, which, of course, is the political problem. How do you get a political leader to do anything about a problem like this? And the answer is, historically, you don't. Most malarious societies throughout history have simply lived with the disease. So the main attacks on malaria have come from outside of malarious societies, from people who aren't constrained by these rather paralyzing politics. But this, I think, introduces a whole host of other kinds of difficulties. The first concerted attack against malaria started in the 1950s. It was the brainchild of the U.S. State Department. And this effort well understood the economic challenge. They knew they had to focus on cheap, easy-to-use tools, and they focused on DDT. They understood the cultural challenge. In fact, their rather patronizing view was that people at risk of malaria shouldn't be asked to do anything at all. Everything should be done to them and for them. But they greatly underestimated the scientific challenge. They had so much faith in their tools that they stopped doing malaria research. And so when those tools started to fail, and public opinion started to turn against those tools, they had no scientific expertise to figure out what to do. The whole campaign crashed, malaria resurged back, but now it was even worse than before because it was corralled into the hardest-to-reach places in the most difficult-to-control forms. One WHO official at the time actually called that whole campaign "one of the greatest mistakes ever made in public health." The latest effort to tame malaria started in the late 1990s. It's similarly directed and financed primarily from outside of malarious societies. Now this effort well understands the scientific challenge. They are doing tons of malaria research. And they understand the economic challenge too. They're focusing on very cheap, very easy-to-use tools. But now, I think, the dilemma is the cultural challenge. The centerpiece of the current effort is the bed net. It's treated with insecticides. This thing has been distributed across the malarious world by the millions. And when you think about the bed net, it's sort of a surgical intervention. You know, it doesn't really have any value to a family with malaria except that it helps prevent malaria. And yet we're asking people to use these nets every night. They have to sleep under them every night. That's the only way they are effective. And they have to do that even if the net blocks the breeze, even if they might have to get up in the middle of the night and relieve themselves, even if they might have to move all their furnishings to put this thing up, even if, you know, they might live in a round hut in which it's difficult to string up a square net. Now that's no big deal if you're fighting a killer disease. I mean, these are minor inconveniences. But that's not how people with malaria think of malaria. So for them, the calculus must be quite different. Imagine, for example, if a bunch of well-meaning Kenyans came up to those of us in the temperate world and said, "You know, you people have a lot of cold and flu. We've designed this great, easy-to-use, cheap tool, we're going to give it to you for free. It's called a face mask, and all you need to do is wear it every day during cold and flu season when you go to school and when you go to work." Would we do that? And I wonder if that's how people in the malarious world thought of those nets when they first received them? Indeed, we know from studies that only 20 percent of the bed nets that were first distributed were actually used. And even that's probably an overestimate, because the same people who distributed the nets went back and asked the recipients, "Oh, did you use that net I gave you?" Which is like your Aunt Jane asking you, "Oh, did you use that vase I gave you for Christmas?" So it's probably an overestimate. But that's not an insurmountable problem. We can do more education, we can try to convince these people to use the nets. And that's what happening now. We're throwing a lot more time and money into workshops and trainings and musicals and plays and school meetings, all these things to convince people to use the nets we gave you. And that might work. But it takes time. It takes money. It takes resources. It takes infrastructure. It takes all the things that that cheap, easy-to-use bed net was not supposed to be. So it's difficult to attack malaria from inside malarious societies, but it's equally tricky when we try to attack it from outside of those societies. We end up imposing our own priorities on the people of the malarious world. That's exactly what we did in the 1950s, and that effort backfired. I would argue today, when we are distributing tools that we've designed and that don't necessarily make sense in people's lives, we run the risk of making the same mistake again. That's not to say that malaria is unconquerable, because I think it is, but what if we attacked this disease according to the priorities of the people who lived with it? Take the example of England and the United States. We had malaria in those countries for hundreds of years, and we got rid of it completely, not because we attacked malaria. We didn't. We attacked bad roads and bad houses and bad drainage and lack of electricity and rural poverty. We attacked the malarious way of life, and by doing that, we slowly built malaria out. Now attacking the malarious way of life, this is something -- these are things people care about today. And attacking the malarious way of life, it's not fast, it's not cheap, it's not easy, but I think it's the only lasting way forward. Thank you so much. (Applause)
We are here today because [the] United Nations have defined goals for the progress of countries. They're called Millennium Development Goals. And the reason I really like these goals is that there are eight of them. And by specifying eight different goals, the United Nations has said that there are so many things needed to change in a country in order to get the good life for people. Look here -- you have to end poverty, education, gender, child and maternal health, control infections, protect the environment and get the good global links between nations in every aspect from aid to trade. There's a second reason I like these development goals, and that is because each and every one is measured. Take child mortality; the aim here is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds, from 1990 to 2015. That's a four percent reduction per year -- and this, with measuring. That's what makes the difference between political talking like this and really going for the important thing, a better life for people. And what I'm so happy about with this is that we have already documented that there are many countries in Asia, in the Middle East, in Latin America and East Europe that [are] reducing with this rate. And even mighty Brazil is going down with five percent per year, and Turkey with seven percent per year. So there's good news. But then I hear people saying, "There is no progress in Africa. And there's not even statistics on Africa to know what is happening." I'll prove them wrong on both points. Come with me to the wonderful world of statistics. I bring you to the webpage, ChildMortality.org, where you can take deaths in children below five years of age for all countries -- it's done by U.N. specialists. And I will take Kenya as an example. Here you see the data. Don't panic -- don't panic now, I'll help you through this. It looks nasty, like in college when you didn't like statistics. But first thing, when you see dots like this, you have to ask yourself: from where do the data come? What is the origin of the data? Is it so that in Kenya, there are doctors and other specialists who write the death certificate at the death of the child and it's sent to the statistical office? No -- low-income countries like Kenya still don't have that level of organization. It exists, but it's not complete because so many deaths occur in the home with the family, and it's not registered. What we rely on is not an incomplete system. We have interviews, we have surveys. And this is highly professional female interviewers who sit down for one hour with a woman and ask her about [her] birth history. How many children did you have? Are they alive? If they died, at what age and what year? And then this is done in a representative sample of thousands of women in the country and put together in what used to be called a demographic health survey report. But these surveys are costly, so they can only be done [in] three- to five-year intervals. But they have good quality. So this is a limitation. And all these colored lines here are results; each color is one survey. But that's too complicated for today, so I'll simplify it for you, and I give you one average point for each survey. This was 1977, 1988, 1992, '97 and 2002. And when the experts in the U.N. have got these surveys in place in their database, then they use advanced mathematical formulas to produce a trend line, and the trend line looks like this. See here -- it's the best fit they can get of this point. But watch out -- they continue the line beyond the last point out into nothing. And they estimated that in 2008, Kenya had per child mortality of 128. And I was sad, because we could see this reversal in Kenya with an increased child mortality in the 90s. It was so tragic. But in June, I got a mail in my inbox from Demographic Health Surveys, and it showed good news from Kenya. I was so happy. This was the estimate of the new survey. Then it just took another three months for [the] U.N. to get it into their server, and on Friday we got the new trend line -- it was down here. Isn't it nice -- isn't it nice, yeah? I was actually, on Friday, sitting in front of my computer, and I saw the death rate fall from 128 to 84 just that morning. So we celebrated. But now, when you have this trend line, how do we measure progress? I'm going into some details here, because [the] U.N. do it like this. They start [in] 1990 -- they measure to 2009. They say, "0.9 percent, no progress." That's unfair. As a professor, I think I have the right to propose something differently. I would say, at least do this -- 10 years is enough to follow the trend. It's two surveys, and you can see what's happening now. They have 2.4 percent. Had I been in the Ministry of Health in Kenya, I may have joined these two points. So what I'm telling you is that we know the child mortality. We have a decent trend. It's coming into some tricky things then when we are measuring MDGs. And the reason here for Africa is especially important, because '90s was a bad decade, not only in Kenya, but across Africa. The HIV epidemic peaked. There was resistance for the old malaria drugs, until we got the new drugs. We got, later, the mosquito netting. And there was socio-economic problems, which are now being solved at a much better scale. So look at the average here -- this is the average for all of sub-Saharan Africa. And [the] U.N. says it's a reduction with 1.8 percent. Now this sounds a little theoretical, but it's not so theoretical. You know, these economists, they love money, they want more and more of it, they want it to grow. So they calculate the percent annual growth rate of [the] economy. We in public health, we hate child death, so we want less and less and less of child deaths. So we calculate the percent reduction per year, but it's sort of the same percentage. If your economy grows with four percent, you ought to reduce child mortality four percent; if it's used well and people are really involved and can get the use of the resources in the way they want it. So is this fair now to measure this over 19 years? An economist would never do that. I have just divided it into two periods. In the 90s, only 1.2 percent, only 1.2 percent. Whereas now, second gear -- it's like Africa had first gear, now they go into second gear. But even this is not a fair representation of Africa, because it's an average, it's an average speed of reduction in Africa. And look here when I take you into my bubble graphs. Still here, child death per 1,000 on that axis. Here we have [the] year. And I'm now giving you a wider picture than the MDG. I start 50 years ago when Africa celebrated independence in most countries. I give you Congo, which was high, Ghana -- lower. And Kenya -- even lower. And what has happened over the years since then? Here we go. You can see, with independence, literacy improved and vaccinations started, smallpox was eradicated, hygiene was improved, and things got better. But then, in the '80s, watch out here. Congo got into civil war, and they leveled off here. Ghana got very ahead, fast. This was the backlash in Kenya, and Ghana bypassed, but then Kenya and Ghana go down together -- still a standstill in Congo. That's where we are today. You can see it doesn't make sense to make an average of this zero improvement and this very fast improvement. Time has come to stop thinking about sub-Saharan Africa as one place. Their countries are so different, and they merit to be recognized in the same way, as we don't talk about Europe as one place. I can tell you that the economy in Greece and Sweden are very different -- everyone knows that. And they are judged, each country, on how they are doing. So let me show the wider picture. My country, Sweden: 1800, we were up there. What a strange personality disorder we must have, counting the children so meticulously in spite of a high child death rate. It's very strange. It's sort of embarrassing. But we had that habit in Sweden, you know, that we counted all the child deaths, even if we didn't do anything about it. And then, you see, these were famine years. These were bad years, and people got fed up with Sweden. My ancestors moved to the United States. And eventually, soon they started to get better and better here. And here we got better education, and we got health service, and child mortality came down. We never had a war; Sweden was in peace all this time. But look, the rate of lowering in Sweden was not fast. Sweden achieved a low child mortality because we started early. We had primary school actually started in 1842. And then you get that wonderful effect when we got female literacy one generation later. You have to realize that the investments we do in progress are long-term investments. It's not about just five years -- it's long-term investments. And Sweden never reached [the] Millennium Development Goal rate, 3.1 percent when I calculated. So we are off track -- that's what Sweden is. But you don't talk about it so much. We want others to be better than we were, and indeed, others have been better. Let me show you Thailand, see what a success story, Thailand from the 1960s -- how they went down here and reached almost the same child mortality levels as Sweden. And I'll give you another story -- Egypt, the most hidden, glorious success in public health. Egypt was up here in 1960, higher than Congo. The Nile Delta was a misery for children with diarrheal disease and malaria and a lot of problems. And then they got the Aswan Dam. They got electricity in their homes, they increased education and they got primary health care. And down they went, you know. And they got safer water, they eradicated malaria. And isn't it a success story. Millennium Development Goal rates for child mortality is fully possible. And the good thing is that Ghana today is going with the same rate as Egypt did at its fastest. Kenya is now speeding up. Here we have a problem. We have a severe problem in countries which are at a standstill. Now, let me now bring you to a wider picture, a wider picture of child mortality. I'm going to show you the relationship between child mortality on this axis here -- this axis here is child mortality -- and here I have the family size. The relationship between child mortality and family size. One, two, three, four children per woman: six, seven, eight children per woman. This is, once again, 1960 -- 50 years ago. Each bubble is a country -- the color, you can see, a continent. The dark blue here is sub-Saharan Africa. And the size of the bubble is the population. And these are the so-called "developing" countries. They had high, or very high, child mortality and family size, six to eight. And the ones over there, they were so-called Western countries. They had low child mortality and small families. What has happened? What I want you [to do] now is to see with your own eyes the relation between fall in child mortality and decrease in family size. I just want not to have any room for doubt -- you have to see that for yourself. This is what happened. Now I start the world. Here we come down with the eradication of smallpox, better education, health service. It got down there -- China comes into the Western box here. And here Brazil is in the Western Box. India is approaching. The first African countries coming into the Western box, and we get a lot a new neighbors. Welcome to a decent life. Come on. We want everyone down there. This is the vision we have, isn't it. And look now, the first African countries here are coming in. There we are today. There is no such thing as a "Western world" and "developing world." This is the report from [the] U.N., which came out on Friday. It's very good -- "Levels and Trends in Child Mortality" -- except this page. This page is very bad; it's a categorization of countries. It labels "developing countries," -- I can read from the list here -- developing countries: Republic of Korea -- South Korea. Huh? They get Samsung, how can they be [a] developing country? They have here Singapore. They have the lowest child mortality in the world, Singapore. They bypassed Sweden five years ago, and they are labeled a developing country. They have here Qatar. It's the richest country in the world with Al Jazeera. How the heck could they be [a] developing country? This is crap. (Applause) The rest here is good -- the rest is good. We have to have a modern concept, which fits to the data. And we have to realize that we are all going to into this, down to here. What is the importance now with the relations here. Look -- even if we look in Africa -- these are the African countries. You can clearly see the relation with falling child mortality and decreasing family size, even within Africa. It's very clear that this is what happens. And a very important piece of research came out on Friday from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle showing that almost 50 percent of the fall in child mortality can be attributed to female education. That is, when we get girls in school, we'll get an impact 15 to 20 years later, which is a secular trend which is very strong. That's why we must have that long-term perspective, but we must measure the impact over 10-year periods. It's fully possible to get child mortality down in all of these countries and to get them down in the corner where we all would like to live together. And of course, lowering child mortality is a matter of utmost importance from humanitarian aspects. It's a decent life for children, we are talking about. But it is also a strategic investment in the future of all mankind, because it's about the environment. We will not be able to manage the environment and avoid the terrible climate crisis if we don't stabilize the world population. Let's be clear about that. And the way to do that, that is to get child mortality down, get access to family planning and behind that drive female education. And that is fully possible. Let's do it. Thank you very much. (Applause)
I just want to say my name is Emmanuel Jal. And I come from a long way. I've been telling a story that has been so painful for me. It's been a tough journey for me, traveling the world, telling my story in form of a book. And also telling it like now. And also, the easiest one was when I was doing it in form of a music. So I have branded myself as a war child. I'm doing this because of an old lady in my village now, who have lost her children. There is no newspaper to cover her pain, and what she wants to change in this society. And I'm doing it for a young man who want to create a change and has no way to project his voice because he can't write. Or there is no Internet, like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, for them to talk. Also one thing that kept me pushing this story, this painful stories out, the dreams I have, sometimes, is like the voices of the dead, that I have seen would tell me, "Don't give up. Keep on going." Because sometime I feel like stopping and not doing it, because I didn't know what I was putting myself into. Well I was born in the most difficult time, when my country was at war. I saw my village burned down. The world that meant a lot to me, I saw it vanish in my face. I saw my aunt in rape when I was only five. My mother was claimed by the war. My brothers and sisters were scattered. And up to now, me and my father were detached and I still have issues with him. Seeing people die every day, my mother crying, it's like I was raised in a violence. And that made me call myself a war child. And not only that, when I was eight I became a child soldier. I didn't know what was the war for. But one thing I knew was an image that I saw that stuck in my head. When I went to the training camp I say, "I want to kill as many Muslims, and as many Arabs, as possible." The training wasn't easy, but that was the driving force, because I wanted to revenge for my family. I wanted to revenge for my village. Luckily now things have changed because I came to discover the truth. What was actually killing us wasn't the Muslims, wasn't the Arabs. It was somebody sitting somewhere manipulating the system, and using religion to get what they want to get out of us, which is the oil, the diamond, the gold and the land. So realizing the truth gave me a position to choose: should I continue to hate, or let it go? So I happened to forgive. Now I sing music with the Muslims. I dance with them. I even had a movie out called "War Child," funded by Muslim people. So that pain has gone out. But my story is huge. So I'm just going to go into a different step now, which is easier for me. I'm going to give you poem called "Forced to Sin," which is from my album "War Child." I talk about my story. One of the journey that I tread when I was tempted to eat my friend because we had no food and we were like around 400. And only 16 people survived that journey. So I hope you're going to hear this. My dreams are like torment. My every moment. Voices in my brain, of friends that was slain. Friends like Lual who died by my side, of starvation. In the burning jungle, and the desert plain. Next was I, but Jesus heard my cry. As I was tempted to eat the rotten flesh of my comrade, he gave me comfort. We used to raid villages, stealing chickens, goats and sheeps, anything we could eat. I knew it was rude, but we needed food. And therefore I was forced to sin, forced to sin to make a living, forced to sin to make a living. Sometimes you gotta lose to win. Never give up. Never give in. Left home at the age of seven. One year later, live with an AK-47 by my side. Slept with one eye open wide. Run, duck, play dead and hide. I've seen my people die like flies. But I've never seen a dead body, at least one that I've killed. But still as I wonder, I won't go under. Guns barking like lightning and thunder. As a child so young and tender, Words I can't forget I still remember. I saw sergeant command raising his hand, no retreat, no surrender. I carry the banner of the trauma. War child, child without a mama, still fighting in the saga. Yet as I wage this new war I'm not alone in this drama. No sit or stop, as I reach for the top I'm fully dedicated like a patriotic cop. I'm on a fight, day and night. Sometime I do wrong in order to make things right. It's like I'm living a dream. First time I'm feeling like a human being. Ah! The children of Darfur. Your empty bellies on the telly and now it's you that I'm fighting for. Left home. Don't even know the day I'll ever return. My country is war-torn. Music I used to hear was bombs and fire of guns. So many people die that I don't even cry no more. Ask God question, what am I here for. And why are my people poor. And why, why when the rest of the children were learning how to read and write, I was learning how to fight. I ate snails, vultures, rabbits, snakes, and anything that had life. I was ready to eat. I know it's a shame. But who is to be blamed? That's my story shared in the form of a lesson. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) What energized me and kept me going is the music I do. I never saw anybody to tell my story to them so they could advise me or do therapy. So the music had been my therapy for me. It's been where I actually see heaven, where I can be happy, where I can be a child again, in dances, through music. So one thing I know about music: music is the only thing that has power to enter your cell system, your mind, your heart, influence your soul and your spirit, and can even influence the way you live without even you knowing. Music is the only thing that can make you want to wake up your bed and shake your leg, without even wanting to do it. And so the power music has I normally compare to the power love when love doesn't see a color. You know, if you fall in love with a frog, that's it. One testimony about how I find music is powerful is when I was still a soldier back then. I hated the people in the north. But I don't know why I don't hate their music. So we party and dance to their music. And one thing that shocked me is one day they brought an Arab musician to come and entertain the soldiers. And I almost broke my leg dancing to his music. But I had this question. So now I'm doing music so I know what the power of music is. So what's happening here? I've been in a painful journey. Today is day number 233 in which I only eat dinner. I don't eat breakfast. No lunch. And I've done a campaign called Lose to Win. Where I'm losing so that I could win the battle that I'm fighting now. So my breakfast, my lunch, I donate it to a charity that I founded because we want to build a school in Sudan. And I'm doing this because also it's a normal thing in my home, people eat one meal a day. Here I am in the West. I choose not to. So in my village now, kids there, they normally listen to BBC, or any radio, and they are waiting to know, the day Emmanuel will eat his breakfast it means he got the money to build our school. And so I made a commitment. I say, "I'm gonna not eat my breakfast." I thought I was famous enough that I would raise the money within one month, but I've been humbled. (Laughter) So it's taken me 232 days. And I said, "No stop until we get it." And like it's been done on Facebook, MySpace. The people are giving three dollars. The lowest amount we ever got was 20 cents. Somebody donated 20 cents online. I don't know how they did it. (Laughter) But that moved me. And so, the importance of education to me is what I'm willing to die for. I'm willing to die for this, because I know what it can do to my people. Education enlighten your brain, give you so many chances, and you're able to survive. As a nation we have been crippled. For so many years we have fed on aid. You see a 20-years-old, 30-years-old families in a refugee camps. They only get the food that drops from the sky, from the U.N. So these people, you're killing a whole generation if you just give them aid. If anybody want to help us this is what we need. Give us tools. Give the farmers tools. It's rain. Africa is fertile. They can grow the crops. (Applause) Invest in education. Education so that we have strong institution that can create a revolution to change everything. Because we have all those old men that are creating wars in Africa. They will die soon. But if you invest in education then we'll be able to change Africa. That's what I'm asking. (Applause) So in order to do that, I founded a charter called Gua Africa, where we put kids in school. And now we have a couple in university. We have like 40 kids, ex-child soldiers mixed with anybody that we feel like we want to support. And I said "I'm going to put it in practice." And with the people that are going to follow me and help me do things. That's what I want to do to change, to make a difference in the world. Well now, my time is going, so I want to sing a song. But I'll ask you guys to stand up so we celebrate the life of a British aid worker called Emma McCune that made it possible for me to be here. I'm gonna sing this song, just to inspire you how this woman has made a difference. She came to my country and saw the importance of education. She said the only way to help Sudan is to invest in the women, educating them, educating the children, so that they could come and create a revolution in this complex society. So she even ended up marrying a commander from the SPLA. And she rescued over 150 child soldiers. One of them happened to be me now. And so at this moment I want to ask to celebrate Emma with me. Are you guys ready to celebrate Emma? Audience: Yes! Emmanuel Jal: All right. ♫ This one goes to Emma McCune ♫ ♫ Angel to rescue came one afternoon ♫ ♫ I'm here because you rescued me ♫ ♫ I'm proud to carry your legacy ♫ ♫ Thank you. Bless you. R.I.P. ♫ ♫ What would I be? Me! ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me? What would I be? ♫ ♫ What would I be? Me! ♫ ♫ Another starving refugee ♫ ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ What would I be? Me! ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me? Yeah! ♫ ♫ Yeah! Yeah! ♫ ♫ You would have seen my face on the telly ♫ ♫ Fat hungry belly ♫ ♫ Flies in my eyes, head too big for my size ♫ ♫ Just another little starving child ♫ ♫ Running around in Africa, born to be wild ♫ ♫ Praise God, praise the Almighty ♫ ♫ for sending an angel to rescue me ♫ ♫ I got a reason for being on this Earth ♫ ♫ 'Cause I know more than many what a life is worth ♫ ♫ Now that I got a chance to stand my ground ♫ ♫ I'm gonna run over mountains, leaps and bounds ♫ ♫ I ain't an angel, hope I'll be one soon ♫ ♫ And if I am, I wanna be like Emma McCune ♫ ♫ Me! What would I be? Me! ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me? ♫ ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ What would I be? Me! ♫ ♫ Another starving refugee ♫ ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ What would I be? Me! ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me? Yeah! Yeah!♫ ♫ Yeah, Yeah! ♫ ♫ I would have probably died from starvation ♫ ♫ Or some other wretched disease ♫ ♫ I would have grown up with no education ♫ ♫ Just another refugee ♫ ♫ I stand here because somebody cared ♫ ♫ I stand here because somebody dared ♫ ♫ I know there is a lot of Emmas out there ♫ ♫ Who is willing and trying to save a life of a child ♫ ♫ What would I be? Me! ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me? ♫ ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ Another starving refugee ♫ ♫ I remember the time when I was small ♫ ♫ When I couldn't read or write at all ♫ ♫ Now I'm all grown up, I got my education ♫ ♫ The sky is the limit and I can't be stopped by no one ♫ ♫ How I prayed for this day to come ♫ ♫ And I pray that the world find wisdom ♫ ♫ To give the poor in need some assistance ♫ ♫ Instead of putting up resistance, yeah ♫ ♫ Sitting and waiting for the politics to fix this ♫ ♫ It ain't gonna happen ♫ ♫ They're all sitting on they asses ♫ ♫ Popping champagne and sponging off the masses ♫ ♫ Coming from a refugee boy-soldier ♫ ♫ But I still got my dignity ♫ ♫ I gotta say it again ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me ♫ ♫ I'd be a corpse on the African plain ♫ Is there anybody who's here in the back, some love. Big scream for Emma everybody. Yeah! I'm gonna get crazy now. ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me? ♫ ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ Another starving refugee ♫ ♫ What would I be? ♫ ♫ If Emma never rescued me? ♫ ♫ Yeah, Yeah ♫ ♫ Yeah, I would have probably died from starvation ♫ ♫ Or some other wretched disease ♫ ♫ I would have grown up with no education ♫ ♫ Just another refugee ♫ (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) Go save a life of a child. (Applause)
I would like to talk today about what I think is one of the greatest adventures human beings have embarked upon, which is the quest to understand the universe and our place in it. My own interest in this subject, and my passion for it, began rather accidentally. I had bought a copy of this book, "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" -- a used paperback from a secondhand bookstore in Seattle. A few years after that, in Bangalore, I was finding it hard to fall asleep one night, and I picked up this book, thinking it would put me to sleep in 10 minutes. And as it happened, I read it from midnight to five in the morning in one shot. And I was left with this intense feeling of awe and exhilaration at the universe and our own ability to understand as much as we do. And that feeling hasn't left me yet. That feeling was the trigger for me to actually change my career -- from being a software engineer to become a science writer -- so that I could partake in the joy of science, and also the joy of communicating it to others. And that feeling also led me to a pilgrimage of sorts, to go literally to the ends of the earth to see telescopes, detectors, instruments that people are building, or have built, in order to probe the cosmos in greater and greater detail. So it took me from places like Chile -- the Atacama Desert in Chile -- to Siberia, to underground mines in the Japanese Alps, in Northern America, all the way to Antarctica and even to the South Pole. And today I would like to share with you some images, some stories of these trips. I have been basically spending the last few years documenting the efforts of some extremely intrepid men and women who are putting, literally at times, their lives at stake working in some very remote and very hostile places so that they may gather the faintest signals from the cosmos in order for us to understand this universe. And I first begin with a pie chart -- and I promise this is the only pie chart in the whole presentation -- but it sets up the state of our knowledge of the cosmos. All the theories in physics that we have today properly explain what is called normal matter -- the stuff that we're all made of -- and that's four percent of the universe. Astronomers and cosmologists and physicists think that there is something called dark matter in the universe, which makes up 23 percent of the universe, and something called dark energy, which permeates the fabric of space-time, that makes up another 73 percent. So if you look at this pie chart, 96 percent of the universe, at this point in our exploration of it, is unknown or not well understood. And most of the experiments, telescopes that I went to see are in some way addressing this question, these two twin mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. I will take you first to an underground mine in Northern Minnesota where people are looking for something called dark matter. And the idea here is that they are looking for a sign of a dark matter particle hitting one of their detectors. And the reason why they have to go underground is that, if you did this experiment on the surface of the Earth, the same experiment would be swamped by signals that could be created by things like cosmic rays, ambient radio activity, even our own bodies. You might not believe it, but even our own bodies are radioactive enough to disturb this experiment. So they go deep inside mines to find a kind of environmental silence that will allow them to hear the ping of a dark matter particle hitting their detector. And I went to see one of these experiments, and this is actually -- you can barely see it, and the reason for that is it's entirely dark in there -- this is a cavern that was left behind by the miners who left this mine in 1960. And physicists came and started using it sometime in the 1980s. And the miners in the early part of the last century worked, literally, in candlelight. And today, you would see this inside the mine, half a mile underground. This is one of the largest underground labs in the world. And, among other things, they're looking for dark matter. There is another way to search for dark matter, which is indirectly. If dark matter exists in our universe, in our galaxy, then these particles should be smashing together and producing other particles that we know about -- one of them being neutrinos. And neutrinos you can detect by the signature they leave when they hit water molecules. When a neutrino hits a water molecule it emits a kind of blue light, a flash of blue light, and by looking for this blue light, you can essentially understand something about the neutrino and then, indirectly, something about the dark matter that might have created this neutrino. But you need very, very large volumes of water in order to do this. You need something like tens of megatons of water -- almost a gigaton of water -- in order to have any chance of catching this neutrino. And where in the world would you find such water? Well the Russians have a tank in their own backyard. This is Lake Baikal. It is the largest lake in the world. It's 800 km long. It's about 40 to 50 km wide in most places, and one to two kilometers deep. And what the Russians are doing is they're building these detectors and immersing them about a kilometer beneath the surface of the lake so that they can watch for these flashes of blue light. And this is the scene that greeted me when I landed there. This is Lake Baikal in the peak of the Siberian winter. The lake is entirely frozen. And the line of black dots that you see in the background, that's the ice camp where the physicists are working. The reason why they have to work in winter is because they don't have the money to work in summer and spring, which, if they did that, they would need ships and submersibles to do their work. So they wait until winter -- the lake is completely frozen over -- and they use this meter-thick ice as a platform on which to establish their ice camp and do their work. So this is the Russians working on the ice in the peak of the Siberian winter. They have to drill holes in the ice, dive down into the water -- cold, cold water -- to get hold of the instrument, bring it up, do any repairs and maintenance that they need to do, put it back and get out before the ice melts. Because that phase of solid ice lasts for two months and it's full of cracks. And you have to imagine, there's an entire sea-like lake underneath, moving. I still don't understand this one Russian man working in his bare chest, but that tells you how hard he was working. And these people, a handful of people, have been working for 20 years, looking for particles that may or may not exist. And they have dedicated their lives to it. And just to give you an idea, they have spent 20 million over 20 years. It's very harsh conditions. They work on a shoestring budget. The toilets there are literally holes in the ground covered with a wooden shack. And it's that basic, but they do this every year. From Siberia to the Atacama Desert in Chile, to see something called The Very Large Telescope. The Very Large Telescope is one of these things that astronomers do -- they name their telescopes rather unimaginatively. I can tell you for a fact, that the next one that they're planning is called The Extremely Large Telescope. (Laughter) And you wouldn't believe it, but the one after that is going to be called The Overwhelmingly Large Telescope. But nonetheless, it's an extraordinary piece of engineering. These are four 8.2 meter telescopes. And these telescopes, among other things, they're being used to study how the expansion of the universe is changing with time. And the more you understand that, the better you would understand what this dark energy that the universe is made of is all about. And one piece of engineering that I want to leave you with as regards this telescope is the mirror. Each mirror, there are four of them, is made of a single piece of glass, a monolithic piece of high-tech ceramic, that has been ground down and polished to such accuracy that the only way to understand what that is is [to] imagine a city like Paris, with all its buildings and the Eiffel Tower, if you grind down Paris to that kind of accuracy, you would be left with bumps that are one millimeter high. And that's the kind of polishing that these mirrors have endured. An extraordinary set of telescopes. Here's another view of the same. The reason why you have to build these telescopes in places like the Atacama Desert is because of the high altitude desert. The dry air is really good for telescopes, and also, the cloud cover is below the summit of these mountains so that the telescopes have about 300 days of clear skies. Finally, I want to take you to Antarctica. I want to spend most of my time on this part of the world. This is cosmology's final frontier. Some of the most amazing experiments, some of the most extreme experiments, are being done in Antarctica. I was there to view something called a long-duration balloon flight, which basically takes telescopes and instruments all the way to the upper atmosphere, the upper stratosphere, 40 km up. And that's where they do their experiments, and then the balloon, the payload, is brought down. So this is us landing on the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica. That's an American C-17 cargo plane that flew us from New Zealand to McMurdo in Antarctica. And here we are about to board our bus. And I don't know if you can read the lettering, but it says, "Ivan the Terribus." And that's taking us to McMurdo. And this is the scene that greets you in McMurdo. And you barely might be able to make out this hut here. This hut was built by Robert Falcon Scott and his men when they first came to Antarctica on their first expedition to go to the South Pole. Because it's so cold, the entire contents of that hut is still as they left it, with the remnants of the last meal they cooked still there. It's an extraordinary place. This is McMurdo itself. About a thousand people work here in summer, and about 200 in winter when it's completely dark for six months. I was here to see the launch of this particular type of instrument. This is a cosmic ray experiment that has been launched all the way to the upper-stratosphere to an altitude of 40 km. What I want you to imagine is this is two tons in weight. So you're using a balloon to carry something that is two tons all the way to an altitude of 40 km. And the engineers, the technicians, the physicists have all got to assemble on the Ross Ice Shelf, because Antarctica -- I won't go into the reasons why -- but it's one of the most favorable places for doing these balloon launches, except for the weather. The weather, as you can imagine, this is summer, and you're standing on 200 ft of ice. And there's a volcano behind, which has glaciers at the very top. And what they have to do is they have to assemble the entire balloon -- the fabric, parachute and everything -- on the ice and then fill it up with helium. And that process takes about two hours. And the weather can change as they're putting together this whole assembly. For instance, here they are laying down the balloon fabric behind, which is eventually going to be filled up with helium. Those two trucks you see at the very end carry 12 tanks each of compressed helium. Now, in case the weather changes before the launch, they have to actually pack everything back up into their boxes and take it out back to McMurdo Station. And this particular balloon, because it has to launch two tons of weight, is an extremely huge balloon. The fabric alone weighs two tons. In order to minimize the weight, it's very thin, it's as thin as a sandwich wrapper. And if they have to pack it back, they have to put it into boxes and stamp on it so that it fits into the box again -- except, when they did it first, it would have been done in Texas. Here, they can't do it with the kind shoes they're wearing, so they have to take their shoes off, get barefoot into the boxes, in this cold, and do that kind of work. That's the kind of dedication these people have. Here's the balloon being filled up with helium, and you can see it's a gorgeous sight. Here's a scene that shows you the balloon and the payload end-to-end. So the balloon is being filled up with helium on the left-hand side, and the fabric actually runs all the way to the middle where there's a piece of electronics and explosives being connected to a parachute, and then the parachute is then connected to the payload. And remember, all this wiring is being done by people in extreme cold, in sub-zero temperatures. They're wearing about 15 kg of clothing and stuff, but they have to take their gloves off in order to do that. And I would like to share with you a launch. (Video) Radio: Okay, release the balloon, release the balloon, release the balloon. Anil Ananthaswamy: And I'll finally like to leave you with two images. This is an observatory in the Himalayas, in Ladakh in India. And the thing I want you to look at here is the telescope on the right-hand side. And on the far left there is a 400 year-old Buddhist monastery. This is a close-up of the Buddhist monastery. And I was struck by the juxtaposition of these two enormous disciplines that humanity has. One is exploring the cosmos on the outside, and the other one is exploring our interior being. And both require silence of some sort. And what struck me was every place that I went to to see these telescopes, the astronomers and cosmologists are in search of a certain kind of silence, whether it's silence from radio pollution or light pollution or whatever. And it was very obvious that, if we destroy these silent places on Earth, we will be stuck on a planet without the ability to look outwards, because we will not be able to understand the signals that come from outer space. Thank you. (Applause)
So, what I'd like to talk about is something that was very dear to Kahn's heart, which is: how do we discover what is really particular about a project? How do you discover the uniqueness of a project as unique as a person? Because it seems to me that finding this uniqueness has to do with dealing with the whole force of globalization; that the particular is central to finding the uniqueness of place and the uniqueness of a program in a building. And so I'll take you to Wichita, Kansas, where I was asked some years ago to do a science museum on a site, right downtown by the river. And I thought the secret of the site was to make the building of the river, part of the river. Unfortunately, though, the site was separated from the river by McLean Boulevard so I suggested, "Let's reroute McLean," and that gave birth instantly to Friends of McLean Boulevard. (Laughter) And it took six months to reroute it. The first image I showed the building committee was this astronomic observatory of Jantar Mantar in Jaipur because I talked about what makes a building a building of science. And it seemed to me that this structure -- complex, rich and yet totally rational: it's an instrument -- had something to do with science, and somehow a building for science should be different and unique and speak of that. And so my first sketch after I left was to say, "Let's cut the channel and make an island and make an island building." And I got all excited and came back, and they sort of looked at me in dismay and said, "An island? This used to be an island -- Ackerman Island -- and we filled in the channel during the Depression to create jobs." (Laughter) And so the process began and they said, "You can't put it all on an island; some of it has to be on the mainland because we don't want to turn our back to the community." And there emerged a design: the galleries sort of forming an island and you could walk through them or on the roof. And there were all kinds of exciting features: you could come in through the landside buildings, walk through the galleries into playgrounds in the landscape. If you were cheap you could walk on top of a bridge to the roof, peek in the exhibits and then get totally seduced, come back and pay the five dollars admission. (Laughter) And the client was happy -- well, sort of happy because we were four million dollars over the budget, but essentially happy. But I was still troubled, and I was troubled because I felt this was capricious. It was complex, but there was something capricious about its complexity. It was, what I would say, compositional complexity, and I felt that if I had to fulfill what I talked about -- a building for science -- there had to be some kind of a generating idea, some kind of a generating geometry. And this gave birth to the idea of having toroidal generating geometry, one with its center deep in the earth for the landside building and a toroid with its center in the sky for the island building. A toroid, for those who don't know, is the surface of a doughnut or, for some of us, a bagel. And out of this idea started spinning off many, many kinds of variations of different plans and possibilities, and then the plan itself evolved in relationship to the exhibits, and you see the intersection of the plan with the toroidal geometry. And finally the building -- this is the model. And when there were complaints about budget, I said, "Well, it's worth doing the island because you get twice for your money: reflections." And here's the building as it opened, with a channel overlooking downtown, and as seen from downtown. And the bike route's going right through the building, so those traveling the river would see the exhibits and be drawn to the building. The toroidal geometry made for a very efficient building: every beam in this building is the same radius, all laminated wood. Every wall, every concrete wall is resisting the stresses and supporting the building. Every piece of the building works. These are the galleries with the light coming in through the skylights, and at night, and on opening day. Going back to 1976. (Applause) In 1976, I was asked to design a children's memorial museum in a Holocaust museum in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, which you see here the campus. I was asked to do a building, and I was given all the artifacts of clothing and drawings. And I felt very troubled. I worked on it for months and I couldn't deal with it because I felt people were coming out of the historic museum, they are totally saturated with information and to see yet another museum with information, it would make them just unable to digest. And so I made a counter-proposal: I said, "No building." There was a cave on the site; we tunnel into the hill, descend through the rock into an underground chamber. There's an anteroom with photographs of children who perished and then you come into a large space. There is a single candle flickering in the center; by an arrangement of reflective glasses, it reflects into infinity in all directions. You walk through the space, a voice reads the names, ages and place of birth of the children. This voice does not repeat for six months. And then you descend to light and to the north and to life. Well, they said, "People won't understand, they'll think it's a discotheque. You can't do that." And they shelved the project. And it sat there for 10 years, and then one day Abe Spiegel from Los Angeles, who had lost his three-year-old son at Auschwitz, came, saw the model, wrote the check and it got built 10 years later. So, many years after that in 1998, I was on one of my monthly trips to Jerusalem and I got a call from the foreign ministry saying, "We've got the Chief Minister of the Punjab here. He is on a state visit. We took him on a visit to Yad Vashem, we took him to the children's memorial; he was extremely moved. He's demanding to meet the architect. Could you come down and meet him in Tel Aviv?" And I went down and Chief Minister Badal said to me, "We Sikhs have suffered a great deal, as you have Jews. I was very moved by what I saw today. We are going to build our national museum to tell the story of our people; we're about to embark on that. I'd like you to come and design it." And so, you know, it's one of those things that you don't take too seriously. But two weeks later, I was in this little town, Anandpur Sahib, outside Chandigarh, the capital of the Punjab, and the temple and also next to it the fortress that the last guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind, died in as he wrote the Khalsa, which is their holy scripture. And I got to work and they took me somewhere down there, nine kilometers away from the town and the temple, and said, "That's where we have chosen the location." And I said, "This just doesn't make any sense. The pilgrims come here by the hundreds of thousands -- they're not going to get in trucks and buses and go down there. Let's get back to the town and walk to the site." And I recommended they do it right there, on that hill and this hill, and bridge all the way into the town. And, as things are a little easier in India, the site was purchased within a week and we were working. (Laughter) And my proposal was to split the museum into two -- the permanent exhibits at one end, the auditorium, library, and changing exhibitions on the other -- to flood the valley into a series of water gardens and to link it all to the fort and to the downtown. And the structures rise from the sand cliffs -- they're built in concrete and sandstones; the roofs are stainless steel -- they are facing south and reflecting light towards the temple itself, pedestrians crisscross from one side to the other. And as you come from the north, it is all masonry growing out of the sand cliffs as you come from the Himalayas and evoking the tradition of the fortress. And then I went away for four months and there was going to be groundbreaking. And I came back and, lo and behold, the little model I'd left behind had been built ten times bigger for public display on site and ... the bridge was built! (Laughter) Within the working drawings! And half a million people gathered for the celebrations; you can see them on the site itself as the foundations are beginning. I was renamed Safdie Singh. And there it is under construction; there are 1,800 workers at work and it will be finished in two years. Back to Yad Vashem three years ago. After all this episode began, Yad Vashem decided to rebuild completely the historic museum because now Washington was built -- the Holocaust Museum in Washington -- and that museum is so much more comprehensive in terms of information. And Yad Vashem needs to deal with three million visitors a year at this point. They said, "Let's rebuild the museum." But of course, the Sikhs might give you a job on a platter -- the Jews make it hard: international competition, phase one, phase two, phase three. (Laughter) And again, I felt kind of uncomfortable with the notion that a building the size of the Washington building -- 50,000 square feet -- will sit on that fragile hill and that we will go into galleries -- rooms with doors and sort of familiar rooms -- to tell the story of the Holocaust. And I proposed that we cut through the mountain. That was my first sketch. Just cut the whole museum through the mountain -- enter from one side of the mountain, come out on the other side of the mountain -- and then bring light through the mountain into the chambers. And here you see the model: a reception building and some underground parking. You cross a bridge, you enter this triangular room, 60 feet high, which cuts right into the hill and extends right through as you go towards the north. And all of it, then, all the galleries are underground, and you see the openings for the light. And at night, just one line of light cuts through the mountain, which is a skylight on top of that triangle. And all the galleries, as you move through them and so on, are below grade. And there are chambers carved in the rock -- concrete walls, stone, the natural rock when possible -- with the light shafts. This is actually a Spanish quarry, which sort of inspired the kind of spaces that these galleries could be. And then, coming towards the north, it opens up: it bursts out of the mountain into, again, a view of light and of the city and of the Jerusalem hills. I'd like to conclude with a project I've been working on for two months. It's the headquarters for the Institute of Peace in Washington, the U.S. Institute of Peace. The site chosen is across from the Lincoln Memorial; you see it there directly on the Mall. It's the last building on the Mall, on access of the Roosevelt Bridge that comes in from Virginia. That too was a competition, and it is something I'm just beginning to work on. But one recognized the kind of uniqueness of the site. If it were to be anywhere in Washington, it would be an office building, a conference center, a place for negotiating peace and so on -- all of which the building is -- but by virtue of the choice of putting it on the Mall and by the Lincoln Memorial, this becomes the structure that is the symbol of peace on the Mall. And that was a lot of heat to deal with. The first sketch recognizes that the building is many spaces -- spaces where research goes on, conference centers, a public building because it will be a museum devoted to peacemaking -- and these are the drawings that we submitted for the competition, the plans showing the spaces which radiate outwards from the entry. You see the structure as, in the sequence of structures on the Mall, very transparent and inviting and looking in. And then as you enter it again, looking in all directions towards the city. And what I felt about that building is that it really was a building that had to do with a lightness of being -- to quote Kundera -- that it had to do with whiteness, it had to do with a certain dynamic quality and it had to do with optimism. And this is where it is; it's sort of evolving. Studies for the structure of the roof, which demands maybe new materials: how to make it white, how to make it translucent, how to make it glowing, how to make it not capricious. And here studying, in three dimensions, how to give some kind, again, of order, a structure; not something you feel you could just change because you stop the design of that particular process. And so it goes. I'd like to conclude by saying something ... (Applause) I'd like to conclude by relating all of what I've said to the term "beauty." And I know it is not a fashionable term these days, and certainly not fashionable in the discourse of architectural schools, but it seems to me that all this, in one way or the other, is a search for beauty. Beauty in the most profound sense of fit. I have a quote that I like by a morphologist, 1917, Theodore Cook, who said, "Beauty connotes humanity. We call a natural object beautiful because we see that its form expresses fitness, the perfect fulfillment of function." Well, I would have said the perfect fulfillment of purpose. Nevertheless, beauty as the kind of fit; something that tells us that all the forces that have to do with our natural environment have been fulfilled -- and our human environment -- for that. Twenty years ago, in a conference Richard and I were at together, I wrote a poem, which seems to me to still hold for me today. "He who seeks truth shall find beauty. He who seeks beauty shall find vanity. He who seeks order shall find gratification. He who seeks gratification shall be disappointed. He who considers himself the servant of his fellow beings shall find the joy of self-expression. He who seeks self-expression shall fall into the pit of arrogance. Arrogance is incompatible with nature. Through nature, the nature of the universe and the nature of man, we shall seek truth. If we seek truth, we shall find beauty." Thank you very much. (Applause)
I don't speak English. I start speaking English, learning English, about a year ago. I speak French and I grew up with French, so my English is Franglais. I'm born in the Western Congo, in an area around here, and then went to university in Kisangani. And after I finished, I went to this area, the Ituri Forest. But what I've been doing -- when I was about 14, I grew in my uncle's house. And my father was a soldier, and my uncle was a fisherman and also a poacher. What I've been doing from 14 to 17 was, I was assisting them collecting ivory tusk, meat and whatever they were killing, poaching, hunting in the forest, bring it in the main city to get access to the market. But finally, I got myself involved. Around 17 to 20 years, I became, myself, a poacher. And I wanted to do it, because -- I believed -- to continue my studies. I wanted to go to university, but my father was poor, my uncle even. So, I did it. And for three to four years, I went to university. For three times, I applied to biomedical science, to be a doctor. I didn't succeed. I was having my inscriptions, my admission to biology. And I said, "No way, I'm not doing it. My family's poor, my area don't have better health care. I want to be a doctor to serve them." Three times, that means three years, and I start getting old. I say, "Oh, no, I continue." So, I did tropical ecology and plant botany. When I finished, I went to the Ituri Forest for my internship. It's where I really getting passion with what I'm doing right up to now -- I'm standing in front of you -- doing botany and wildlife conservation. That time the Ituri Forest was created as a forest reserve with some animals and also plants. And the training center there was built around the scientific Congolese staff and some American scientists also. So, the Okapi Faunal Reserve protects number -- I think that is the largest number of elephants we have right now in protected areas in Congo. It has also chimpanzees. And it has been named Okapi Faunal Reserve because of this beautiful creature. That is a forest giraffe. I think you guys know it quite well. Here we have savanna giraffes, but through evolution we have this forest giraffe that lives only in Congo. It has also some beautiful primates. Thirteen species -- highest diversity we can find in one single area in Africa. And it has the Ituri Forest itself -- about 1,300 species of plants, so far known. I joined the Wildlife Conservation Society, working there, in 1995, but I started working with them as a student in 1991. I was appointed as a teaching assistant at my university because I accomplished with honor. But I didn't like the way -- the instruction I got was very poor. And I wanted to be formed to a training center and a research center. With the end of the dictatorship regime of Mobutu Sese Seko, that most of you know, life became very, very difficult. And the work we have been doing was completely difficult to do and to achieve it. When Kabila started his movement to liberate Congo, so Mobutu soldiers started moving and retreated. So they started fleeing from the east to the west. And the Okapi Faunal Reserve is there, so there was a road from Goma, somewhere here, and coming like this. So they might go through, pass through the Okapi Faunal Reserve. Congo has five of the world's richest sites of protected area, and the Okapi Faunal Reserve is one of them. So soldier was fleeing in the Okapi Faunal Reserve. On their way, they looted everything. Torture, wars -- oh, my God, you can't believe. Every person was looking his way -- where to go, we don't know. And it was for us, the young, the first time really we hear the language of war, of guns. And even people who faced the rebellion of 1963, after our independence, they didn't believe what was happening. They were killing people. They were doing whatever they want because they have power. Who have been doing that? Young children. Child soldiers. You can't ask him how old he is because he has guns. But I was from the west, working in the east. I even [at] that time was not speaking Swahili. And when they came, they looted everything. You can't speak Lingala because Lingala was from Mobutu, and everyone speaking Lingala is soldier. And I was from the same area to him. All my friends said, we are leaving because we are a target. But I'm not going to the east, because I don't know Swahili. I stay. If I go, I will be killed. I can't go back to my area -- it's more than 1,000 kilometers [away]. I stayed after they looted everything. We have been doing research on botany, and we have a small herbarium of 4,500 sheets of plants. We cut, we dry and we packed them, we mounted them on a folder. Purpose: so that we start them for agriculture, for medicine, for whatever, and for science, for the study of the flora and the change of the forest. That is people moving around, that's even Pygmies. And this is a bright guy, hard-working person, and Pygmy. I've been working with him about 10 years. And with soldiers, they went to the forest for poaching elephants. Because he's Pygmy, he knows how to track elephants in the forest. He has been attacked by a leopard and they abandon him in the forest. They came to told me, I have to save him. And what I did, I gave him just antibiotics that we care for tuberculosis. And fortunately, I saved his life. And that was the language of the war. Everywhere there has been constant extraction of mineral, killing animals, the logging timbers and so on. And what of important things -- I think all of you here have a cell phone. That mineral has killed a lot: five millions of Congolese have gone because of this Colombo-Tantalite -- they call it Coltan -- that they use it to make cell phones and it has been in that area, all over in Congo. Extraction, and good, big business of the war. And what I did for the first war, after we have lost everything, I have to save something, even myself, my life and life of the staff. I buried some of our new vehicle engines, I buried it to save it. And some of equipment went with them, on the top of the canopy, to save it. He's not collecting plants, he's going to save our equipment on the canopy. And with the material that's left -- because they wanted to destroy it, to burn it, they didn't understand it, they didn't go to school -- I packed it. And that is me, going to, hurrying to Uganda, to try to save that 4,000 material, with people carrying them on the bikes, bicycles. And after that, we succeeded. I housed that 4,000 material at the herbarium of Makerere University. And after the war, I have been able to bring it back home, so that we continue our studies. The second war came while we didn't expect it. With friends, we had been sitting and watching match football, and having some good music with WorldSpace radio, when it started, I think. So, it was so bad. We heard that now from the east again the war started, and it's going fast. This time I think Kabila will go in place of, as he did with Mobutu. And the reserve was a target to the rebels. Three different movements and two militia acting in the same area and competing for natural resources. And there was no way to work. They destroy everything. Poaching -- oh, no way. And that's the powerful men. We have to meet and to talk to them. What's the regulation of the reserve and what is the regulation of the parks? And they can't do what they are doing. So we went to meet them. That is Coltan extraction, gold mining. So, we started talking with them, convincing them that we are in a protected area. There are regulations that it's prohibited to do logging, mining and poaching, specifically. But they said, "You guys, you think that soldiers who are dying are not important, and your animals you are protecting are most important. We don't think so. We have to do it, because to let our movement advance." I say, "No way, you are not going to do it here." We started talking with them and I was negotiating. Tried to protect our equipment, tried to protect our staff and the villages of about 1,500 people. And we continued. But I was doing that, negotiating with them. Sometimes we are having meeting and they are talking with Jean-Pierre Bemba, with Mbusa Nyamwisi, with Kabila, and I'm there. Sometimes, they talk to my own language, that is, Lingala. I hear it and what strategy they are doing, what they are planning. Sometimes, they are having a helicopter to supply them with ammunition and so on. They used me to carry that, and I was doing counting, what comes from where, and where, and where. I had only this equipment -- my satellite phone, my computer and a plastic solar panel -- that I hide it in the forest. And every time, daily, after we have meeting, what compromise we have, whatever, I go, I write a short email, send it. I don't know how many people I had on my address. I sent the message: what is going about the progress of the war and what they are planning to do. They started suspecting that what we do on the morning, and the afternoon, it's on the news, BBC, RFI. (Laughter) Something might be going on. And one day, we went for a meeting. (Applause) Sorry. One day, we went to meet the Chief Commander. He had the same iridium cell phone like me. And he asked me, "Do you know how to use this?" I said, "I have never seen it. (Laughter) I don't know." And I had mine on my pocket. So, it was a chance that they trusted me a lot. They didn't -- they was not looking on me. So I was scared. And when we finished the meeting, I went to return it in the forest. And I was sending news, doing whatever, reporting daily to the U.N., to UNESCO, to our institution in New York, what have been going. And for that, they have been having big pressure to leave, to free the area. Because there was no way -- whatever they do, it's known the same time. During the first two rebellions, they killed all animals in the zoo. We have a zoo of 14 Okapis, and one of them was pregnant. And during the war, after a week of heavy war, fighting in the area, we succeeded: we had the first Okapi. This is the only trouser and shirt remind me of this. This is not local population, this is rebels. They are now happy sending the news that they have protected the Okapi with the war, because we sent the news that they are killing and poaching everywhere. After a week, we celebrated the birthday of that Okapi, they killed an elephant, just 50 meters to the area where the zoo, where Okapi was born. And I was mad. I oppose it -- that they are now going to dissect it, until I do my report and then I see the Chief Commander. And I succeeded. The elephant just decayed and they just got the tusks. What we are doing after that -- that was the situation of the war -- we have to rebuild. I had some money. I was paid 150 dollars. I devoted half of it to rebuild the herbarium, because we didn't have good infrastructure to start plants. Wildlife Conservation Society more dealing with plants. I started this with 70 dollars, and start fundraising money to where I've been going. I had opportunity to go all over, where herbarium for my African material is. And they supported me a bit, and I built this. Now, it's doing work to train young Congolese. And also, what one of the speciality we are doing, my design is tracking the global warming effect on biodiversity, and what the impacts of the Ituri Forest is playing to uptake carbon. This is one of the studies we are doing on a 40-hectare plot, where we have tagged trees and lianas from one centimeters, and we are tracking them. We have now data of about 15 years, to see how that forest is contributing to the carbon reductions. And that is -- I think it's difficult for me. This is a very embarrassing talk, I know. I don't know where to start, where to finish it. When I was thinking to come here, what best title I wanted to say to my talk, I didn't find this. But now I think that I would have titled it, "The Language of Guns." Where are you people? Now we are talking about reconstitution, rebuild Africa. But is gun industries a tool to rebuild, or is it a game? I think we see the war like a game -- like soccer, football. Everybody is happy, but see what it's doing, see what is going in Darfur. Now we say, oh, my God. See what the wars in Rwanda. That's because of the language of guns. I don't think that someone may blame Google, because it's doing the right things, even if people like Al-Qaeda are using Google to connect between them. But it's serving millions for the best. But what is doing with gun industries? Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Thank you, thank you. Just wait over there. It's an amazing story. I suspect a lot of people here have the same question I have. How can we help you? Corneille Ewango: That's really embarrassing questions. I think that now I feel nervous. And I think, helping us, people are acting sometimes by ignorance. I did it myself. If I know when I was young, that [by] killing an elephant, I'm destroying biodiversity, I would not have done it. Many, many of you have seen the talents of Africans, but there are few who are going to school. Many are dying because of all those kind of pandemics, HIV, malaria, poverty, not going to school. What you can assist us, it's by building capacities. How many have got opportunity like me to go to U.S., do a master's? And go -- now, I'm in the Netherlands to do a Ph.D. But many of them are just here, because they don't have money. And they can't go even to university. They can't even attain the bachelor's degree. Building capacities for the young generation is going to make a better generation and a better future tomorrow for Africa. CA: Thank you, thank you. (Applause)
So I come from the tallest people on the planet -- the Dutch. It hasn't always been this way. In fact, all across the globe, people have been gaining height. In the last 150 years, in developed countries, on average, we have gotten 10 centimeters taller. And scientists have a lot of theories about why this is, but almost all of them involve nutrition, namely the increase of dairy and meat. In the last 50 years, global meat consumption has more than quadrupled, from 71 million tons to 310 million tons. Something similar has been going on with milk and eggs. In every society where incomes have risen, so has protein consumption. And we know that globally, we are getting richer. And as the middle class is on the rise, so is our global population, from 7 billion of us today to 9.7 billion by 2050, which means that by 2050, we are going to need at least 70 percent more protein than what is available to humankind today. And the latest prediction of the UN puts that population number, by the end of this century, at 11 billion, which means that we are going to need a lot more protein. This challenge is staggering -- so much so, that recently, a team at Anglia Ruskin Global Sustainability Institute suggested that if we don't change our global policies and food production systems, our societies might actually collapse in the next 30 years. Currently, our ocean serves as the main source of animal protein. Over 2.6 billion people depend on it every single day. At the same time, our global fisheries are two-and-a-half times larger than what our oceans can sustainably support, meaning that humans take far more fish from the ocean than the oceans can naturally replace. WWF recently published a report showing that just in the last 40 years, our global marine life has been slashed in half. And another recent report suggests that of our largest predatory species, such as swordfish and bluefin tuna, over 90 percent has disappeared since the 1950s. And there are a lot of great, sustainable fishing initiatives across the planet working towards better practices and better-managed fisheries. But ultimately, all of these initiatives are working towards keeping current catch constant. It's unlikely, even with the best-managed fisheries, that we are going to be able to take much more from the ocean than we do today. We have to stop plundering our oceans the way we have. We need to alleviate the pressure on it. And we are at a point where if we push much harder for more produce, we might face total collapse. Our current systems are not going to feed a growing global population. So how do we fix this? What's the world going to look like in just 35 short years when there's 2.7 billion more of us sharing the same resources? We could all become vegan. Sounds like a great idea, but it's not realistic and it's impossibly hard to mandate globally. People are eating animal protein whether we like it or not. And suppose we fail to change our ways and continue on the current path, failing to meet demands. The World Health Organization recently reported that 800 million people are suffering from malnutrition and food shortage, which is due to that same growing, global population and the declining access to resources like water, energy and land. It takes very little imagination to picture a world of global unrest, riots and further malnutrition. People are hungry, and we are running dangerously low on natural resources. For so, so many reasons, we need to change our global food production systems. We must do better and there is a solution. And that solution lies in aquaculture -- the farming of fish, plants like seaweed, shellfish and crustaceans. As the great ocean hero Jacques Cousteau once said, "We must start using the ocean as farmers instead of hunters. That's what civilization is all about -- farming instead of hunting." Fish is the last food that we hunt. And why is it that we keep hearing phrases like, "Life's too short for farmed fish," or, "Wild-caught, of course!" over fish that we know virtually nothing about? We don't know what it ate during its lifetime, and we don't know what pollution it encounters. And if it was a large predatory species, it might have gone through the coast of Fukushima yesterday. We don't know. Very few people realize the traceability in fisheries never goes beyond the hunter that caught the wild animal. But let's back up for a second and talk about why fish is the best food choice. It's healthy, it prevents heart disease, it provides key amino acids and key fatty acids like Omega-3s, which is very different from almost any other type of meat. And aside from being healthy, it's also a lot more exciting and diverse. Think about it -- most animal farming is pretty monotonous. Cow is cow, sheep is sheep, pig's pig, and poultry -- turkey, duck, chicken -- pretty much sums it up. And then there's 500 species of fish being farmed currently. not that Western supermarkets reflect that on their shelves, but that's beside that point. And you can farm fish in a very healthy manner that's good for us, good for the planet and good for the fish. I know I sound fish-obsessed -- (Laughter) Let me explain: My brilliant partner and wife, Amy Novograntz, and I got involved in aquaculture a couple of years ago. We were inspired by Sylvia Earle, who won the TED Prize in 2009. We actually met on Mission Blue I in the Galapagos. Amy was there as the TED Prize Director; me, an entrepreneur from the Netherlands and concerned citizen, love to dive, passion for the oceans. Mission Blue truly changed our lives. We fell in love, got married and we came away really inspired, thinking we really want to do something about ocean conservation -- something that was meant to last, that could make a real difference and something that we could do together. Little did we expect that that would lead us to fish farming. But a few months after we got off the boat, we got to a meeting at Conservation International, where the Director General of WorldFish was talking about aquaculture, asking a room full of environmentalists to stop turning from it, realize what was going on and to really get involved because aquaculture has the potential to be just what our oceans and populations need. We were stunned when we heard the stats that we didn't know more about this industry already and excited about the chance to help get it right. And to talk about stats -- right now, the amount of fish consumed globally, wild catch and farmed combined, is twice the tonnage of the total amount of beef produced on planet earth last year. Every single fishing vessel combined, small and large, across the globe, together produce about 65 million tons of wild-caught seafood for human consumption. Aquaculture this year, for the first time in history, actually produces more than what we catch from the wild. But now this: Demand is going to go up. In the next 35 years, we are going to need an additional 85 million tons to meet demand, which is one-and-a-half times as much, almost, as what we catch globally out of our oceans. An enormous number. It's safe to assume that that's not going to come from the ocean. It needs to come from farming. And talk about farming -- for farming you need resources. As a human needs to eat to grow and stay alive, so does an animal. A cow needs to eat eight to nine pounds of feed and drink almost 8,000 liters of water to create just one pound of meat. Experts agree that it's impossible to farm cows for every inhabitant on this planet. We just don't have enough feed or water. And we can't keep cutting down rain forests for it. And fresh water -- planet earth has a very limited supply. We need something more efficient to keep humankind alive on this planet. And now let's compare that with fish farming. You can farm one pound of fish with just one pound of feed, and depending on species, even less. And why is that? Well, that's because fish, first of all, float. They don't need to stand around all day resisting gravity like we do. And most fish are cold-blooded -- they don't need to heat themselves. Fish chills. (Laughter) And it needs very little water, which is counterintuitive, but as we say, it swims in it but it hardly drinks it. Fish are the most resource-efficient animal protein available to humankind, aside from insects. How much we've learned since. For example, on top of that 65 million tons that's annually caught for human consumption, there's an additional 30 million tons caught for animal feed, mostly sardines and anchovies for the aquaculture industry that's turned into fish meal and fish oil. This is madness. Sixty-five percent of these fisheries, globally, are badly managed. Some of the worst issues of our time are connected to it. It's destroying our oceans. The worst slavery issues imaginable are connected to it. Recently, an article came out of Stanford saying that if 50 percent of the world's aquaculture industry would stop using fish meal, our oceans would be saved. Now think about that for a minute. Now, we know that the oceans have far more problems -- they have pollution, there's acidification, coral reef destruction and so on. But it underlines the impact of our fisheries, and it underlines how interconnected everything is. Fisheries, aquaculture, deforestation, climate change, food security and so on. In the search for alternatives, the industry, on a massive scale, has reverted to plant-based alternatives like soy, industrial chicken waste, blood meal from slaughterhouses and so on. And we understand where these choices come from, but this is not the right approach. It's not sustainable, it's not healthy. Have you ever seen a chicken at the bottom of the ocean? Of course not. If you feed salmon soy with nothing else, it literally explodes. Salmon is a carnivore, it has no way to digest soy. Now, fish farming is by far the best animal farming available to humankind. But it's had a really bad reputation. There's been excessive use of chemicals, there's been virus and disease transfered to wild populations, ecosystem destruction and pollution, escaped fish breeding with wild populations, altering the overall genetic pool, and then of course, as just mentioned, the unsustainable feed ingredients. How blessed were the days when we could just enjoy food that was on our plate, whatever it was. Once you know, you know. You can't go back. It's not fun. We really need a transparent food system that we can trust, that produces healthy food. But the good news is that decades of development and research have led to a lot of new technologies and knowledge that allow us to do a lot better. We can now farm fish without any of these issues. I think of agriculture before the green revolution -- we are at aquaculture and the blue revolution. New technologies means that we can now produce a feed that's perfectly natural, with a minimal footprint that consists of microbes, insects, seaweeds and micro-algae. Healthy for the people, healthy for the fish, healthy for the planet. Microbes, for example, can be a perfect alternative for high-grade fish meal -- at scale. Insects are the -- well, first of all, the perfect recycling because they're grown on food waste; but second, think of fly-fishing, and you know how logical it actually is to use it as fish feed. You don't need large tracts of land for it and you don't need to cut down rain forests for it. And microbes and insects are actually net water producers. This revolution is starting as we speak, it just needs scale. We can now farm far more species than ever before in controlled, natural conditions, creating happy fish. I imagine, for example, a closed system that's performing more efficiently than insect farming, where you can produce healthy, happy, delicious fish with little or no effluent, almost no energy and almost no water and a natural feed with a minimal footprint. Or a system where you grow up to 10 species next to each other -- off of each other, mimicking nature. You need very little feed, very little footprint. I think of seaweed growing off the effluent of fish, for example. There's great technologies popping up all over the globe. From alternatives to battle disease so we don't need antibiotics and chemicals anymore, to automated feeders that feel when the fish are hungry, so we can save on feed and create less pollution. Software systems that gather data across farms, so we can improve farm practices. There's really cool stuff happening all over the globe. And make no mistake -- all of these things are possible at a cost that's competitive to what a farmer spends today. Tomorrow, there will be no excuse for anyone to not do the right thing. So somebody needs to connect the dots and give these developments a big kick in the butt. And that's what we've been working on the last couple of years, and that's what we need to be working on together -- rethinking everything from the ground up, with a holistic view across the value chain, connecting all these things across the globe, alongside great entrepreneurs that are willing to share a collective vision. Now is the time to create change in this industry and to push it into a sustainable direction. This industry is still young, much of its growth is still ahead. It's a big task, but not as far-fetched as you might think. It's possible. So we need to take pressure off the ocean. We want to eat good and healthy. And if we eat an animal, it needs to be one that had a happy and healthy life. We need to have a meal that we can trust, live long lives. And this is not just for people in San Francisco or Northern Europe -- this is for all of us. Even in the poorest countries, it's not just about money. People prefer something fresh and healthy that they can trust over something that comes from far away that they know nothing about. We're all the same. The day will come where people will realize -- no, demand -- farmed fish on their plate that's farmed well and that's farmed healthy -- and refuse anything less. You can help speed this up. Ask questions when you order seafood. Where does my fish come from? Who raised it, and what did it eat? Information about where your fish comes from and how it was produced needs to be much more readily available. And consumers need to put pressure on the aquaculture industry to do the right thing. So every time you order, ask for detail and show that you really care about what you eat and what's been given to you. And eventually, they will listen. And all of us will benefit. Thank you. (Applause)
I love the Internet. It's true. Think about everything it has brought us. Think about all the services we use, all the connectivity, all the entertainment, all the business, all the commerce. And it's happening during our lifetimes. I'm pretty sure that one day we'll be writing history books hundreds of years from now. This time our generation will be remembered as the generation that got online, the generation that built something really and truly global. But yes, it's also true that the Internet has problems, very serious problems, problems with security and problems with privacy. I've spent my career fighting these problems. So let me show you something. This here is Brain. This is a floppy disk -- five and a quarter-inch floppy disk infected by Brain.A. It's the first virus we ever found for PC computers. And we actually know where Brain came from. We know because it says so inside the code. Let's take a look. All right. That's the boot sector of an infected floppy, and if we take a closer look inside, we'll see that right there, it says, "Welcome to the dungeon." And then it continues, saying, 1986, Basit and Amjad. And Basit and Amjad are first names, Pakistani first names. In fact, there's a phone number and an address in Pakistan. (Laughter) Now, 1986. Now it's 2011. That's 25 years ago. The PC virus problem is 25 years old now. So half a year ago, I decided to go to Pakistan myself. So let's see, here's a couple of photos I took while I was in Pakistan. This is from the city of Lahore, which is around 300 kilometers south from Abbottabad, where Bin Laden was caught. Here's a typical street view. And here's the street or road leading to this building, which is 730 Nizam block at Allama Iqbal Town. And I knocked on the door. (Laughter) You want to guess who opened the door? Basit and Amjad; they are still there. (Laughter) (Applause) So here standing up is Basit. Sitting down is his brother Amjad. These are the guys who wrote the first PC virus. Now of course, we had a very interesting discussion. I asked them why. I asked them how they feel about what they started. And I got some sort of satisfaction from learning that both Basit and Amjad had had their computers infected dozens of times by completely unrelated other viruses over these years. So there is some sort of justice in the world after all. Now, the viruses that we used to see in the 1980s and 1990s obviously are not a problem any more. So let me just show you a couple of examples of what they used to look like. What I'm running here is a system that enables me to run age-old programs on a modern computer. So let me just mount some drives. Go over there. What we have here is a list of old viruses. So let me just run some viruses on my computer. For example, let's go with the Centipede virus first. And you can see at the top of the screen, there's a centipede scrolling across your computer when you get infected by this one. You know that you're infected because it actually shows up. Here's another one. This is the virus called Crash, invented in Russia in 1992. Let me show you one which actually makes some sound. (Siren noise) And the last example, guess what the Walker virus does? Yes, there's a guy walking across your screen once you get infected. So it used to be fairly easy to know that you're infected by a virus, when the viruses were written by hobbyists and teenagers. Today, they are no longer being written by hobbyists and teenagers. Today, viruses are a global problem. What we have here in the background is an example of our systems that we run in our labs, where we track virus infections worldwide. So we can actually see in real time that we've just blocked viruses in Sweden and Taiwan and Russia and elsewhere. In fact, if I just connect back to our lab systems through the Web, we can see in real time just some kind of idea of how many viruses, how many new examples of malware we find every single day. Here's the latest virus we've found, in a file called Server.exe. And we found it right over here three seconds ago -- the previous one, six seconds ago. And if we just scroll around, it's just massive. We find tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands. And that's the last 20 minutes of malware every single day. So where are all these coming from then? Well today, it's the organized criminal gangs writing these viruses because they make money with their viruses. It's gangs like -- let's go to GangstaBucks.com. This is a website operating in Moscow where these guys are buying infected computers. So if you are a virus writer and you're capable of infecting Windows computers, but you don't know what to do with them, you can sell those infected computers -- somebody else's computers -- to these guys. And they'll actually pay you money for those computers. So how do these guys then monetize those infected computers? Well there's multiple different ways, such as banking trojans, which will steal money from your online banking accounts when you do online banking, or keyloggers. Keyloggers silently sit on your computer, hidden from view, and they record everything you type. So you're sitting on your computer and you're doing Google searches. Every single Google search you type is saved and sent to the criminals. Every single email you write is saved and sent to the criminals. Same thing with every single password and so on. But the thing that they're actually looking for most are sessions where you go online and do online purchases in any online store. Because when you do purchases in online stores, you will be typing in your name, the delivery address, your credit card number and the credit card security codes. And here's an example of a file we found from a server a couple of weeks ago. That's the credit card number, that's the expiration date, that's the security code, and that's the name of the owner of the card. Once you gain access to other people's credit card information, you can just go online and buy whatever you want with this information. And that, obviously, is a problem. We now have a whole underground marketplace and business ecosystem built around online crime. One example of how these guys actually are capable of monetizing their operations: we go and have a look at the pages of INTERPOL and search for wanted persons. We find guys like Bjorn Sundin, originally from Sweden, and his partner in crime, also listed on the INTERPOL wanted pages, Mr. Shaileshkumar Jain, a U.S. citizen. These guys were running an operation called I.M.U., a cybercrime operation through which they netted millions. They are both right now on the run. Nobody knows where they are. U.S. officials, just a couple of weeks ago, froze a Swiss bank account belonging to Mr. Jain, and that bank account had 14.9 million U.S. dollars on it. So the amount of money online crime generates is significant. And that means that the online criminals can actually afford to invest into their attacks. We know that online criminals are hiring programmers, hiring testing people, testing their code, having back-end systems with SQL databases. And they can afford to watch how we work -- like how security people work -- and try to work their way around any security precautions we can build. They also use the global nature of Internet to their advantage. I mean, the Internet is international. That's why we call it the Internet. And if you just go and take a look at what's happening in the online world, here's a video built by Clarified Networks, which illustrates how one single malware family is able to move around the world. This operation, believed to be originally from Estonia, moves around from one country to another as soon as the website is tried to shut down. So you just can't shut these guys down. They will switch from one country to another, from one jurisdiction to another -- moving around the world, using the fact that we don't have the capability to globally police operations like this. So the Internet is as if someone would have given free plane tickets to all the online criminals of the world. Now, criminals who weren't capable of reaching us before can reach us. So how do you actually go around finding online criminals? How do you actually track them down? Let me give you an example. What we have here is one exploit file. Here, I'm looking at the Hex dump of an image file, which contains an exploit. And that basically means, if you're trying to view this image file on your Windows computer, it actually takes over your computer and runs code. Now, if you'll take a look at this image file -- well there's the image header, and there the actual code of the attack starts. And that code has been encrypted, so let's decrypt it. It has been encrypted with XOR function 97. You just have to believe me, it is, it is. And we can go here and actually start decrypting it. Well the yellow part of the code is now decrypted. And I know, it doesn't really look much different from the original. But just keep staring at it. You'll actually see that down here you can see a Web address: unionseek.com/d/ioo.exe And when you view this image on your computer it actually is going to download and run that program. And that's a backdoor which will take over your computer. But even more interestingly, if we continue decrypting, we'll find this mysterious string, which says O600KO78RUS. That code is there underneath the encryption as some sort of a signature. It's not used for anything. And I was looking at that, trying to figure out what it means. So obviously I Googled for it. I got zero hits; wasn't there. So I spoke with the guys at the lab. And we have a couple of Russian guys in our labs, and one of them mentioned, well, it ends in RUS like Russia. And 78 is the city code for the city of St. Petersburg. For example, you can find it from some phone numbers and car license plates and stuff like that. So I went looking for contacts in St. Petersburg, and through a long road, we eventually found this one particular website. Here's this Russian guy who's been operating online for a number of years who runs his own website, and he runs a blog under the popular Live Journal. And on this blog, he blogs about his life, about his life in St. Petersburg -- he's in his early 20s -- about his cat, about his girlfriend. And he drives a very nice car. In fact, this guy drives a Mercedes-Benz S600 V12 with a six-liter engine with more than 400 horsepower. Now that's a nice car for a 20-something year-old kid in St. Petersburg. How do I know about this car? Because he blogged about the car. He actually had a car accident. In downtown St. Petersburg, he actually crashed his car into another car. And he put blogged images about the car accident -- that's his Mercedes -- right here is the Lada Samara he crashed into. And you can actually see that the license plate of the Samara ends in 78RUS. And if you actually take a look at the scene picture, you can see that the plate of the Mercedes is O600KO78RUS. Now I'm not a lawyer, but if I would be, this is where I would say, "I rest my case." (Laughter) So what happens when online criminals are caught? Well in most cases it never gets this far. The vast majority of the online crime cases, we don't even know which continent the attacks are coming from. And even if we are able to find online criminals, quite often there is no outcome. The local police don't act, or if they do, there's not enough evidence, or for some reason we can't take them down. I wish it would be easier; unfortunately it isn't. But things are also changing at a very rapid pace. You've all heard about things like Stuxnet. So if you look at what Stuxnet did is that it infected these. That's a Siemens S7-400 PLC, programmable logic [controller]. And this is what runs our infrastructure. This is what runs everything around us. PLC's, these small boxes which have no display, no keyboard, which are programmed, are put in place, and they do their job. For example, the elevators in this building most likely are controlled by one of these. And when Stuxnet infects one of these, that's a massive revolution on the kinds of risks we have to worry about. Because everything around us is being run by these. I mean, we have critical infrastructure. You go to any factory, any power plant, any chemical plant, any food processing plant, you look around -- everything is being run by computers. Everything is being run by computers. Everything is reliant on these computers working. We have become very reliant on Internet, on basic things like electricity, obviously, on computers working. And this really is something which creates completely new problems for us. We must have some way of continuing to work even if computers fail. (Laughter) (Applause) So preparedness means that we can do stuff even when the things we take for granted aren't there. It's actually very basic stuff -- thinking about continuity, thinking about backups, thinking about the things that actually matter. Now I told you -- (Laughter) I love the Internet. I do. Think about all the services we have online. Think about if they are taken away from you, if one day you don't actually have them for some reason or another. I see beauty in the future of the Internet, but I'm worried that we might not see that. I'm worried that we are running into problems because of online crime. Online crime is the one thing that might take these things away from us. (Laughter) I've spent my life defending the Net, and I do feel that if we don't fight online crime, we are running a risk of losing it all. We have to do this globally, and we have to do it right now. What we need is more global, international law enforcement work to find online criminal gangs -- these organized gangs that are making millions out of their attacks. That's much more important than running anti-viruses or running firewalls. What actually matters is actually finding the people behind these attacks, and even more importantly, we have to find the people who are about to become part of this online world of crime, but haven't yet done it. We have to find the people with the skills, but without the opportunities and give them the opportunities to use their skills for good. Thank you very much. (Applause)
In the great 1980s movie "The Blues Brothers," there's a scene where John Belushi goes to visit Dan Aykroyd in his apartment in Chicago for the very first time. It's a cramped, tiny space and it's just three feet away from the train tracks. As John sits on Dan's bed, a train goes rushing by, rattling everything in the room. John asks, "How often does that train go by?" Dan replies, "So often, you won't even notice it." And then, something falls off the wall. We all know what he's talking about. As human beings, we get used to everyday things really fast. As a product designer, it's my job to see those everyday things, to feel them, and try to improve upon them. For example, see this piece of fruit? See this little sticker? That sticker wasn't there when I was a kid. But somewhere as the years passed, someone had the bright idea to put that sticker on the fruit. Why? So it could be easier for us to check out at the grocery counter. Well that's great, we can get in and out of the store quickly. But now, there's a new problem. When we get home and we're hungry and we see this ripe, juicy piece of fruit on the counter, we just want to pick it up and eat it. Except now, we have to look for this little sticker. And dig at it with our nails, damaging the flesh. Then rolling up that sticker -- you know what I mean. And then trying to flick it off your fingers. (Applause) It's not fun, not at all. But something interesting happened. See the first time you did it, you probably felt those feelings. You just wanted to eat the piece of fruit. You felt upset. You just wanted to dive in. By the 10th time, you started to become less upset and you just started peeling the label off. By the 100th time, at least for me, I became numb to it. I simply picked up the piece of fruit, dug at it with my nails, tried to flick it off, and then wondered, "Was there another sticker?" So why is that? Why do we get used to everyday things? Well as human beings, we have limited brain power. And so our brains encode the everyday things we do into habits so we can free up space to learn new things. It's a process called habituation and it's one of the most basic ways, as humans, we learn. Now, habituation isn't always bad. Remember learning to drive? I sure do. Your hands clenched at 10 and 2 on the wheel, looking at every single object out there -- the cars, the lights, the pedestrians. It's a nerve-wracking experience. So much so, that I couldn't even talk to anyone else in the car and I couldn't even listen to music. But then something interesting happened. As the weeks went by, driving became easier and easier. You habituated it. It started to become fun and second nature. And then, you could talk to your friends again and listen to music. So there's a good reason why our brains habituate things. If we didn't, we'd notice every little detail, all the time. It would be exhausting, and we'd have no time to learn about new things. But sometimes, habituation isn't good. If it stops us from noticing the problems that are around us, well, that's bad. And if it stops us from noticing and fixing those problems, well, then that's really bad. Comedians know all about this. Jerry Seinfeld's entire career was built on noticing those little details, those idiotic things we do every day that we don't even remember. He tells us about the time he visited his friends and he just wanted to take a comfortable shower. He'd reach out and grab the handle and turn it slightly one way, and it was 100 degrees too hot. And then he'd turn it the other way, and it was 100 degrees too cold. He just wanted a comfortable shower. Now, we've all been there, we just don't remember it. But Jerry did, and that's a comedian's job. But designers, innovators and entrepreneurs, it's our job to not just notice those things, but to go one step further and try to fix them. See this, this person, this is Mary Anderson. In 1902 in New York City, she was visiting. It was a cold, wet, snowy day and she was warm inside a streetcar. As she was going to her destination, she noticed the driver opening the window to clean off the excess snow so he could drive safely. When he opened the window, though, he let all this cold, wet air inside, making all the passengers miserable. Now probably, most of those passengers just thought, "It's a fact of life, he's got to open the window to clean it. That's just how it is." But Mary didn't. Mary thought, "What if the diver could actually clean the windshield from the inside so that he could stay safe and drive and the passengers could actually stay warm?" So she picked up her sketchbook right then and there, and began drawing what would become the world's first windshield wiper. Now as a product designer, I try to learn from people like Mary to try to see the world the way it really is, not the way we think it is. Why? Because it's easy to solve a problem that almost everyone sees. But it's hard to solve a problem that almost no one sees. Now some people think you're born with this ability or you're not, as if Mary Anderson was hardwired at birth to see the world more clearly. That wasn't the case for me. I had to work at it. During my years at Apple, Steve Jobs challenged us to come into work every day, to see our products through the eyes of the customer, the new customer, the one that has fears and possible frustrations and hopeful exhilaration that their new technology product could work straightaway for them. He called it staying beginners, and wanted to make sure that we focused on those tiny little details to make them faster, easier and seamless for the new customers. So I remember this clearly in the very earliest days of the iPod. See, back in the '90s, being a gadget freak like I am, I would rush out to the store for the very, very latest gadget. I'd take all the time to get to the store, I'd check out, I'd come back home, I'd start to unbox it. And then, there was another little sticker: the one that said, "Charge before use." What! I can't believe it! I just spent all this time buying this product and now I have to charge before use. I have to wait what felt like an eternity to use that coveted new toy. It was crazy. But you know what? Almost every product back then did that. When it had batteries in it, you had to charge it before you used it. Well, Steve noticed that and he said, "We're not going to let that happen to our product." So what did we do? Typically, when you have a product that has a hard drive in it, you run it for about 30 minutes in the factory to make sure that hard drive's going to be working years later for the customer after they pull it out of the box. What did we do instead? We ran that product for over two hours. Why? Well, first off, we could make a higher quality product, be easy to test, and make sure it was great for the customer. But most importantly, the battery came fully charged right out of the box, ready to use. So that customer, with all that exhilaration, could just start using the product. It was great, and it worked. People liked it. Today, almost every product that you get that's battery powered comes out of the box fully charged, even if it doesn't have a hard drive. But back then, we noticed that detail and we fixed it, and now everyone else does that as well. No more, "Charge before use." So why am I telling you this? Well, it's seeing the invisible problem, not just the obvious problem, that's important, not just for product design, but for everything we do. You see, there are invisible problems all around us, ones we can solve. But first we need to see them, to feel them. So, I'm hesitant to give you any tips about neuroscience or psychology. There's far too many experienced people in the TED community who would know much more about that than I ever will. But let me leave you with a few tips that I do, that we all can do, to fight habituation. My first tip is to look broader. You see, when you're tackling a problem, sometimes, there are a lot of steps that lead up to that problem. And sometimes, a lot of steps after it. If you can take a step back and look broader, maybe you can change some of those boxes before the problem. Maybe you can combine them. Maybe you can remove them altogether to make that better. Take thermostats, for instance. In the 1900s when they first came out, they were really simple to use. You could turn them up or turn them down. People understood them. But in the 1970s, the energy crisis struck, and customers started thinking about how to save energy. So what happened? Thermostat designers decided to add a new step. Instead of just turning up and down, you now had to program it. So you could tell it the temperature you wanted at a certain time. Now that seemed great. Every thermostat had started adding that feature. But it turned out that no one saved any energy. Now, why is that? Well, people couldn't predict the future. They just didn't know how their weeks would change season to season, year to year. So no one was saving energy, and what happened? Thermostat designers went back to the drawing board and they focused on that programming step. They made better U.I.s, they made better documentation. But still, years later, people were not saving any energy because they just couldn't predict the future. So what did we do? We put a machine-learning algorithm in instead of the programming that would simply watch when you turned it up and down, when you liked a certain temperature when you got up, or when you went away. And you know what? It worked. People are saving energy without any programming. So, it doesn't matter what you're doing. If you take a step back and look at all the boxes, maybe there's a way to remove one or combine them so that you can make that process much simpler. So that's my first tip: look broader. For my second tip, it's to look closer. One of my greatest teachers was my grandfather. He taught me all about the world. He taught me how things were built and how they were repaired, the tools and techniques necessary to make a successful project. I remember one story he told me about screws, and about how you need to have the right screw for the right job. There are many different screws: wood screws, metal screws, anchors, concrete screws, the list went on and on. Our job is to make products that are easy to install for all of our customs themselves without professionals. So what did we do? I remembered that story that my grandfather told me, and so we thought, "How many different screws can we put in the box? Was it going to be two, three, four, five? Because there's so many different wall types." So we thought about it, we optimized it, and we came up with three different screws to put in the box. We thought that was going to solve the problem. But it turned out, it didn't. So we shipped the product, and people weren't having a great experience. So what did we do? We went back to the drawing board just instantly after we figured out we didn't get it right. And we designed a special screw, a custom screw, much to the chagrin of our investors. They were like, "Why are you spending so much time on a little screw? Get out there and sell more!" And we said, "We will sell more if we get this right." And it turned out, we did. With that custom little screw, there was just one screw in the box, that was easy to mount and put on the wall. So if we focus on those tiny details, the ones we may not see and we look at them as we say, "Are those important or is that the way we've always done it? Maybe there's a way to get rid of those." So my last piece of advice is to think younger. Every day, I'm confronted with interesting questions from my three young kids. They come up with questions like, "Why can't cars fly around traffic?" Or, "Why don't my shoelaces have Velcro instead?" Sometimes, those questions are smart. My son came to me the other day and I asked him, "Go run out to the mailbox and check it." He looked at me, puzzled, and said, "Why doesn't the mailbox just check itself and tell us when it has mail?" (Laughter) I was like, "That's a pretty good question." So, they can ask tons of questions and sometimes we find out we just don't have the right answers. We say, "Son, that's just the way the world works." So the more we're exposed to something, the more we get used to it. But kids haven't been around long enough to get used to those things. And so when they run into problems, they immediately try to solve them, and sometimes they find a better way, and that way really is better. So my advice that we take to heart is to have young people on your team, or people with young minds. Because if you have those young minds, they cause everyone in the room to think younger. Picasso once said, "Every child is an artist. The problem is when he or she grows up, is how to remain an artist." We all saw the world more clearly when we saw it for the first time, before a lifetime of habits got in the way. Our challenge is to get back there, to feel that frustration, to see those little details, to look broader, look closer, and to think younger so we can stay beginners. It's not easy. It requires us pushing back against one of the most basic ways we make sense of the world. But if we do, we could do some pretty amazing things. For me, hopefully, that's better product design. For you, that could mean something else, something powerful. Our challenge is to wake up each day and say, "How can I experience the world better?" And if we do, maybe, just maybe, we can get rid of these dumb little stickers. Thank you very much. (Applause)
The writer George Eliot cautioned us that, among all forms of mistake, prophesy is the most gratuitous. The person that we would all acknowledge as her 20th-century counterpart, Yogi Berra, agreed. He said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." I'm going to ignore their cautions and make one very specific forecast. In the world that we are creating very quickly, we're going to see more and more things that look like science fiction, and fewer and fewer things that look like jobs. Our cars are very quickly going to start driving themselves, which means we're going to need fewer truck drivers. We're going to hook Siri up to Watson and use that to automate a lot of the work that's currently done by customer service reps and troubleshooters and diagnosers, and we're already taking R2D2, painting him orange, and putting him to work carrying shelves around warehouses, which means we need a lot fewer people to be walking up and down those aisles. Now, for about 200 years, people have been saying exactly what I'm telling you -- the age of technological unemployment is at hand — starting with the Luddites smashing looms in Britain just about two centuries ago, and they have been wrong. Our economies in the developed world have coasted along on something pretty close to full employment. Which brings up a critical question: Why is this time different, if it really is? The reason it's different is that, just in the past few years, our machines have started demonstrating skills they have never, ever had before: understanding, speaking, hearing, seeing, answering, writing, and they're still acquiring new skills. For example, mobile humanoid robots are still incredibly primitive, but the research arm of the Defense Department just launched a competition to have them do things like this, and if the track record is any guide, this competition is going to be successful. So when I look around, I think the day is not too far off at all when we're going to have androids doing a lot of the work that we are doing right now. And we're creating a world where there is going to be more and more technology and fewer and fewer jobs. It's a world that Erik Brynjolfsson and I are calling "the new machine age." The thing to keep in mind is that this is absolutely great news. This is the best economic news on the planet these days. Not that there's a lot of competition, right? This is the best economic news we have these days for two main reasons. The first is, technological progress is what allows us to continue this amazing recent run that we're on where output goes up over time, while at the same time, prices go down, and volume and quality just continue to explode. Now, some people look at this and talk about shallow materialism, but that's absolutely the wrong way to look at it. This is abundance, which is exactly what we want our economic system to provide. The second reason that the new machine age is such great news is that, once the androids start doing jobs, we don't have to do them anymore, and we get freed up from drudgery and toil. Now, when I talk about this with my friends in Cambridge and Silicon Valley, they say, "Fantastic. No more drudgery, no more toil. This gives us the chance to imagine an entirely different kind of society, a society where the creators and the discoverers and the performers and the innovators come together with their patrons and their financiers to talk about issues, entertain, enlighten, provoke each other." It's a society really, that looks a lot like the TED Conference. And there's actually a huge amount of truth here. We are seeing an amazing flourishing taking place. In a world where it is just about as easy to generate an object as it is to print a document, we have amazing new possibilities. The people who used to be craftsmen and hobbyists are now makers, and they're responsible for massive amounts of innovation. And artists who were formerly constrained can now do things that were never, ever possible for them before. So this is a time of great flourishing, and the more I look around, the more convinced I become that this quote, from the physicist Freeman Dyson, is not hyperbole at all. This is just a plain statement of the facts. We are in the middle of an astonishing period. ["Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God's gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences." — Freeman Dyson] Which brings up another great question: What could possibly go wrong in this new machine age? Right? Great, hang up, flourish, go home. We're going to face two really thorny sets of challenges as we head deeper into the future that we're creating. The first are economic, and they're really nicely summarized in an apocryphal story about a back-and-forth between Henry Ford II and Walter Reuther, who was the head of the auto workers union. They were touring one of the new modern factories, and Ford playfully turns to Reuther and says, "Hey Walter, how are you going to get these robots to pay union dues?" And Reuther shoots back, "Hey Henry, how are you going to get them to buy cars?" Reuther's problem in that anecdote is that it is tough to offer your labor to an economy that's full of machines, and we see this very clearly in the statistics. If you look over the past couple decades at the returns to capital -- in other words, corporate profits -- we see them going up, and we see that they're now at an all-time high. If we look at the returns to labor, in other words total wages paid out in the economy, we see them at an all-time low and heading very quickly in the opposite direction. So this is clearly bad news for Reuther. It looks like it might be great news for Ford, but it's actually not. If you want to sell huge volumes of somewhat expensive goods to people, you really want a large, stable, prosperous middle class. We have had one of those in America for just about the entire postwar period. But the middle class is clearly under huge threat right now. We all know a lot of the statistics, but just to repeat one of them, median income in America has actually gone down over the past 15 years, and we're in danger of getting trapped in some vicious cycle where inequality and polarization continue to go up over time. The societal challenges that come along with that kind of inequality deserve some attention. There are a set of societal challenges that I'm actually not that worried about, and they're captured by images like this. This is not the kind of societal problem that I am concerned about. There is no shortage of dystopian visions about what happens when our machines become self-aware, and they decide to rise up and coordinate attacks against us. I'm going to start worrying about those the day my computer becomes aware of my printer. (Laughter) (Applause) So this is not the set of challenges we really need to worry about. To tell you the kinds of societal challenges that are going to come up in the new machine age, I want to tell a story about two stereotypical American workers. And to make them really stereotypical, let's make them both white guys. And the first one is a college-educated professional, creative type, manager, engineer, doctor, lawyer, that kind of worker. We're going to call him "Ted." He's at the top of the American middle class. His counterpart is not college-educated and works as a laborer, works as a clerk, does low-level white collar or blue collar work in the economy. We're going to call that guy "Bill." And if you go back about 50 years, Bill and Ted were leading remarkably similar lives. For example, in 1960 they were both very likely to have full-time jobs, working at least 40 hours a week. But as the social researcher Charles Murray has documented, as we started to automate the economy, and 1960 is just about when computers started to be used by businesses, as we started to progressively inject technology and automation and digital stuff into the economy, the fortunes of Bill and Ted diverged a lot. Over this time frame, Ted has continued to hold a full-time job. Bill hasn't. In many cases, Bill has left the economy entirely, and Ted very rarely has. Over time, Ted's marriage has stayed quite happy. Bill's hasn't. And Ted's kids have grown up in a two-parent home, while Bill's absolutely have not over time. Other ways that Bill is dropping out of society? He's decreased his voting in presidential elections, and he's started to go to prison a lot more often. So I cannot tell a happy story about these social trends, and they don't show any signs of reversing themselves. They're also true no matter which ethnic group or demographic group we look at, and they're actually getting so severe that they're in danger of overwhelming even the amazing progress we made with the Civil Rights Movement. And what my friends in Silicon Valley and Cambridge are overlooking is that they're Ted. They're living these amazingly busy, productive lives, and they've got all the benefits to show from that, while Bill is leading a very different life. They're actually both proof of how right Voltaire was when he talked about the benefits of work, and the fact that it saves us from not one but three great evils. ["Work saves a man from three great evils: boredom, vice and need." — Voltaire] So with these challenges, what do we do about them? The economic playbook is surprisingly clear, surprisingly straightforward, in the short term especially. The robots are not going to take all of our jobs in the next year or two, so the classic Econ 101 playbook is going to work just fine: Encourage entrepreneurship, double down on infrastructure, and make sure we're turning out people from our educational system with the appropriate skills. But over the longer term, if we are moving into an economy that's heavy on technology and light on labor, and we are, then we have to consider some more radical interventions, for example, something like a guaranteed minimum income. Now, that's probably making some folk in this room uncomfortable, because that idea is associated with the extreme left wing and with fairly radical schemes for redistributing wealth. I did a little bit of research on this notion, and it might calm some folk down to know that the idea of a net guaranteed minimum income has been championed by those frothing-at-the-mouth socialists Friedrich Hayek, Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman. And if you find yourself worried that something like a guaranteed income is going to stifle our drive to succeed and make us kind of complacent, you might be interested to know that social mobility, one of the things we really pride ourselves on in the United States, is now lower than it is in the northern European countries that have these very generous social safety nets. So the economic playbook is actually pretty straightforward. The societal one is a lot more challenging. I don't know what the playbook is for getting Bill to engage and stay engaged throughout life. I do know that education is a huge part of it. I witnessed this firsthand. I was a Montessori kid for the first few years of my education, and what that education taught me is that the world is an interesting place and my job is to go explore it. The school stopped in third grade, so then I entered the public school system, and it felt like I had been sent to the Gulag. With the benefit of hindsight, I now know the job was to prepare me for life as a clerk or a laborer, but at the time it felt like the job was to kind of bore me into some submission with what was going on around me. We have to do better than this. We cannot keep turning out Bills. So we see some green shoots that things are getting better. We see technology deeply impacting education and engaging people, from our youngest learners up to our oldest ones. We see very prominent business voices telling us we need to rethink some of the things that we've been holding dear for a while. And we see very serious and sustained and data-driven efforts to understand how to intervene in some of the most troubled communities that we have. So the green shoots are out there. I don't want to pretend for a minute that what we have is going to be enough. We're facing very tough challenges. To give just one example, there are about five million Americans who have been unemployed for at least six months. We're not going to fix things for them by sending them back to Montessori. And my biggest worry is that we're creating a world where we're going to have glittering technologies embedded in kind of a shabby society and supported by an economy that generates inequality instead of opportunity. But I actually don't think that's what we're going to do. I think we're going to do something a lot better for one very straightforward reason: The facts are getting out there. The realities of this new machine age and the change in the economy are becoming more widely known. If we wanted to accelerate that process, we could do things like have our best economists and policymakers play "Jeopardy!" against Watson. We could send Congress on an autonomous car road trip. And if we do enough of these kinds of things, the awareness is going to sink in that things are going to be different. And then we're off to the races, because I don't believe for a second that we have forgotten how to solve tough challenges or that we have become too apathetic or hard-hearted to even try. I started my talk with quotes from wordsmiths who were separated by an ocean and a century. Let me end it with words from politicians who were similarly distant. Winston Churchill came to my home of MIT in 1949, and he said, "If we are to bring the broad masses of the people in every land to the table of abundance, it can only be by the tireless improvement of all of our means of technical production." Abraham Lincoln realized there was one other ingredient. He said, "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to give them the plain facts." So the optimistic note, great point that I want to leave you with is that the plain facts of the machine age are becoming clear, and I have every confidence that we're going to use them to chart a good course into the challenging, abundant economy that we're creating. Thank you very much. (Applause)
So you go to the doctor and get some tests. The doctor determines that you have high cholesterol and you would benefit from medication to treat it. So you get a pillbox. You have some confidence, your physician has some confidence that this is going to work. The company that invented it did a lot of studies, submitted it to the FDA. They studied it very carefully, skeptically, they approved it. They have a rough idea of how it works, they have a rough idea of what the side effects are. It should be OK. You have a little more of a conversation with your physician and the physician is a little worried because you've been blue, haven't felt like yourself, you haven't been able to enjoy things in life quite as much as you usually do. Your physician says, "You know, I think you have some depression. I'm going to have to give you another pill." So now we're talking about two medications. This pill also -- millions of people have taken it, the company did studies, the FDA looked at it -- all good. Think things should go OK. Think things should go OK. Well, wait a minute. How much have we studied these two together? Well, it's very hard to do that. In fact, it's not traditionally done. We totally depend on what we call "post-marketing surveillance," after the drugs hit the market. How can we figure out if bad things are happening between two medications? Three? Five? Seven? Ask your favorite person who has several diagnoses how many medications they're on. Why do I care about this problem? I care about it deeply. I'm an informatics and data science guy and really, in my opinion, the only hope -- only hope -- to understand these interactions is to leverage lots of different sources of data in order to figure out when drugs can be used together safely and when it's not so safe. So let me tell you a data science story. And it begins with my student Nick. Let's call him "Nick," because that's his name. (Laughter) Nick was a young student. I said, "You know, Nick, we have to understand how drugs work and how they work together and how they work separately, and we don't have a great understanding. But the FDA has made available an amazing database. It's a database of adverse events. They literally put on the web -- publicly available, you could all download it right now -- hundreds of thousands of adverse event reports from patients, doctors, companies, pharmacists. And these reports are pretty simple: it has all the diseases that the patient has, all the drugs that they're on, and all the adverse events, or side effects, that they experience. It is not all of the adverse events that are occurring in America today, but it's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of drugs. So I said to Nick, "Let's think about glucose. Glucose is very important, and we know it's involved with diabetes. Let's see if we can understand glucose response. I sent Nick off. Nick came back. "Russ," he said, "I've created a classifier that can look at the side effects of a drug based on looking at this database, and can tell you whether that drug is likely to change glucose or not." He did it. It was very simple, in a way. He took all the drugs that were known to change glucose and a bunch of drugs that don't change glucose, and said, "What's the difference in their side effects? Differences in fatigue? In appetite? In urination habits?" All those things conspired to give him a really good predictor. He said, "Russ, I can predict with 93 percent accuracy when a drug will change glucose." I said, "Nick, that's great." He's a young student, you have to build his confidence. "But Nick, there's a problem. It's that every physician in the world knows all the drugs that change glucose, because it's core to our practice. So it's great, good job, but not really that interesting, definitely not publishable." (Laughter) He said, "I know, Russ. I thought you might say that." Nick is smart. "I thought you might say that, so I did one other experiment. I looked at people in this database who were on two drugs, and I looked for signals similar, glucose-changing signals, for people taking two drugs, where each drug alone did not change glucose, but together I saw a strong signal." And I said, "Oh! You're clever. Good idea. Show me the list." And there's a bunch of drugs, not very exciting. But what caught my eye was, on the list there were two drugs: paroxetine, or Paxil, an antidepressant; and pravastatin, or Pravachol, a cholesterol medication. And I said, "Huh. There are millions of Americans on those two drugs." In fact, we learned later, 15 million Americans on paroxetine at the time, 15 million on pravastatin, and a million, we estimated, on both. So that's a million people who might be having some problems with their glucose if this machine-learning mumbo jumbo that he did in the FDA database actually holds up. But I said, "It's still not publishable, because I love what you did with the mumbo jumbo, with the machine learning, but it's not really standard-of-proof evidence that we have." So we have to do something else. Let's go into the Stanford electronic medical record. We have a copy of it that's OK for research, we removed identifying information. And I said, "Let's see if people on these two drugs have problems with their glucose." Now there are thousands and thousands of people in the Stanford medical records that take paroxetine and pravastatin. But we needed special patients. We needed patients who were on one of them and had a glucose measurement, then got the second one and had another glucose measurement, all within a reasonable period of time -- something like two months. And when we did that, we found 10 patients. However, eight out of the 10 had a bump in their glucose when they got the second P -- we call this P and P -- when they got the second P. Either one could be first, the second one comes up, glucose went up 20 milligrams per deciliter. Just as a reminder, you walk around normally, if you're not diabetic, with a glucose of around 90. And if it gets up to 120, 125, your doctor begins to think about a potential diagnosis of diabetes. So a 20 bump -- pretty significant. I said, "Nick, this is very cool. But, I'm sorry, we still don't have a paper, because this is 10 patients and -- give me a break -- it's not enough patients." So we said, what can we do? And we said, let's call our friends at Harvard and Vanderbilt, who also -- Harvard in Boston, Vanderbilt in Nashville, who also have electronic medical records similar to ours. Let's see if they can find similar patients with the one P, the other P, the glucose measurements in that range that we need. God bless them, Vanderbilt in one week found 40 such patients, same trend. Harvard found 100 patients, same trend. So at the end, we had 150 patients from three diverse medical centers that were telling us that patients getting these two drugs were having their glucose bump somewhat significantly. More interestingly, we had left out diabetics, because diabetics already have messed up glucose. When we looked at the glucose of diabetics, it was going up 60 milligrams per deciliter, not just 20. This was a big deal, and we said, "We've got to publish this." We submitted the paper. It was all data evidence, data from the FDA, data from Stanford, data from Vanderbilt, data from Harvard. We had not done a single real experiment. But we were nervous. So Nick, while the paper was in review, went to the lab. We found somebody who knew about lab stuff. I don't do that. I take care of patients, but I don't do pipettes. They taught us how to feed mice drugs. We took mice and we gave them one P, paroxetine. We gave some other mice pravastatin. And we gave a third group of mice both of them. And lo and behold, glucose went up 20 to 60 milligrams per deciliter in the mice. So the paper was accepted based on the informatics evidence alone, but we added a little note at the end, saying, oh by the way, if you give these to mice, it goes up. That was great, and the story could have ended there. But I still have six and a half minutes. (Laughter) So we were sitting around thinking about all of this, and I don't remember who thought of it, but somebody said, "I wonder if patients who are taking these two drugs are noticing side effects of hyperglycemia. They could and they should. How would we ever determine that?" We said, well, what do you do? You're taking a medication, one new medication or two, and you get a funny feeling. What do you do? You go to Google and type in the two drugs you're taking or the one drug you're taking, and you type in "side effects." What are you experiencing? So we said OK, let's ask Google if they will share their search logs with us, so that we can look at the search logs and see if patients are doing these kinds of searches. Google, I am sorry to say, denied our request. So I was bummed. I was at a dinner with a colleague who works at Microsoft Research and I said, "We wanted to do this study, Google said no, it's kind of a bummer." He said, "Well, we have the Bing searches." (Laughter) Yeah. That's great. Now I felt like I was -- (Laughter) I felt like I was talking to Nick again. He works for one of the largest companies in the world, and I'm already trying to make him feel better. But he said, "No, Russ -- you might not understand. We not only have Bing searches, but if you use Internet Explorer to do searches at Google, Yahoo, Bing, any ... Then, for 18 months, we keep that data for research purposes only." I said, "Now you're talking!" This was Eric Horvitz, my friend at Microsoft. So we did a study where we defined 50 words that a regular person might type in if they're having hyperglycemia, like "fatigue," "loss of appetite," "urinating a lot," "peeing a lot" -- forgive me, but that's one of the things you might type in. So we had 50 phrases that we called the "diabetes words." And we did first a baseline. And it turns out that about .5 to one percent of all searches on the Internet involve one of those words. So that's our baseline rate. If people type in "paroxetine" or "Paxil" -- those are synonyms -- and one of those words, the rate goes up to about two percent of diabetes-type words, if you already know that there's that "paroxetine" word. If it's "pravastatin," the rate goes up to about three percent from the baseline. If both "paroxetine" and "pravastatin" are present in the query, it goes up to 10 percent, a huge three- to four-fold increase in those searches with the two drugs that we were interested in, and diabetes-type words or hyperglycemia-type words. We published this, and it got some attention. The reason it deserves attention is that patients are telling us their side effects indirectly through their searches. We brought this to the attention of the FDA. They were interested. They have set up social media surveillance programs to collaborate with Microsoft, which had a nice infrastructure for doing this, and others, to look at Twitter feeds, to look at Facebook feeds, to look at search logs, to try to see early signs that drugs, either individually or together, are causing problems. What do I take from this? Why tell this story? Well, first of all, we have now the promise of big data and medium-sized data to help us understand drug interactions and really, fundamentally, drug actions. How do drugs work? This will create and has created a new ecosystem for understanding how drugs work and to optimize their use. Nick went on; he's a professor at Columbia now. He did this in his PhD for hundreds of pairs of drugs. He found several very important interactions, and so we replicated this and we showed that this is a way that really works for finding drug-drug interactions. However, there's a couple of things. We don't just use pairs of drugs at a time. As I said before, there are patients on three, five, seven, nine drugs. Have they been studied with respect to their nine-way interaction? Yes, we can do pair-wise, A and B, A and C, A and D, but what about A, B, C, D, E, F, G all together, being taken by the same patient, perhaps interacting with each other in ways that either makes them more effective or less effective or causes side effects that are unexpected? We really have no idea. It's a blue sky, open field for us to use data to try to understand the interaction of drugs. Two more lessons: I want you to think about the power that we were able to generate with the data from people who had volunteered their adverse reactions through their pharmacists, through themselves, through their doctors, the people who allowed the databases at Stanford, Harvard, Vanderbilt, to be used for research. People are worried about data. They're worried about their privacy and security -- they should be. We need secure systems. But we can't have a system that closes that data off, because it is too rich of a source of inspiration, innovation and discovery for new things in medicine. And the final thing I want to say is, in this case we found two drugs and it was a little bit of a sad story. The two drugs actually caused problems. They increased glucose. They could throw somebody into diabetes who would otherwise not be in diabetes, and so you would want to use the two drugs very carefully together, perhaps not together, make different choices when you're prescribing. But there was another possibility. We could have found two drugs or three drugs that were interacting in a beneficial way. We could have found new effects of drugs that neither of them has alone, but together, instead of causing a side effect, they could be a new and novel treatment for diseases that don't have treatments or where the treatments are not effective. If we think about drug treatment today, all the major breakthroughs -- for HIV, for tuberculosis, for depression, for diabetes -- it's always a cocktail of drugs. And so the upside here, and the subject for a different TED Talk on a different day, is how can we use the same data sources to find good effects of drugs in combination that will provide us new treatments, new insights into how drugs work and enable us to take care of our patients even better? Thank you very much. (Applause)
What does a working mother look like? If you ask the Internet, this is what you'll be told. Never mind that this is what you'll actually produce if you attempt to work at a computer with a baby on your lap. (Laughter) But no, this isn't a working mother. You'll notice a theme in these photos. We'll look at a lot of them. That theme is amazing natural lighting, which, as we all know, is the hallmark of every American workplace. There are thousands of images like these. Just put the term "working mother" into any Google image search engine, stock photo site. They're all over the Internet, they're topping blog posts and news pieces, and I've become kind of obsessed with them and the lie that they tell us and the comfort that they give us, that when it comes to new working motherhood in America, everything's fine. But it's not fine. As a country, we are sending millions of women back to work every year, incredibly and kind of horrifically soon after they give birth. That's a moral problem but today I'm also going to tell you why it's an economic problem. I got so annoyed and obsessed with the unreality of these images, which look nothing like my life, that I recently decided to shoot and star in a parody series of stock photos that I hoped the world would start to use just showing the really awkward reality of going back to work when your baby's food source is attached to your body. I'm just going to show you two of them. (Laughter) Nothing says "Give that girl a promotion" like leaking breast milk through your dress during a presentation. You'll notice that there's no baby in this photo, because that's not how this works, not for most working mothers. Did you know, and this will ruin your day, that every time a toilet is flushed, its contents are aerosolized and they'll stay airborne for hours? And yet, for many new working mothers, this is the only place during the day that they can find to make food for their newborn babies. I put these things, a whole dozen of them, into the world. I wanted to make a point. I didn't know what I was also doing was opening a door, because now, total strangers from all walks of life write to me all the time just to tell me what it's like for them to go back to work within days or weeks of having a baby. I'm going to share 10 of their stories with you today. They are totally real, some of them are very raw, and not one of them looks anything like this. Here's the first. "I was an active duty service member at a federal prison. I returned to work after the maximum allowed eight weeks for my C-section. A male coworker was annoyed that I had been out on 'vacation,' so he intentionally opened the door on me while I was pumping breast milk and stood in the doorway with inmates in the hallway." Most of the stories that these women, total strangers, send to me now, are not actually even about breastfeeding. A woman wrote to me to say, "I gave birth to twins and went back to work after seven unpaid weeks. Emotionally, I was a wreck. Physically, I had a severe hemorrhage during labor, and major tearing, so I could barely get up, sit or walk. My employer told me I wasn't allowed to use my available vacation days because it was budget season." I've come to believe that we can't look situations like these in the eye because then we'd be horrified, and if we get horrified then we have to do something about it. So we choose to look at, and believe, this image. I don't really know what's going on in this picture, because I find it weird and slightly creepy. (Laughter) Like, what is she doing? But I know what it tells us. It tells us that everything's fine. This working mother, all working mothers and all of their babies, are fine. There's nothing to see here. And anyway, women have made a choice, so none of it's even our problem. I want to break this choice thing down into two parts. The first choice says that women have chosen to work. So, that's not true. Today in America, women make up 47 percent of the workforce, and in 40 percent of American households a woman is the sole or primary breadwinner. Our paid work is a part, a huge part, of the engine of this economy, and it is essential for the engines of our families. On a national level, our paid work is not optional. Choice number two says that women are choosing to have babies, so women alone should bear the consequences of those choices. You know, that's one of those things that when you hear it in passing, can sound correct. I didn't make you have a baby. I certainly wasn't there when that happened. But that stance ignores a fundamental truth, which is that our procreation on a national scale is not optional. The babies that women, many of them working women, are having today, will one day fill our workforce, protect our shores, make up our tax base. Our procreation on a national scale is not optional. These aren't choices. We need women to work. We need working women to have babies. So we should make doing those things at the same time at least palatable, right? OK, this is pop quiz time: what percentage of working women in America do you think have no access to paid maternity leave? 88 percent. 88 percent of working mothers will not get one minute of paid leave after they have a baby. So now you're thinking about unpaid leave. It exists in America. It's called FMLA. It does not work. Because of the way it's structured, all kinds of exceptions, half of new mothers are ineligible for it. Here's what that looks like. "We adopted our son. When I got the call, the day he was born, I had to take off work. I had not been there long enough to qualify for FMLA, so I wasn't eligible for unpaid leave. When I took time off to meet my newborn son, I lost my job." These corporate stock photos hide another reality, another layer. Of those who do have access to just that unpaid leave, most women can't afford to take much of it at all. A nurse told me, "I didn't qualify for short-term disability because my pregnancy was considered a preexisting condition. We used up all of our tax returns and half of our savings during my six unpaid weeks. We just couldn't manage any longer. Physically it was hard, but emotionally it was worse. I struggled for months being away from my son." So this decision to go back to work so early, it's a rational economic decision driven by family finances, but it's often physically horrific because putting a human into the world is messy. A waitress told me, "With my first baby, I was back at work five weeks postpartum. With my second, I had to have major surgery after giving birth, so I waited until six weeks to go back. I had third degree tears." 23 percent of new working mothers in America will be back on the job within two weeks of giving birth. "I worked as a bartender and cook, average of 75 hours a week while pregnant. I had to return to work before my baby was a month old, working 60 hours a week. One of my coworkers was only able to afford 10 days off with her baby." Of course, this isn't just a scenario with economic and physical implications. Childbirth is, and always will be, an enormous psychological event. A teacher told me, "I returned to work eight weeks after my son was born. I already suffer from anxiety, but the panic attacks I had prior to returning to work were unbearable." Statistically speaking, the shorter a woman's leave after having a baby, the more likely she will be to suffer from postpartum mood disorders like depression and anxiety, and among many potential consequences of those disorders, suicide is the second most common cause of death in a woman's first year postpartum. Heads up that this next story -- I've never met this woman, but I find it hard to get through. "I feel tremendous grief and rage that I lost an essential, irreplaceable and formative time with my son. Labor and delivery left me feeling absolutely broken. For months, all I remember is the screaming: colic, they said. On the inside, I was drowning. Every morning, I asked myself how much longer I could do it. I was allowed to bring my baby to work. I closed my office door while I rocked and shushed and begged him to stop screaming so I wouldn't get in trouble. I hid behind that office door every damn day and cried while he screamed. I cried in the bathroom while I washed out the pump equipment. Every day, I cried all the way to work and all the way home again. I promised my boss that the work I didn't get done during the day, I'd make up at night from home. I thought, there's just something wrong with me that I can't swing this." So those are the mothers. What of the babies? As a country, do we care about the millions of babies born every year to working mothers? I say we don't, not until they're of working and tax-paying and military-serving age. We tell them we'll see them in 18 years, and getting there is kind of on them. One of the reasons I know this is that babies whose mothers have 12 or more weeks at home with them are more likely to get their vaccinations and their well checks in their first year, so those babies are more protected from deadly and disabling diseases. But those things are hidden behind images like this. America has a message for new mothers who work and for their babies. Whatever time you get together, you should be grateful for it, and you're an inconvenience to the economy and to your employers. That narrative of gratitude runs through a lot of the stories I hear. A woman told me, "I went back at eight weeks after my C-section because my husband was out of work. Without me, my daughter had failure to thrive. She wouldn't take a bottle. She started losing weight. Thankfully, my manager was very understanding. He let my mom bring my baby, who was on oxygen and a monitor, four times a shift so I could nurse her." There's a little club of countries in the world that offer no national paid leave to new mothers. Care to guess who they are? The first eight make up eight million in total population. They are Papua New Guinea, Suriname and the tiny island nations of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau and Tonga. Number nine is the United States of America, with 320 million people. Oh, that's it. That's the end of the list. Every other economy on the planet has found a way to make some level of national paid leave work for the people doing the work of the future of those countries, but we say, "We couldn't possibly do that." We say that the market will solve this problem, and then we cheer when corporations offer even more paid leave to the women who are already the highest-educated and highest-paid among us. Remember that 88 percent? Those middle- and low-income women are not going to participate in that. We know that there are staggering economic, financial, physical and emotional costs to this approach. We have decided -- decided, not an accident, to pass these costs directly on to working mothers and their babies. We know the price tag is higher for low-income women, therefore disproportionately for women of color. We pass them on anyway. All of this is to America's shame. But it's also to America's risk. Because what would happen if all of these individual so-called choices to have babies started to turn into individual choices not to have babies. One woman told me, "New motherhood is hard. It shouldn't be traumatic. When we talk about expanding our family now, we focus on how much time I would have to care for myself and a new baby. If we were to have to do it again the same way as with our first, we might stick with one kid." The birthrate needed in America to keep the population stable is 2.1 live births per woman. In America today, we are at 1.86. We need women to have babies, and we are actively disincentivizing working women from doing that. What would happen to work force, to innovation, to GDP, if one by one, the working mothers of this country were to decide that they can't bear to do this thing more than once? I'm here today with only one idea worth spreading, and you've guessed what it is. It is long since time for the most powerful country on Earth to offer national paid leave to the people doing the work of the future of this country and to the babies who represent that future. Childbirth is a public good. This leave should be state-subsidized. It should have no exceptions for small businesses, length of employment or entrepreneurs. It should be able to be shared between partners. I've talked today a lot about mothers, but co-parents matter on so many levels. Not one more woman should have to go back to work while she is hobbling and bleeding. Not one more family should have to drain their savings account to buy a few days of rest and recovery and bonding. Not one more fragile infant should have to go directly from the incubator to day care because his parents have used up all of their meager time sitting in the NICU. Not one more working family should be told that the collision of their work, their needed work and their needed parenthood, is their problem alone. The catch is that when this is happening to a new family, it is consuming, and a family with a new baby is more financially vulnerable than they've ever been before, so that new mother cannot afford to speak up on her own behalf. But all of us have voices. I am done, done having babies, and you might be pre-baby, you might be post-baby, you might be no baby. It should not matter. We have to stop framing this as a mother's issue, or even a women's issue. This is an American issue. We need to stop buying the lie that these images tell us. We need to stop being comforted by them. We need to question why we're told that this can't work when we see it work everywhere all over the world. We need to recognize that this American reality is to our dishonor and to our peril. Because this is not, this is not, and this is not what a working mother looks like. (Applause)
The Olympic motto is "Citius, Altius, Fortius." Faster, Higher, Stronger. And athletes have fulfilled that motto rapidly. The winner of the 2012 Olympic marathon ran two hours and eight minutes. Had he been racing against the winner of the 1904 Olympic marathon, he would have won by nearly an hour and a half. Now we all have this feeling that we're somehow just getting better as a human race, inexorably progressing, but it's not like we've evolved into a new species in a century. So what's going on here? I want to take a look at what's really behind this march of athletic progress. In 1936, Jesse Owens held the world record in the 100 meters. Had Jesse Owens been racing last year in the world championships of the 100 meters, when Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt finished, Owens would have still had 14 feet to go. That's a lot in sprinter land. To give you a sense of how much it is, I want to share with you a demonstration conceived by sports scientist Ross Tucker. Now picture the stadium last year at the world championships of the 100 meters: thousands of fans waiting with baited breath to see Usain Bolt, the fastest man in history; flashbulbs popping as the nine fastest men in the world coil themselves into their blocks. And I want you to pretend that Jesse Owens is in that race. Now close your eyes for a second and picture the race. Bang! The gun goes off. An American sprinter jumps out to the front. Usain Bolt starts to catch him. Usain Bolt passes him, and as the runners come to the finish, you'll hear a beep as each man crosses the line. (Beeps) That's the entire finish of the race. You can open your eyes now. That first beep was Usain Bolt. That last beep was Jesse Owens. Listen to it again. (Beeps) When you think of it like that, it's not that big a difference, is it? And then consider that Usain Bolt started by propelling himself out of blocks down a specially fabricated carpet designed to allow him to travel as fast as humanly possible. Jesse Owens, on the other hand, ran on cinders, the ash from burnt wood, and that soft surface stole far more energy from his legs as he ran. Rather than blocks, Jesse Owens had a gardening trowel that he had to use to dig holes in the cinders to start from. Biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints shows that had been running on the same surface as Bolt, he wouldn't have been 14 feet behind, he would have been within one stride. Rather than the last beep, Owens would have been the second beep. Listen to it again. (Beeps) That's the difference track surface technology has made, and it's done it throughout the running world. Consider a longer event. In 1954, Sir Roger Bannister became the first man to run under four minutes in the mile. Nowadays, college kids do that every year. On rare occasions, a high school kid does it. As of the end of last year, 1,314 men had run under four minutes in the mile, but like Jesse Owens, Sir Roger Bannister ran on soft cinders that stole far more energy from his legs than the synthetic tracks of today. So I consulted biomechanics experts to find out how much slower it is to run on cinders than synthetic tracks, and their consensus that it's one and a half percent slower. So if you apply a one and a half percent slowdown conversion to every man who ran his sub-four mile on a synthetic track, this is what happens. Only 530 are left. If you look at it from that perspective, fewer than ten new men per [year] have joined the sub-four mile club since Sir Roger Bannister. Now, 530 is a lot more than one, and that's partly because there are many more people training today and they're training more intelligently. Even college kids are professional in their training compared to Sir Roger Bannister, who trained for 45 minutes at a time while he ditched gynecology lectures in med school. And that guy who won the 1904 Olympic marathon in three in a half hours, that guy was drinking rat poison and brandy while he ran along the course. That was his idea of a performance-enhancing drug. (Laughter) Clearly, athletes have gotten more savvy about performance-enhancing drugs as well, and that's made a difference in some sports at some times, but technology has made a difference in all sports, from faster skis to lighter shoes. Take a look at the record for the 100-meter freestyle swim. The record is always trending downward, but it's punctuated by these steep cliffs. This first cliff, in 1956, is the introduction of the flip turn. Rather than stopping and turning around, athletes could somersault under the water and get going right away in the opposite direction. This second cliff, the introduction of gutters on the side of the pool that allows water to splash off, rather than becoming turbulence that impedes the swimmers as they race. This final cliff, the introduction of full-body and low-friction swimsuits. Throughout sports, technology has changed the face of performance. In 1972, Eddy Merckx set the record for the longest distance cycled in one hour at 30 miles, 3,774 feet. Now that record improved and improved as bicycles improved and became more aerodynamic all the way until 1996, when it was set at 35 miles, 1,531 feet, nearly five miles farther than Eddy Merckx cycled in 1972. But then in 2000, the International Cycling Union decreed that anyone who wanted to hold that record had to do so with essentially the same equipment that Eddy Merckx used in 1972. Where does the record stand today? 30 miles, 4,657 feet, a grand total of 883 feet farther than Eddy Merckx cycled more than four decades ago. Essentially the entire improvement in this record was due to technology. Still, technology isn't the only thing pushing athletes forward. While indeed we haven't evolved into a new species in a century, the gene pool within competitive sports most certainly has changed. In the early half of the 20th century, physical education instructors and coaches had the idea that the average body type was the best for all athletic endeavors: medium height, medium weight, no matter the sport. And this showed in athletes' bodies. In the 1920s, the average elite high-jumper and average elite shot-putter were the same exact size. But as that idea started to fade away, as sports scientists and coaches realized that rather than the average body type, you want highly specialized bodies that fit into certain athletic niches, a form of artificial selection took place, a self-sorting for bodies that fit certain sports, and athletes' bodies became more different from one another. Today, rather than the same size as the average elite high jumper, the average elite shot-putter is two and a half inches taller and 130 pounds heavier. And this happened throughout the sports world. In fact, if you plot on a height versus mass graph one data point for each of two dozen sports in the first half of the 20th century, it looks like this. There's some dispersal, but it's kind of grouped around that average body type. Then that idea started to go away, and at the same time, digital technology -- first radio, then television and the Internet -- gave millions, or in some cases billions, of people a ticket to consume elite sports performance. The financial incentives and fame and glory afforded elite athletes skyrocketed, and it tipped toward the tiny upper echelon of performance. It accelerated the artificial selection for specialized bodies. And if you plot a data point for these same two dozen sports today, it looks like this. The athletes' bodies have gotten much more different from one another. And because this chart looks like the charts that show the expanding universe, with the galaxies flying away from one another, the scientists who discovered it call it "The Big Bang of Body Types." In sports where height is prized, like basketball, the tall athletes got taller. In 1983, the National Basketball Association signed a groundbreaking agreement making players partners in the league, entitled to shares of ticket revenues and television contracts. Suddenly, anybody who could be an NBA player wanted to be, and teams started scouring the globe for the bodies that could help them win championships. Almost overnight, the proportion of men in the NBA who are at least seven feet tall doubled to 10 percent. Today, one in 10 men in the NBA is at least seven feet tall, but a seven-foot-tall man is incredibly rare in the general population -- so rare that if you know an American man between the ages of 20 and 40 who is at least seven feet tall, there's a 17 percent chance he's in the NBA right now. (Laughter) That is, find six honest seven footers, one is in the NBA right now. And that's not the only way that NBA players' bodies are unique. This is Leonardo da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man," the ideal proportions, with arm span equal to height. My arm span is exactly equal to my height. Yours is probably very nearly so. But not the average NBA player. The average NBA player is a shade under 6'7", with arms that are seven feet long. Not only are NBA players ridiculously tall, they are ludicrously long. Had Leonardo wanted to draw the Vitruvian NBA Player, he would have needed a rectangle and an ellipse, not a circle and a square. So in sports where large size is prized, the large athletes have gotten larger. Conversely, in sports where diminutive stature is an advantage, the small athletes got smaller. The average elite female gymnast shrunk from 5'3" to 4'9" on average over the last 30 years, all the better for their power-to-weight ratio and for spinning in the air. And while the large got larger and the small got smaller, the weird got weirder. The average length of the forearm of a water polo player in relation to their total arm got longer, all the better for a forceful throwing whip. And as the large got larger, small got smaller, and the weird weirder. In swimming, the ideal body type is a long torso and short legs. It's like the long hull of a canoe for speed over the water. And the opposite is advantageous in running. You want long legs and a short torso. And this shows in athletes' bodies today. Here you see Michael Phelps, the greatest swimmer in history, standing next to Hicham El Guerrouj, the world record holder in the mile. These men are seven inches different in height, but because of the body types advantaged in their sports, they wear the same length pants. Seven inches difference in height, these men have the same length legs. Now in some cases, the search for bodies that could push athletic performance forward ended up introducing into the competitive world populations of people that weren't previously competing at all, like Kenyan distance runners. We think of Kenyans as being great marathoners. Kenyans think of the Kalenjin tribe as being great marathoners. The Kalenjin make up just 12 percent of the Kenyan population but the vast majority of elite runners. And they happen, on average, to have a certain unique physiology: legs that are very long and very thin at their extremity, and this is because they have their ancestry at very low latitude in a very hot and dry climate, and an evolutionary adaptation to that is limbs that are very long and very thin at the extremity for cooling purposes. It's the same reason that a radiator has long coils, to increase surface area compared to volume to let heat out, and because the leg is like a pendulum, the longer and thinner it is at the extremity, the more energy-efficient it is to swing. To put Kalenjin running success in perspective, consider that 17 American men in history have run faster than two hours and 10 minutes in the marathon. That's a four-minute-and-58-second-per-mile pace. Thirty-two Kalenjin men did that last October. (Laughter) That's from a source population the size of metropolitan Atlanta. Still, even changing technology and the changing gene pool in sports don't account for all of the changes in performance. Athletes have a different mindset than they once did. Have you ever seen in a movie when someone gets an electrical shock and they're thrown across a room? There's no explosion there. What's happening when that happens is that the electrical impulse is causing all their muscle fibers to twitch at once, and they're throwing themselves across the room. They're essentially jumping. That's the power that's contained in the human body. But normally we can't access nearly all of it. Our brain acts as a limiter, preventing us from accessing all of our physical resources, because we might hurt ourselves, tearing tendons or ligaments. But the more we learn about how that limiter functions, the more we learn how we can push it back just a bit, in some cases by convincing the brain that the body won't be in mortal danger by pushing harder. Endurance and ultra-endurance sports serve as a great example. Ultra-endurance was once thought to be harmful to human health, but now we realize that we have all these traits that are perfect for ultra-endurance: no body fur and a glut of sweat glands that keep us cool while running; narrow waists and long legs compared to our frames; large surface area of joints for shock absorption. We have an arch in our foot that acts like a spring, short toes that are better for pushing off than for grasping tree limbs, and when we run, we can turn our torso and our shoulders like this while keeping our heads straight. Our primate cousins can't do that. They have to run like this. And we have big old butt muscles that keep us upright while running. Have you ever looked at an ape's butt? They have no buns because they don't run upright. And as athletes have realized that we're perfectly suited for ultra-endurance, they've taken on feats that would have been unthinkable before, athletes like Spanish endurance racer Kílian Jornet. Here's Kílian running up the Matterhorn. (Laughter) With a sweatshirt there tied around his waist. It's so steep he can't even run here. He's pulling up on a rope. This is a vertical ascent of more than 8,000 feet, and Kílian went up and down in under three hours. Amazing. And talented though he is, Kílian is not a physiological freak. Now that he has done this, other athletes will follow, just as other athletes followed after Sir Roger Bannister ran under four minutes in the mile. Changing technology, changing genes, and a changing mindset. Innovation in sports, whether that's new track surfaces or new swimming techniques, the democratization of sport, the spread to new bodies and to new populations around the world, and imagination in sport, an understanding of what the human body is truly capable of, have conspired to make athletes stronger, faster, bolder, and better than ever. Thank you very much. (Applause)
My name is Harry Baker. Harry Baker is my name. If your name was Harry Baker, then our names would be the same. (Laughter) It's a short introductory part. Yeah, I'm Harry. I study maths. I write poetry. So I thought I'd start with a love poem about prime numbers. (Laughter) This is called "59." I was going to call it "Prime Time Loving." That reaction is why I didn't. (Laughter) So, "59." 59 wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. Realizes all his hair is on one side of his head. Takes just under a minute to work out that it’s because of the way that he slept. He finds some clothes and gets dressed. He can’t help but look in the mirror and be subtly impressed How he looks rough around the edges and yet casually messed. And as he glances out the window, he sees the sight that he gets blessed with of 60 from across the street. Now 60 was beautiful. With perfectly trimmed cuticles, dressed in something suitable. Never rude or crude at all. Unimprovable, right on time as usual, more on cue than a snooker ball but liked to play it super cool. 59 wanted to tell her that he knew her favorite flower. He thought of her every second, every minute, every hour. But he knew it wouldn’t work, he’d never get the girl. Because although she lived across the street they came from different worlds. While 59 admired 60’s perfectly round figure, 60 thought 59 was odd. (Laughter) One of his favorite films was "101 Dalmatians." She preferred the sequel. He romanticized the idea they were star-crossed lovers. They could overcome the odds and evens because they had each other. While she maintained the strict views imposed on her by her mother That separate could not be equal. And though at the time he felt stupid and dumb For trying to love a girl controlled by her stupid mum, He should have been comforted by the simple sum. Take 59 away from 60, and you’re left with the one. Sure enough after two months of moping around, 61 days later, 61 was who he found, He had lost his keys and his parents were out. So one day after school he went into a house As he noticed the slightly wonky numbers on the door, He wondered why he’d never introduced himself before, As she let him in, his jaw dropped in awe. 61 was like 60, but a little bit more. (Laughter) She had prettier eyes, and an approachable smile, And like him, rough around the edges, casual style, And like him, everything was in disorganized piles, And like him, her mum didn’t mind if friends stayed a while. Because she was like him, and he liked her. He reckoned she would like him if she knew he was like her, And it was different this time. I mean, this girl was wicked, So he plucked up the courage and asked for her digits. She said, "I'm 61." He grinned, said, "I'm 59." Today I’ve had a really nice time, So tomorrow if you wanted you could come over to mine? She said, "Sure." She loved talking to someone just as quirky, She agreed to this unofficial first date. In the end he was only ready one minute early, But it didn’t matter because she arrived one minute late. And from that moment on there was nonstop chatter, How they loved "X Factor," how they had two factors, How that did not matter, distinctiveness made them better, By the end of the night they knew they were meant together. And one day she was talking about stuck-up 60, She noticed that 59 looked a bit shifty. He blushed, told her of his crush: “The best thing that never happened because it led to us.” 61 was clever, see, not prone to jealousy, She looked him in the eyes and told him quite tenderly, "You’re 59, I’m 61, together we combine to become twice what 60 could ever be." (Laughter) At this point 59 had tears in his eyes, Was so glad to have this one-of-a-kind girl in his life. He told her the very definition of being prime Was that with only one and himself could his heart divide, And she was the one he wanted to give his heart to, She said she felt the same and now she knew the films were half true. Because that wasn't real love, that love was just a sample, When it came to real love, they were a prime example. Cheers. (Applause) That was the first poem that I wrote and it was for a prime number-themed poetry night -- (Laughter) -- which turned out to be a prime number-themed poetry competition. And I became a prime number-themed poetry competition winner, or as I like to call it, a prime minister. (Laughter) And this is how I discovered these things called poetry slams, and if you don't know what a poetry slam is, it was a format come up with in America 30 years ago as a way of tricking people into going to poetry events by putting an exciting word like "slam" on the end. (Laughter) And each performer got three minutes to perform and then random audience members would hold up scorecards, and they would end up with a numerical score, and what this meant is, it kind of broke down the barrier between performer and audience and encouraged the kind of connection with the listener. And what it also means is you can win. And if you win a poetry slam, you can call yourself a slam champion and pretend you're a wrestler, and if you lose a poetry slam you can say, "Oh, what? Poetry's a subjective art form, you can't put numbers on such things." (Laughter) But I loved it, and I got involved in these slams, and I became the U.K. slam champion and got invited to the Poetry World Cup in Paris, which was unbelievable. It was people from all around the world speaking in their native languages to be judged by five French strangers. (Laughter) And somehow, I won, which was great, and I've been able to travel the world since doing it, but it also means that this next piece is technically the best poem in the world. (Laughter) So... (Applause) According to five French strangers. So this is "Paper People." I like people. I'd like some paper people. They’d be purple paper people. Maybe pop-up purple paper people. Proper pop-up purple paper people. "How do you prop up pop-up purple paper people?" I hear you cry. Well I ... I’d probably prop up proper pop-up purple paper people with a proper pop-up purple people paperclip, but I’d pre-prepare appropriate adhesives as alternatives, a cheeky pack of Blu Tack just in case the paper slipped. Because I could build a pop-up metropolis. but I wouldn’t wanna deal with all the paper people politics. paper politicians with their paper-thin policies, broken promises without appropriate apologies. There’d be a little paper me. And a little paper you. And we could watch paper TV and it would all be pay-per-view. (Laughter) We’d see the poppy paper rappers rap about their paper package or watch paper people carriers get stuck in paper traffic on the A4. (Laughter) Paper. There’d be a paper princess Kate but we’d all stare at paper Pippa, and then we’d all live in fear of killer Jack the Paper-Ripper, because the paper propaganda propagates the people's prejudices, papers printing pictures of the photogenic terrorists. A little paper me. And a little paper you. And in a pop-up population people’s problems pop up too. There’d be a pompous paper parliament who remained out of touch, and who ignored the people's protests about all the paper cuts, then the peaceful paper protests would get blown to paper pieces, by the confetti cannons manned by pre-emptive police. And yes there’d still be paper money, so there’d still be paper greed, and the paper piggy bankers pocketing more than they need, purchasing the potpourri to pepper their paper properties, others live in poverty and ain’t acknowledged properly. A proper poor economy where so many are proper poor, but while their needs are ignored the money goes to big wars. Origami armies unfold plans for paper planes and we remain imprisoned in our own paper chains, but the greater shame is that it always seems to stay the same, what changes is who’s in power choosing how to lay the blame, they’re naming names, forgetting these are names of people, because in the end it all comes down to people. I like people. 'Cause even when the situation’s dire, it is only ever people who are able to inspire, and on paper, it’s hard to see how we all cope. But in the bottom of Pandora’s box there’s still hope, and I still hope 'cause I believe in people. People like my grandparents. Who every single day since I was born, have taken time out of their morning to pray for me. That’s 7892 days straight of someone checking I’m okay, and that’s amazing. People like my aunt who puts on plays with prisoners. People who are capable of genuine forgiveness. People like the persecuted Palestinians. People who go out of their way to make your life better, and expect nothing in return. You see, people have potential to be powerful. Just because the people in power tend to pretend to be victims we don’t need to succumb to that system. And a paper population is no different. There’s a little paper me. And a little paper you. And in a pop-up population people's problems pop up too, but even if the whole world fell apart then we’d still make it through. Because we’re people. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you very much. I've just got time for one more. For me, poetry has been the ultimate way of ideas without frontiers. When I first started, the people who inspired me were the ones with the amazing stories, and I thought, as an 18-year-old with a happy life, it was too normal, but I could create these worlds where I could talk about my experiences and dreams and beliefs. So it's amazing to be here in front of you today. Thank you for being here. If you weren't here, it would be pretty much like the sound check yesterday. (Laughter) And this is more fun. So this last one is called "The Sunshine Kid." Thank you very much for listening. Old man sunshine was proud of his sun, And it brightened his day to see his little boy run, Not because of what he’d done, nor the problems overcome, But that despite that his disposition remained a sunny one. It hadn’t always been like this. There’d been times when he’d tried to hide his brightness, You see, every star hits periods of hardship, It takes a brighter light to inspire them through the darkness. If we go back to when he was born in a nebula, We know that he never was thought of as regular, Because he had a flair about him, To say the Midas touch is wrong But all he went near seemed to turn a little bronze, Yes this sun was loved by some more than others, It was a case of Joseph and his dreamcoat and his brothers Because standing out from the crowd had its pros and its cons, And jealousy created enemies in those he outshone Such as the Shadow People. Now the Shadow People didn’t like the Sunshine Kid, Because he showed up the dark things the Shadow People did, And when he shone he showed the places where the Shadow People hid, So the Shadow People had an evil plan to get rid of him, First up -- they made fun of his sunspots, Shooting his dreams from the sky, their words were gunshots, Designed to remind him he wasn’t very cool And he didn’t fit in with any popular kids at school. They said his head was up in space and they would bring him down to Earth, Essentially he came from nothing and that is what he was worth, He’d never get to go to university to learn, Only degrees he’d ever show would be the first degree burns From those that came too close, they told him he was too bright, That’s why no one ever looked him in the eyes, His judgment became clouded So did the sky, With evaporated tears as the sun started to cry. Because the sunshine kid was bright, with a warm personality, And inside he burned savagely Hurt by the words and curses of the shadowy folk who spoke holes in his soul and left cavities, And as his heart hardened, his spark darkened, Every time they called him names it cooled his flames, He thought they might like him if he kept his light dim But they were busy telling lightning she had terrible aim, He couldn’t quite get to grips with what they said, So he let his light be eclipsed by what they said, He fell into a Lone Star State like Texas, And felt like he’d been punched in his solar plexus. But that’s when Little Miss Sunshine came along Singing her favorite song about how we’re made to be strong, And you don’t have to be wrong to belong, Just be true to who you are, because we are all stars at heart. Little Miss Sunshine was hot stuff, The kind of girl when you looked at her you forgot stuff, But for him, there was no forgetting her, The minute he saw her her image burned in his retina, She was out of this world, and she accepted him, Something about this girl meant he knew whenever she was next to him, Things weren’t as dark as they seemed, and he dared to dream, Shadows were nowhere to be seen; when she was there he beamed, His eyes would light up in ways that can’t be faked, When she grinned her rays erased the razor-tipped words of hate, They gave each other nicknames, they were "cool star" and "fun sun," And gradually the shadowy damage became undone, She was one in a septillion, and she was brilliant, Could turn the coldest blooded reptilians vermillion, Loved by billions, from Chileans to Brazilians, And taught the Sunshine Kid the meaning of resilience. She said: “All the darkness in the world cannot put out the light from a single candle So how the hell can they handle your light? Only you can choose to dim it, and the sky is the limit, so silence the critics by burning.” And if eyes are windows to the soul then she drew back the curtains And let the sun shine through the hurting. In a universe of adversity these stars stuck together, And though days became nights the memories would last forever, Whether the weatherman said it or not, it would be fine, 'Cause even behind the clouds the kid could still shine. Yes, the Sunshine Kid was bright, with a warm personality, And inside he burned savagely, Fueled by the fire inspired across galaxies By the girl who showed him belief. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Thousands of years from now, we'll look back at the first century of computing as a fascinating but very peculiar time -- the only time in history where humans were reduced to live in 2D space, interacting with technology as if we were machines; a singular, 100-year period in the vastness of time where humans communicated, were entertained and managed their lives from behind a screen. Today, we spend most of our time tapping and looking at screens. What happened to interacting with each other? I don't know about you, but I feel limited inside this 2D world of monitors and pixels. And it is this very limitation and my desire to connect with people that inspires me as a creator. Put simply: I want to create a new reality, a reality where technology brings us infinitely closer to each other, a reality where people, not devices, are the center of everything. I dream of a reality where technology senses what we see, touch and feel; a reality where technology no longer gets in our way, but instead embraces who we are. I dream of technology on a human path. We have all experienced technology that enables people to act more like people, products that enable natural interactions, voice controls or biometrics. This is the next step in the evolution. This is Microsoft HoloLens, the first fully untethered holographic computer. Devices like this will bring 3D holographic content right into our world, enhancing the way we experience life beyond our ordinary range of perceptions. Now, I'm not thinking about a distant future. I'm talking about today. We are already seeing car companies like Volvo designing cars differently with HoloLens; universities like Case Western redefining the way medical students learn; and my personal favorite, NASA is using HoloLens to let scientists explore planets holographically. Now, this is important. By bringing holograms into our world, I'm not just talking about a new device or a better computer. I'm talking about freeing ourselves from the 2D confines of traditional computing. Put it this way: temporally adjusted, we're like cave people in computer terms. We've barely discovered charcoal and started drawing the first stick figures in our cave. Now, this is the perspective I apply to my work every single day. And now for the next few minutes, I invite all of you to apply the same perspective to the journey ahead of us. Now, as I put this HoloLens on, let me explain the setup a little bit. It's probably the most risky demo we have ever done on any stage with HoloLens, and I can't think of a better place to do it than here at TED. Momentarily, I am going to be seeing holograms right on this stage, just as clearly as I can see all of you. Now at the same time, we have also this special camera that just walked in onstage so that all of you can share in this experience with me up on all the monitors. So let's start our journey. And what better place to begin our journey, than in the computer cave of 2D. Let's explore the world all around us with this new lens, and understand the computer world from a brand new perspective. The computer universe is both marvelous and primitive. It's a universe based on causality. As developers, we dream the different causes and then we program the different effects. Double click on an icon, that's a cause. Open an application, that's an effect. Now when we compare this to our physical universe, it is overly constraining, because our universe is not digital. Our universe is analog. Our universe doesn't think in terms of zero or one, true or false, or black or white. We exist in a world governed by quantum physics, a universe of zero and one both at the same time, a reality based on infinite probabilities and shades of gray. You can see how these two worlds collide. So why are screens so pervasive in our analog life? We see screens from the moment we wake up, to the moment we fall asleep. Why? I think it's because computers give us superpowers. Within the digital universe, we have the power to displace space and the power to displace time. It doesn't matter if you're using technology for entertainment, productivity or communication. Think of it this way: let's all go home tonight and watch our favorite show on television. This is theater -- time and space displaced. As soon as I'm done with this TED Talk, I'm going to immediately call my lovely family in Seattle. That's displacement of space. Now, these are such great superpowers that we put up with the two-dimensional limitations of our current digital world. But what if we didn't have to? What if we could have these same digital powers in our world? You can already see glimmers of this, but I believe our children's children will grow up in a world devoid of 2D technology. It's remarkable to dream of this world, a world where technology truly understands us -- where we live, work and communicate -- with tools that enhance the human experience, not machines that limit our humanity. So how do we get there? For me, the answer required looking at the problem from a different perspective. It required sensing the world from the perspective of a machine. If you're a machine trying to sense our world, how would you actually break the problem down? You'd probably try to classify things as a human, an environment or an object. But how would that machine then interact with reality? And I can think of three ways. First, as a machine, I would observe or I would input reality. Speech recognition and biometric authentication are great examples of a machine interacting with humans from an input perspective. Secondly, as a machine, I could place digital information, or output information, into reality. Holograms are examples of a machine interacting with an environment from an output perspective. Finally, as a machine, I could exchange energy with the world via haptics. Now, imagine being able to feel the temperature of a virtual object, or better yet, imagine pushing a hologram and having it push you back with equal force. With this perspective, we are able to collapse reality into a simple matrix. Now here's a secret: as an engineer, I get really excited anytime I can reduce something to the matrix. From self-driving cars to smartphones to this holographic computer on my head, machines are becoming capable of understanding our world. And they are starting to interact with us in significantly more personal ways. Now, imagine having granular control over everything in the world. Move the dial one way, and you get reality. Move the dial the other way, and you get virtual reality. Now, imagine dialing your entire environment between virtual and real worlds. I love it down here. Now, imagine if I could look at all of you and dial from real humans into elves. When technology truly understands our world, it will again transform the ways we interact, the ways we work and the ways we play. Less than half a century ago, two courageous men landed on the moon, using computers that were less powerful than the phones in your pockets. Six hundred million humans watched them on grainy, black-and-white televisions. And the world? The world was mesmerized. Now imagine how our children and their children will experience the continued exploration of space with technology that understands this world. We already live in a world where real-time universal translators exist. And I can squint, and I can already see holographic telepresence in our near future. In fact, since we've been lucky with our demo so far, let's try doing something else even more crazy. I invite you to experience, for the first time anywhere in the world, here on the TED stage, a real-life holographic teleportation, between me and my friend, Dr. Jeffrey Norris, from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Finger crossed. Hi, Jeff. Jeff Norris: Hey, Alex. Alex Kipman: Phew! That worked. How are you doing today, Jeff? (Applause) JN: Doing great. I had an awesome week. AK: So, can you tell us a little bit, Jeff, about where you are? JN: Well, I'm actually in three places. I'm standing in a room across the street, while I'm standing on this stage with you, while I'm standing on Mars, a hundred million miles away. AK: Wow, a hundred million miles away. This is crazy! Can you tell us a little bit more about where all this data from Mars is coming from? JN: Absolutely. This is a precise holographic replica of Mars, built from data captured by the Curiosity Mars Rover, that I can explore as easily as a place on Earth. Humans are natural explorers. We can instantly understand an environment, just by being present in it. We've built tools like our Mars Rover to extend our vision and lengthen our reach. But for decades, we've explored from a seat behind screens and keyboards. Now, we're leaping over all of that, over the giant antennas and the relay satellites and the vastness between worlds to take our first steps on this landscape as if we were truly there. Today, a group of scientists on our mission are seeing Mars as never before -- an alien world made a little more familiar, because they're finally exploring it as humans should. But our dreams don't have to end with making it just like being there. When we dial this real world to the virtual, we can do magical things. We can see in invisible wavelengths or teleport to the top of a mountain. Perhaps someday, we'll feel the minerals in a rock just by touching it. We're taking the first steps. But we want the whole world to join us in taking the next, because this is not a journey for a few, but for all of us. AK: Thank you Jeff, this was amazing. Thank you so much for joining us on the TED stage today. (Applause) JN: Thank you Alex, bye bye. AK: Bye, Jeff. (Applause) I dream about this future every single day. I take inspiration from our ancestors. We used to live in tribes where we interacted, communicated and worked together. We are all beginning to build technology that will enable us to return to the humanity that brought us where we are today -- technology that will let us stop living inside this 2D world of monitors and pixels, and let us start remembering what it feels like to live in our 3D world. It's a phenomenal time to be human. Thank you. (Applause) Helen Walters: Thanks so much. I have some questions. AK: OK. HW: So there's been some talk in the press. And I'll just ask you straight, then we have a straight answer. There's been talk about the difference between the demos and the reality of the commercial product. Talk about this field of view issue. Is this type of experience what someone who buys the product will get? AK: It's a great question, Or, said better, this is a question we've been receiving in the media for possibly the last year. If you do your research, I haven't answered that question. I've purposely ignored it, because ultimately, it's the wrong question to ask. That's the equivalent of me showing holograms to someone for the first time, and you then saying, "What's the size of your television?" The field of view for the product is almost irrelevant. What we should be talking about is the density of lights, or radiance, that shows up. Better said, what the angular resolution is of the things that you see. So from that perspective, what you saw -- you know, the camera is wearing a HoloLens. So even if I wanted to cheat, I can't. HW: But the camera has a different lens on it than our eye. Right? AK: The camera has a fish-eye lens on it. It's seeing a much wider view than the human eye is. So if you think about the points of light that show up radially from the vision of the camera, which is the thing that matters: how many points of light can I get in a given volume? That's the same as I get on this HoloLens as I will on that one. Now, this camera sees a much wider view of the world, right? HW: Jesus Christ! (Laughter) AK: He did show up! I told you he'd show up. Come this way. (Laughter) HW: Oh, shit. AK: And there's holographic Jeff Norris. HW: I knew something was happening, but I really wasn't sure what. AK: So in short: to be super crisp, the camera that you see on the screen has a wider field of view than the human eye. But the angular resolution of the holograms that you see, the points of light per unit of area, are actually the same. HW: So you spent -- Jeff, I'll get to you in a minute -- so you spent a lot of time mapping the stage -- AK: That's right. HW: So help me out here: if I buy a HoloLens and have it at home, I don't need to map my apartment, right? AK: The HoloLens maps in real time at about five frames per second, with this technology that we call spatial mapping. So in your home, as soon as you put it on, holograms will start showing up, and you'll start placing them and they'll start learning your home. In a stage environment where we're trying to get something on my head to communicate with something over there with all of the wireless connectivity that usually brings all conferences down, we don't take the risk of trying to do this live. So what we do is pre-map the stage at five frames per second with the same spatial-mapping technology that you'll use with the product at home, and then we store it, so that when there's shenanigans of wireless in an environment like this, between the camera's HoloLens and the one on my head, we don't have things disappear. Because ultimately, the holograms are coming from this HoloLens, and that one is just viewing the HoloLens. So if I lose connectivity, you would stop seeing beautiful things on the screen. HW: And it was beautiful. Um ... Jeff? JN: Yes? HW: Hi. AK: I'll take a step back. HW: So Jeff, you were on Mars, you were here, you were in a room across the street. Tell me more about the fact that, with holograms, you have sight but you don't have touch, you don't have smell. Is this scientifically useful now? That's my question for a hologram. JN: Thanks for the question. Absolutely, I believe that these technologies are scientifically useful right now, and that's why we're using them in multiple parts of our work at NASA. So we're using it to improve the ways that we explore Mars. We're also using it for our astronauts on the space station. We're even using it now to design the next generation of our spacecraft. HW: Amazing. OK, Jeff, please go away. Thank you very much. (Laughter) Alex, really, that was amazing. Thank you so much. AK: Thank you. HW: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)
Being a child, and sort of crawling around the house, I remember these Turkish carpets, and there were these scenes, these battle scenes, these love scenes. I mean, look, this animal is trying to fight back this spear from this soldier. And my mom took these pictures actually, last week, of our carpets, and I remember this to this day. There was another object, this sort of towering piece of furniture with creatures and gargoyles and nudity -- pretty scary stuff, when you're a little kid. What I remember today from this is that objects tell stories, so storytelling has been a really strong influence in my work. And then there was another influence. I was a teenager, and at 15 or 16, I guess like all teenagers, we want to just do what we love and what we believe in. And so, I fused together the two things I loved the most, which was skiing and windsurfing. Those are pretty good escapes from the drab weather in Switzerland. So, I created this compilation of the two: I took my skis and I took a board and I put a mast foot in there, and some foot straps, and some metal fins, and here I was, going really fast on frozen lakes. It was really a death trap. I mean, it was incredible, it worked incredibly well, but it was really dangerous. And I realized then I had to go to design school. (Laughter) I mean, look at those graphics there. (Laughter) So, I went to design school, and it was the early '90s when I finished. And I saw something extraordinary happening in Silicon Valley, so I wanted to be there, and I saw that the computer was coming into our homes, that it had to change in order to be with us in our homes. And so I got myself a job and I was working for a consultancy, and we would get in to these meetings, and these managers would come in, and they would say, "Well, what we're going to do here is really important, you know." And they would give the projects code names, you know, mostly from "Star Wars," actually: things like C3PO, Yoda, Luke. So, in anticipation, I would be this young designer in the back of the room, and I would raise my hand, and I would ask questions. I mean, in retrospect, probably stupid questions, but things like, "What's this Caps Lock key for?" or "What's this Num Lock key for?" You know, that thing? "You know, do people really use it? Do they need it? Do they want it in their homes?" (Laughter) What I realized then is, they didn't really want to change the legacy stuff; they didn't want to change the insides. They were really looking for us, the designers, to create the skins, to put some pretty stuff outside of the box. And I didn't want to be a colorist. It wasn't what I wanted to do. I didn't want to be a stylist in this way. And then I saw this quote: "advertising is the price companies pay for being unoriginal." (Laughter) So, I had to start on my own. So I moved to San Francisco, and I started a little company, fuseproject. And what I wanted to work on is important stuff. And I wanted to really not just work on the skins, but I wanted to work on the entire human experience. And so the first projects were sort of humble, but they took technology and maybe made it into things that people would use in a new way, and maybe finding some new functionality. This is a watch we made for Mini Cooper, the car company, right when it launched, and it's the first watch that has a display that switches from horizontal to vertical. And that allows me to check my timer discretely, here, without bending my elbow. And other projects, which were really about transformation, about matching the human need. This is a little piece of furniture for an Italian manufacturer, and it ships completely flat, and then it folds into a coffee table and a stool and whatnot. And something a little bit more experimental: this is a light fixture for Swarovski, and what it does is, it changes shape. So, it goes from a circle, to a round, to a square, to a figure eight. And just by drawing on a little computer tablet, the entire light fixture adjusts to what shape you want. And then finally, the leaf lamp for Herman Miller. This is a pretty involved process; it took us about four and a half years. But I really was looking for creating a unique experience of light, a new experience of light. So, we had to design both the light and the light bulb. And that's a unique opportunity, I would say, in design. And the new experience I was looking for is giving the choice for the user to go from a warm, sort of glowing kind of mood light, all the way to a bright work light. So, the light bulb actually does that. It allows the person to switch, and to mix these two colorations. And it's done in a very simple way: one just touches the base of the light, and on one side, you can mix the brightness, and on the other, the coloration of the light. So, all of these projects have a humanistic sense to them, and I think as designers we need to really think about how we can create a different relationship between our work and the world, whether it's for business, or, as I'm going to show, on some civic-type projects. Because I think everybody agrees that as designers we bring value to business, value to the users also, but I think it's the values that we put into these projects that ultimately create the greater value. And the values we bring can be about environmental issues, about sustainability, about lower power consumption. You know, they can be about function and beauty; they can be about business strategy. But designers are really the glue that brings these things together. So Jawbone is a project that you're familiar with, and it has a humanistic technology. It feels your skin. It rests on your skin, and it knows when it is you're talking. And by knowing when it is you're talking, it gets rid of the other noises that it knows about, which is the environmental noises. But the other thing that is humanistic about Jawbone is that we really decided to take out all the techie stuff, and all the nerdy stuff out of it, and try to make it as beautiful as we can. I mean, think about it: the care we take in selecting sunglasses, or jewelry, or accessories is really important, so if it isn't beautiful, it really doesn't belong on your face. And this is what we're pursuing here. But how we work on Jawbone is really unique. I want to point at something here, on the left. This is the board, this is one of the things that goes inside that makes this technology work. But this is the design process: there's somebody changing the board, putting tracers on the board, changing the location of the ICs, as the designers on the other side are doing the work. So, it's not about slapping skins, anymore, on a technology. It's really about designing from the inside out. And then, on the other side of the room, the designers are making small adjustments, sketching, drawing by hand, putting it in the computer. And it's what I call being design driven. You know, there is some push and pull, but design is really helping define the whole experience from the inside out. And then, of course, design is never done. And this is -- the other new way that is unique in how we work is, because it's never done, you have to do all this other stuff. The packaging, and the website, and you need to continue to really touch the user, in many ways. But how do you retain somebody, when it's never done? And Hosain Rahman, the CEO of Aliph Jawbone, you know, really understands that you need a different structure. So, in a way, the different structure is that we're partners, it's a partnership. We can continue to work and dedicate ourselves to this project, and then we also share in the rewards. And here's another project, another partnership-type approach. This is called Y Water, and it's this guy from Los Angeles, Thomas Arndt, Austrian originally, who came to us, and all he wanted to do was to create a healthy drink, or an organic drink for his kids, to replace the high-sugar-content sodas that he's trying to get them away from. So, we worked on this bottle, and it's completely symmetrical in every dimension. And this allows the bottle to turn into a game. The bottles connect together, and you can create different shapes, different forms. (Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) And then while we were doing this, the shape of the bottle upside down reminded us of a Y, and then we thought, well these words, "why" and "why not," are probably the most important words that kids ask. So we called it Y Water. And so this is another place where it all comes together in the same room: the three-dimensional design, the ideas, the branding, it all becomes deeply connected. And then the other thing about this project is, we bring intellectual property, we bring a marketing approach, we bring all this stuff, but I think, at the end of the day, what we bring is these values, and these values create a soul for the companies we work with. And it's especially rewarding when your design work becomes a creative endeavor, when others can be creative and do more with it. Here's another project, which I think really emulates that. This is the One Laptop per Child, the $100 laptop. This picture is incredible. In Nigeria, people carry their most precious belongings on their heads. This girl is going to school with a laptop on her head. I mean, to me, it just means so much. But when Nicholas Negroponte -- and he has spoken about this project a lot, he's the founder of OLPC -- came to us about two and a half years ago, there were some clear ideas. He wanted to bring education and he wanted to bring technology, and those are pillars of his life, but also pillars of the mission of One Laptop per Child. But the third pillar that he talked about was design. And at the time, I wasn't really working on computers. I didn't really want to, from the previous adventure. But what he said was really significant, is that design was going to be why the kids were going to love this product, how we were going to make it low cost, robust. And plus, he said he was going to get rid of the Caps Lock key -- (Laughter) -- and the Num Lock key, too. So, I was convinced. We designed it to be iconic, to look different. To look like it's for a kid, but not like a toy. And then the integration of all these great technologies, which you've heard about, the Wi-Fi antennas that allow the kids to connect; the screen, which you can read in sunlight; the keyboard, which is made out of rubber, and it's protected from the environment. You know, all these great technologies really happened because of the passion and the OLPC people and the engineers. They fought the suppliers, they fought the manufacturers. I mean, they fought like animals for this to remain they way it is. And in a way, it is that will that makes projects like this one -- allows the process from not destroying the original idea. And I think this is something really important. So, now you get these pictures -- you get up in the morning, and you see the kids in Nigeria and you see them in Uruguay with their computers, and in Mongolia. And we went away from obviously the beige. I mean it's colorful, it's fun. In fact, you can see each logo is a little bit different. It's because we were able to run, during the manufacturing process, 20 colors for the X and the O, which is the name of the computer, and by mixing them on the manufacturing floor, you get 20 times 20: you get 400 different options there. So, the lessons from seeing the kids using them in the developing world are incredible. But this is my nephew, Anthony, in Switzerland, and he had the laptop for an afternoon, and I had to take it back. It was hard. (Laughter) And it was a prototype. And a month and a half later, I come back to Switzerland, and there he is playing with his own version. (Laughter) Like paper, paper and cardboard. So, I'm going to finish with one last project, and this is a little bit more of adult play. (Laughter) Some of you might have heard about the New York City condom. It's actually just launched, actually launched on Valentine's Day, February 14, about 10 days ago. So, the Department of Health in New York came to us, and they needed a way to distribute 36 million condoms for free to the citizens of New York. So a pretty big endeavor, and we worked on the dispensers. These are the dispensers. There's this friendly shape. It's a little bit like designing a fire hydrant, and it has to be easily serviceable: you have to know where it is and what it does. And we also designed the condoms themselves. And I was just in New York at the launch, and I went to see all these places where they're installed: this is at a Puerto Rican little mom-and-pop store; at a bar in Christopher Street; at a pool hall. I mean, they're being installed in homeless clinics -- everywhere. Of course, clubs and discos, too. And here's the public service announcement for this project. (Music) (Laughter) Get some. (Applause) So, this is really where design is able to create a conversation. I was in these venues, and people were, you know, really into getting them. They were excited. It was breaking the ice, it was getting over a stigma, and I think that's also what design can do. So, I was going to throw some condoms in the room and whatnot, but I'm not sure it's the etiquette here. (Laughter) Yeah? All right, all right. I have only a few. (Laughter) (Applause) So, I have more, you can always ask me for some more later. (Laughter) And if anybody asks why you're carrying a condom, you can just say you like the design. (Laughter) So, I'll finish with just one thought: if we all work together on creating value, but if we really keep in mind the values of the work that we do, I think we can change the work that we do. We can change these values, can change the companies we work with, and eventually, together, maybe we can change the world. So, thank you. (Applause)
Fifty years ago, when I began exploring the ocean, no one -- not Jacques Perrin, not Jacques Cousteau or Rachel Carson -- imagined that we could do anything to harm the ocean by what we put into it or by what we took out of it. It seemed, at that time, to be a sea of Eden, but now we know, and now we are facing paradise lost. I want to share with you my personal view of changes in the sea that affect all of us, and to consider why it matters that in 50 years, we've lost -- actually, we've taken, we've eaten -- more than 90 percent of the big fish in the sea; why you should care that nearly half of the coral reefs have disappeared; why a mysterious depletion of oxygen in large areas of the Pacific should concern not only the creatures that are dying, but it really should concern you. It does concern you, as well. I'm haunted by the thought of what Ray Anderson calls "tomorrow's child," asking why we didn't do something on our watch to save sharks and bluefin tuna and squids and coral reefs and the living ocean while there still was time. Well, now is that time. I hope for your help to explore and protect the wild ocean in ways that will restore the health and, in so doing, secure hope for humankind. Health to the ocean means health for us. And I hope Jill Tarter's wish to engage Earthlings includes dolphins and whales and other sea creatures in this quest to find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. And I hope, Jill, that someday we will find evidence that there is intelligent life among humans on this planet. (Laughter) Did I say that? I guess I did. For me, as a scientist, it all began in 1953 when I first tried scuba. It's when I first got to know fish swimming in something other than lemon slices and butter. I actually love diving at night; you see a lot of fish then that you don't see in the daytime. Diving day and night was really easy for me in 1970, when I led a team of aquanauts living underwater for weeks at a time -- at the same time that astronauts were putting their footprints on the moon. In 1979 I had a chance to put my footprints on the ocean floor while using this personal submersible called Jim. It was six miles offshore and 1,250 feet down. It's one of my favorite bathing suits. Since then, I've used about 30 kinds of submarines and I've started three companies and a nonprofit foundation called Deep Search to design and build systems to access the deep sea. I led a five-year National Geographic expedition, the Sustainable Seas expeditions, using these little subs. They're so simple to drive that even a scientist can do it. And I'm living proof. Astronauts and aquanauts alike really appreciate the importance of air, food, water, temperature -- all the things you need to stay alive in space or under the sea. I heard astronaut Joe Allen explain how he had to learn everything he could about his life support system and then do everything he could to take care of his life support system; and then he pointed to this and he said, "Life support system." We need to learn everything we can about it and do everything we can to take care of it. The poet Auden said, "Thousands have lived without love; none without water." Ninety-seven percent of Earth's water is ocean. No blue, no green. If you think the ocean isn't important, imagine Earth without it. Mars comes to mind. No ocean, no life support system. I gave a talk not so long ago at the World Bank and I showed this amazing image of Earth and I said, "There it is! The World Bank!" That's where all the assets are! And we've been trawling them down much faster than the natural systems can replenish them. Tim Worth says the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment. With every drop of water you drink, every breath you take, you're connected to the sea. No matter where on Earth you live. Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere is generated by the sea. Over time, most of the planet's organic carbon has been absorbed and stored there, mostly by microbes. The ocean drives climate and weather, stabilizes temperature, shapes Earth's chemistry. Water from the sea forms clouds that return to the land and the seas as rain, sleet and snow, and provides home for about 97 percent of life in the world, maybe in the universe. No water, no life; no blue, no green. Yet we have this idea, we humans, that the Earth -- all of it: the oceans, the skies -- are so vast and so resilient it doesn't matter what we do to it. That may have been true 10,000 years ago, and maybe even 1,000 years ago but in the last 100, especially in the last 50, we've drawn down the assets, the air, the water, the wildlife that make our lives possible. New technologies are helping us to understand the nature of nature; the nature of what's happening, showing us our impact on the Earth. I mean, first you have to know that you've got a problem. And fortunately, in our time, we've learned more about the problems than in all preceding history. And with knowing comes caring. And with caring, there's hope that we can find an enduring place for ourselves within the natural systems that support us. But first we have to know. Three years ago, I met John Hanke, who's the head of Google Earth, and I told him how much I loved being able to hold the world in my hands and go exploring vicariously. But I asked him: "When are you going to finish it? You did a great job with the land, the dirt. What about the water?" Since then, I've had the great pleasure of working with the Googlers, with DOER Marine, with National Geographic, with dozens of the best institutions and scientists around the world, ones that we could enlist, to put the ocean in Google Earth. And as of just this week, last Monday, Google Earth is now whole. Consider this: Starting right here at the convention center, we can find the nearby aquarium, we can look at where we're sitting, and then we can cruise up the coast to the big aquarium, the ocean, and California's four national marine sanctuaries, and the new network of state marine reserves that are beginning to protect and restore some of the assets We can flit over to Hawaii and see the real Hawaiian Islands: not just the little bit that pokes through the surface, but also what's below. To see -- wait a minute, we can go kshhplash! -- right there, ha -- under the ocean, see what the whales see. We can go explore the other side of the Hawaiian Islands. We can go actually and swim around on Google Earth and visit with humpback whales. These are the gentle giants that I've had the pleasure of meeting face to face many times underwater. There's nothing quite like being personally inspected by a whale. We can pick up and fly to the deepest place: seven miles down, the Mariana Trench, where only two people have ever been. Imagine that. It's only seven miles, but only two people have been there, 49 years ago. One-way trips are easy. We need new deep-diving submarines. How about some X Prizes for ocean exploration? We need to see deep trenches, the undersea mountains, and understand life in the deep sea. We can now go to the Arctic. Just ten years ago I stood on the ice at the North Pole. An ice-free Arctic Ocean may happen in this century. That's bad news for the polar bears. That's bad news for us too. Excess carbon dioxide is not only driving global warming, it's also changing ocean chemistry, making the sea more acidic. That's bad news for coral reefs and oxygen-producing plankton. Also it's bad news for us. We're putting hundreds of millions of tons of plastic and other trash into the sea. Millions of tons of discarded fishing nets, gear that continues to kill. We're clogging the ocean, poisoning the planet's circulatory system, and we're taking out hundreds of millions of tons of wildlife, all carbon-based units. Barbarically, we're killing sharks for shark fin soup, undermining food chains that shape planetary chemistry and drive the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the oxygen cycle, the water cycle -- our life support system. We're still killing bluefin tuna; truly endangered and much more valuable alive than dead. All of these parts are part of our life support system. We kill using long lines, with baited hooks every few feet that may stretch for 50 miles or more. Industrial trawlers and draggers are scraping the sea floor like bulldozers, taking everything in their path. Using Google Earth you can witness trawlers -- in China, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico -- shaking the foundation of our life support system, leaving plumes of death in their path. The next time you dine on sushi -- or sashimi, or swordfish steak, or shrimp cocktail, whatever wildlife you happen to enjoy from the ocean -- think of the real cost. For every pound that goes to market, more than 10 pounds, even 100 pounds, may be thrown away as bycatch. This is the consequence of not knowing that there are limits to what we can take out of the sea. This chart shows the decline in ocean wildlife from 1900 to 2000. The highest concentrations are in red. In my lifetime, imagine, 90 percent of the big fish have been killed. Most of the turtles, sharks, tunas and whales are way down in numbers. But, there is good news. Ten percent of the big fish still remain. There are still some blue whales. There are still some krill in Antarctica. There are a few oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Half the coral reefs are still in pretty good shape, a jeweled belt around the middle of the planet. There's still time, but not a lot, to turn things around. But business as usual means that in 50 years, there may be no coral reefs -- and no commercial fishing, because the fish will simply be gone. Imagine the ocean without fish. Imagine what that means to our life support system. Natural systems on the land are in big trouble too, but the problems are more obvious, and some actions are being taken to protect trees, watersheds and wildlife. And in 1872, with Yellowstone National Park, the United States began establishing a system of parks that some say was the best idea America ever had. About 12 percent of the land around the world is now protected: safeguarding biodiversity, providing a carbon sink, generating oxygen, protecting watersheds. And, in 1972, this nation began to establish a counterpart in the sea, National Marine Sanctuaries. That's another great idea. The good news is that there are now more than 4,000 places in the sea, around the world, that have some kind of protection. And you can find them on Google Earth. The bad news is that you have to look hard to find them. In the last three years, for example, the U.S. protected 340,000 square miles of ocean as national monuments. But it only increased from 0.6 of one percent to 0.8 of one percent of the ocean protected, globally. Protected areas do rebound, but it takes a long time to restore 50-year-old rockfish or monkfish, sharks or sea bass, or 200-year-old orange roughy. We don't consume 200-year-old cows or chickens. Protected areas provide hope that the creatures of Ed Wilson's dream of an encyclopedia of life, or the census of marine life, will live not just as a list, a photograph, or a paragraph. With scientists around the world, I've been looking at the 99 percent of the ocean that is open to fishing -- and mining, and drilling, and dumping, and whatever -- to search out hope spots, and try to find ways to give them and us a secure future. Such as the Arctic -- we have one chance, right now, to get it right. Or the Antarctic, where the continent is protected, but the surrounding ocean is being stripped of its krill, whales and fish. Sargasso Sea's three million square miles of floating forest is being gathered up to feed cows. 97 percent of the land in the Galapagos Islands is protected, but the adjacent sea is being ravaged by fishing. It's true too in Argentina on the Patagonian shelf, which is now in serious trouble. The high seas, where whales, tuna and dolphins travel -- the largest, least protected, ecosystem on Earth, filled with luminous creatures, living in dark waters that average two miles deep. They flash, and sparkle, and glow with their own living light. There are still places in the sea as pristine as I knew as a child. The next 10 years may be the most important, and the next 10,000 years the best chance our species will have to protect what remains of the natural systems that give us life. To cope with climate change, we need new ways to generate power. We need new ways, better ways, to cope with poverty, wars and disease. We need many things to keep and maintain the world as a better place. But, nothing else will matter if we fail to protect the ocean. Our fate and the ocean's are one. We need to do for the ocean what Al Gore did for the skies above. A global plan of action with a world conservation union, the IUCN, is underway to protect biodiversity, to mitigate and recover from the impacts of climate change, on the high seas and in coastal areas, wherever we can identify critical places. New technologies are needed to map, photograph and explore the 95 percent of the ocean that we have yet to see. The goal is to protect biodiversity, to provide stability and resilience. We need deep-diving subs, new technologies to explore the ocean. We need, maybe, an expedition -- a TED at sea -- that could help figure out the next steps. And so, I suppose you want to know what my wish is. I wish you would use all means at your disposal -- films, expeditions, the web, new submarines -- and campaign to ignite public support for a global network of marine protected areas -- hope spots large enough to save and restore the ocean, the blue heart of the planet. How much? Some say 10 percent, some say 30 percent. You decide: how much of your heart do you want to protect? Whatever it is, a fraction of one percent is not enough. My wish is a big wish, but if we can make it happen, it can truly change the world, and help ensure the survival of what actually -- as it turns out -- is my favorite species; that would be us. For the children of today, for tomorrow's child: as never again, now is the time. Thank you. (Applause)
I heard this amazing story about Miuccia Prada. She's an Italian fashion designer. She goes to this vintage store in Paris with a friend of hers. She's rooting around, she finds this one jacket by Balenciaga -- she loves it. She's turning it inside out. She's looking at the seams. She's looking at the construction. Her friend says, "Buy it already." She said, "I'll buy it, but I'm also going to replicate it." Now, the academics in this audience may think, "Well, that sounds like plagiarism." But to a fashionista, what it really is is a sign of Prada's genius: that she can root through the history of fashion and pick the one jacket that doesn't need to be changed by one iota, and to be current and to be now. You might also be asking whether it's possible that this is illegal for her to do this. Well, it turns out that it's actually not illegal. In the fashion industry, there's very little intellectual property protection. They have trademark protection, but no copyright protection and no patent protection to speak of. All they have, really, is trademark protection, and so it means that anybody could copy any garment on any person in this room and sell it as their own design. The only thing that they can't copy is the actual trademark label within that piece of apparel. That's one reason that you see logos splattered all over these products. It's because it's a lot harder for knock-off artists to knock off these designs because they can't knock off the logo. But if you go to Santee Alley, yeah. (Laughter) Well, yeah. Canal Street, I know. And sometimes these are fun, right? Now, the reason for this, the reason that the fashion industry doesn't have any copyright protection is because the courts decided long ago that apparel is too utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection. They didn't want a handful of designers owning the seminal building blocks of our clothing. And then everybody else would have to license this cuff or this sleeve because Joe Blow owns it. But too utilitarian? I mean is that the way you think of fashion? This is Vivienne Westwood. No! We think of it as maybe too silly, too unnecessary. Now, those of you who are familiar with the logic behind copyright protection -- which is that without ownership, there is no incentive to innovate -- might be really surprised by both the critical success of the fashion industry and the economic success of this industry. What I'm going to argue today is that because there's no copyright protection in the fashion industry, fashion designers have actually been able to elevate utilitarian design, things to cover our naked bodies, into something that we consider art. Because there's no copyright protection in this industry, there's a very open and creative ecology of creativity. Unlike their creative brothers and sisters, who are sculptors or photographers or filmmakers or musicians, fashion designers can sample from all their peers' designs. They can take any element from any garment from the history of fashion and incorporate it into their own design. They're also notorious for riffing off of the zeitgeist. And here, I suspect, they were influenced by the costumes in Avatar. Maybe just a little. Can't copyright a costume either. Now, fashion designers have the broadest palette imaginable in this creative industry. This wedding dress here is actually made of sporks, and this dress is actually made of aluminum. I've heard this dress actually sort of sounds like wind chimes as they walk through. So, one of the magical side effects of having a culture of copying, which is really what it is, is the establishment of trends. People think this is a magical thing. How does it happen? Well, it's because it's legal for people to copy one another. Some people believe that there are a few people at the top of the fashion food chain who sort of dictate to us what we're all going to wear, but if you talk to any designer at any level, including these high-end designers, they always say their main inspiration comes from the street: where people like you and me remix and match our own fashion looks. And that's where they really get a lot of their creative inspiration, so it's both a top-down and a bottom-up kind of industry. Now, the fast fashion giants have probably benefited the most from the lack of copyright protection in the fashion industry. They are notorious for knocking off high-end designs and selling them at very low prices. And they've been faced with a lot of lawsuits, but those lawsuits are usually not won by fashion designers. The courts have said over and over again, "You don't need any more intellectual property protection." When you look at copies like this, you wonder: How do the luxury high-end brands remain in business? If you can get it for 200 bucks, why pay a thousand? Well, that's one reason we had a conference here at USC a few years ago. We invited Tom Ford to come -- the conference was called, "Ready to Share: Fashion and the Ownership of Creativity" -- and we asked him exactly this question. Here's what he had to say. He had just come off a successful stint as the lead designer at Gucci, in case you didn't know. Tom Ford: And we found after much research that -- actually not much research, quite simple research -- that the counterfeit customer was not our customer. Johanna Blakley: Imagine that. The people on Santee Alley are not the ones who shop at Gucci. (Laughter) This is a very different demographic. And, you know, a knock-off is never the same as an original high-end design, at least in terms of the materials; they're always made of cheaper materials. But even sometimes a cheaper version can actually have some charming aspects, can breathe a little extra life into a dying trend. There's lots of virtues of copying. One that a lot of cultural critics have pointed to is that we now have a much broader palette of design choices to choose from than we ever have before, and this is mainly because of the fast fashion industry, actually. And this is a good thing. We need lots of options. Fashion, whether you like it or not, helps you project who you are to the world. Because of fast fashion, global trends actually get established much more quickly than they used to. And this, actually, is good news to trendsetters; they want trends to be set so that they can move product. For fashionistas, they want to stay ahead of the curve. They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing. And so, they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible. I tell you, there is no rest for the fashionable. Every season, these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love. And this, let me tell you, is very good for the bottom line. Now of course, there's a bunch of effects that this culture of copying has on the creative process. And Stuart Weitzman is a very successful shoe designer. He has complained a lot about people copying him, but in one interview I read, he said it has really forced him to up his game. He had to come up with new ideas, new things that would be hard to copy. He came up with this Bowden-wedge heel that has to be made out of steel or titanium; if you make it from some sort of cheaper material, it'll actually crack in two. It forced him to be a little more innovative. (Music) And that actually reminded me of jazz great, Charlie Parker. I don't know if you've heard this anecdote, but I have. He said that one of the reasons he invented bebop was that he was pretty sure that white musicians wouldn't be able to replicate the sound. (Laughter) He wanted to make it too difficult to copy, and that's what fashion designers are doing all the time. They're trying to put together a signature look, an aesthetic that reflects who they are. When people knock it off, everybody knows because they've put that look out on the runway, and it's a coherent aesthetic. I love these Gallianos. Okay, we'll move on. (Laughter) This is not unlike the world of comedy. I don't know if you know that jokes also can't be copyright protected. So when one-liners were really popular, everybody stole them from one another. But now, we have a different kind of comic. They develop a persona, a signature style, much like fashion designers. And their jokes, much like the fashion designs by a fashion designer, really only work within that aesthetic. If somebody steals a joke from Larry David, for instance, it's not as funny. Now, the other thing that fashion designers have done to survive in this culture of copying is they've learned how to copy themselves. They knock themselves off. They make deals with the fast fashion giants and they come up with a way to sell their product to a whole new demographic: the Santee Alley demographic. Now, some fashion designers will say, "It's only in the United States that we don't have any respect. In other countries there is protection for our artful designs." But if you take a look at the two other biggest markets in the world, it turns out that the protection that's offered is really ineffectual. In Japan, for instance, which I think is the third largest market, they have a design law; it protects apparel, but the novelty standard is so high, you have to prove that your garment has never existed before, it's totally unique. And that's sort of like the novelty standard for a U.S. patent, which fashion designers never get -- rarely get here in the states. In the European Union, they went in the other direction. Very low novelty standard, anybody can register anything. But even though it's the home of the fast fashion industry and you have a lot of luxury designers there, they don't register their garments, generally, and there's not a lot of litigation. It turns out it's because the novelty standard is too low. A person can come in and take somebody else's gown, cut off three inches from the bottom, go to the E.U. and register it as a new, original design. So, that does not stop the knock-off artists. If you look at the registry, actually, a lot of the registered things in the E.U. are Nike T-shirts that are almost identical to one another. But this has not stopped Diane von Furstenberg. She is the head of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, and she has told her constituency that she is going to get copyright protection for fashion designs. The retailers have kind of quashed this notion though. I don't think the legislation is going anywhere, because they realized it is so hard to tell the difference between a pirated design and something that's just part of a global trend. Who owns a look? That is a very difficult question to answer. It takes lots of lawyers and lots of court time, and the retailers decided that would be way too expensive. You know, it's not just the fashion industry that doesn't have copyright protection. There's a bunch of other industries that don't have copyright protection, including the food industry. You cannot copyright a recipe because it's a set of instructions, it's fact, and you cannot copyright the look and feel of even the most unique dish. Same with automobiles. It doesn't matter how wacky they look or how cool they look, you cannot copyright the sculptural design. It's a utilitarian article, that's why. Same with furniture, it's too utilitarian. Magic tricks, I think they're instructions, sort of like recipes: no copyright protection. Hairdos, no copyright protection. Open source software, these guys decided they didn't want copyright protection. They thought it'd be more innovative without it. It's really hard to get copyright for databases. Tattoo artists, they don't want it; it's not cool. They share their designs. Jokes, no copyright protection. Fireworks displays, the rules of games, the smell of perfume: no. And some of these industries may seem sort of marginal to you, but these are the gross sales for low I.P. industries, industries with very little copyright protection, and there's the gross sales of films and books. (Applause) It ain't pretty. (Applause) So you talk to people in the fashion industry and they're like, "Shhh! Don't tell anybody we can actually steal from each other's designs. It's embarrassing." But you know what? It's revolutionary, and it's a model that a lot of other industries -- like the ones we just saw with the really small bars -- they might have to think about this. Because right now, those industries with a lot of copyright protection are operating in an atmosphere where it's as if they don't have any protection, and they don't know what to do. When I found out that there are a whole bunch of industries that didn't have copyright protection, I thought, "What exactly is the underlying logic? I want a picture." And the lawyers do not provide a picture, so I made one. These are the two main sort of binary oppositions within the logic of copyright law. It is more complex than this, but this will do. First: Is something an artistic object? Then it deserves protection. Is it a utilitarian object? Then no, it does not deserve protection. This is a difficult, unstable binary. The other one is: Is it an idea? Is it something that needs to freely circulate in a free society? No protection. Or is it a physically fixed expression of an idea: something that somebody made and they deserve to own it for a while and make money from it? The problem is that digital technology has completely subverted the logic of this physically fixed, expression versus idea concept. Nowadays, we don't really recognize a book as something that sits on our shelf or music as something that is a physical object that we can hold. It's a digital file. It is barely tethered to any sort of physical reality in our minds. And these things, because we can copy and transmit them so easily, actually circulate within our culture a lot more like ideas than like physically instantiated objects. Now, the conceptual issues are truly profound when you talk about creativity and ownership and, let me tell you, we don't want to leave this just to lawyers to figure out. They're smart. I'm with one. He's my boyfriend, he's okay. He's smart, he's smart. But you want an interdisciplinary team of people hashing this out, trying to figure out: What is the kind of ownership model, in a digital world, that's going to lead to the most innovation? And my suggestion is that fashion might be a really good place to start looking for a model for creative industries in the future. If you want more information about this research project, please visit our website: it's ReadyToShare.org. And I really want to thank Veronica Jauriqui for making this very fashionable presentation. Thank you so much. (Applause)
There's actually a major health crisis today in terms of the shortage of organs. The fact is that we're living longer. Medicine has done a much better job of making us live longer, and the problem is, as we age, our organs tend to fail more, and so currently there are not enough organs to go around. In fact, in the last 10 years, the number of patients requiring an organ has doubled, while in the same time, the actual number of transplants has barely gone up. So this is now a public health crisis. So that's where this field comes in that we call the field of regenerative medicine. It really involves many different areas. You can use, actually, scaffolds, biomaterials -- they're like the piece of your blouse or your shirt -- but specific materials you can actually implant in patients and they will do well and help you regenerate. Or we can use cells alone, either your very own cells or different stem cell populations. Or we can use both. We can use, actually, biomaterials and the cells together. And that's where the field is today. But it's actually not a new field. Interestingly, this is a book that was published back in 1938. It's titled "The Culture of Organs." The first author, Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Prize winner. He actually devised some of the same technologies used today for suturing blood vessels, and some of the blood vessel grafts we use today were actually designed by Alexis. But I want you to note his co-author: Charles Lindbergh. That's the same Charles Lindbergh who actually spent the rest of his life working with Alexis at the Rockefeller Institute in New York in the area of the culture of organs. So if the field's been around for so long, why so few clinical advances? And that really has to do to many different challenges. But if I were to point to three challenges, the first one is actually the design of materials that could go in your body and do well over time. And many advances now, we can do that fairly readily. The second challenge was cells. We could not get enough of your cells to grow outside of your body. Over the last 20 years, we've basically tackled that. Many scientists can now grow many different types of cells. Plus we have stem cells. But even now, 2011, there's still certain cells that we just can't grow from the patient. Liver cells, nerve cells, pancreatic cells -- we still can't grow them even today. And the third challenge is vascularity, the actual supply of blood to allow those organs or tissues to survive once we regenerate them. So we can actually use biomaterials now. This is actually a biomaterial. We can weave them, knit them, or we can make them like you see here. This is actually like a cotton candy machine. You saw the spray going in. That was like the fibers of the cotton candy creating this structure, this tubularized structure, which is a biomaterial that we can then use to help your body regenerate using your very own cells to do so. And that's exactly what we did here. This is actually a patient who [was] presented with a deceased organ, and we then created one of these smart biomaterials, and then we then used that smart biomaterial to replace and repair that patient's structure. What we did was we actually used the biomaterial as a bridge so that the cells in the organ could walk on that bridge, if you will, and help to bridge the gap to regenerate that tissue. And you see that patient now six months after with an X-ray showing you the regenerated tissue, which is fully regenerated when you analyze it under the microscope. We can also use cells alone. These are actually cells that we obtained. These are stem cells that we create from specific sources, and we can drive them to become heart cells, and they start beating in culture. So they know what to do. The cells genetically know what to do, and they start beating together. Now today, many clinical trials are using different kinds of stem cells for heart disease. So that's actually now in patients. Or if we're going to use larger structures to replace larger structures, we can then use the patient's own cells, or some cell population, and the biomaterials, the scaffolds, together. So the concept here: so if you do have a deceased or injured organ, we take a very small piece of that tissue, less than half the size of a postage stamp. We then tease the cells apart, we grow the cells outside the body. We then take a scaffold, a biomaterial -- again, looks very much like a piece of your blouse or your shirt -- we then shape that material, and we then use those cells to coat that material one layer at a time -- very much like baking a layer cake, if you will. We then place it in an oven-like device, and we're able to create that structure and bring it out. This is actually a heart valve that we've engineered, and you can see here, we have the structure of the heart valve and we've seeded that with cells, and then we exercise it. So you see the leaflets opening and closing -- of this heart valve that's currently being used experimentally to try to get it to further studies. Another technology that we have used in patients actually involves bladders. We actually take a very small piece of the bladder from the patient -- less than half the size of a postage stamp. We then grow the cells outside the body, take the scaffold, coat the scaffold with the cells -- the patient's own cells, two different cell types. We then put it in this oven-like device. It has the same conditions as the human body -- 37 degrees centigrade, 95 percent oxygen. A few weeks later, you have your engineered organ that we're able to implant back into the patient. For these specific patients, we actually just suture these materials. We use three-dimensional imagining analysis, but we actually created these biomaterials by hand. But we now have better ways to create these structures with the cells. We use now some type of technologies, where for solid organs, for example, like the liver, what we do is we take discard livers. As you know, a lot of organs are actually discarded, not used. So we can take these liver structures, which are not going to be used, and we then put them in a washing machine-like structure that will allow the cells to be washed away. Two weeks later, you have something that looks like a liver. You can hold it like a liver, but it has no cells; it's just a skeleton of the liver. And we then can re-perfuse the liver with cells, preserving the blood vessel tree. So we actually perfuse first the blood vessel tree with the patient's own blood vessel cells, and we then infiltrate the parenchyma with the liver cells. And we now have been able just to show the creation of human liver tissue just this past month using this technology. Another technology that we've used is actually that of printing. This is actually a desktop inkjet printer, but instead of using ink, we're using cells. And you can actually see here the printhead going through and printing this structure, and it takes about 40 minutes to print this structure. And there's a 3D elevator that then actually goes down one layer at a time each time the printhead goes through. And then finally you're able to get that structure out. You can pop that structure out of the printer and implant it. And this is actually a piece of bone that I'm going to show you in this slide that was actually created with this desktop printer and implanted as you see here. That was all new bone that was implanted using these techniques. Another more advanced technology we're looking at right now, our next generation of technologies, are more sophisticated printers. This particular printer we're designing now is actually one where we print right on the patient. So what you see here -- I know it sounds funny, but that's the way it works. Because in reality, what you want to do is you actually want to have the patient on the bed with the wound, and you have a scanner, basically like a flatbed scanner. That's what you see here on the right side. You see a scanner technology that first scans the wound on the patient and then it comes back with the printheads actually printing the layers that you require on the patients themselves. This is how it actually works. Here's the scanner going through, scanning the wound. Once it's scanned, it sends information in the correct layers of cells where they need to be. And now you're going to see here a demo of this actually being done in a representative wound. And we actually do this with a gel so that you can lift the gel material. So once those cells are on the patient they will stick where they need to be. And this is actually new technology still under development. We're also working on more sophisticated printers. Because in reality, our biggest challenge are the solid organs. I don't know if you realize this, but 90 percent of the patients on the transplant list are actually waiting for a kidney. Patients are dying every day because we don't have enough of those organs to go around. So this is more challenging -- large organ, vascular, a lot of blood vessel supply, a lot of cells present. So the strategy here is -- this is actually a CT scan, an X-ray -- and we go layer by layer, using computerized morphometric imaging analysis and 3D reconstruction to get right down to those patient's own kidneys. We then are able to actually image those, do 360 degree rotation to analyze the kidney in its full volumetric characteristics, and we then are able to actually take this information and then scan this in a printing computerized form. So we go layer by layer through the organ, analyzing each layer as we go through the organ, and we then are able to send that information, as you see here, through the computer and actually design the organ for the patient. This actually shows the actual printer. And this actually shows that printing. In fact, we actually have the printer right here. So while we've been talking today, you can actually see the printer back here in the back stage. That's actually the actual printer right now, and that's been printing this kidney structure that you see here. It takes about seven hours to print a kidney, so this is about three hours into it now. And Dr. Kang's going to walk onstage right now, and we're actually going to show you one of these kidneys that we printed a little bit earlier today. Put a pair of gloves here. Thank you. Go backwards. So, these gloves are a little bit small on me, but here it is. You can actually see that kidney as it was printed earlier today. (Applause) Has a little bit of consistency to it. This is Dr. Kang who's been working with us on this project, and part of our team. Thank you, Dr. Kang. I appreciate it. (Applause) So this is actually a new generation. This is actually the printer that you see here onstage. And this is actually a new technology we're working on now. In reality, we now have a long history of doing this. I'm going to share with you a clip in terms of technology we have had in patients now for a while. And this is actually a very brief clip -- only about 30 seconds -- of a patient who actually received an organ. (Video) Luke Massella: I was really sick. I could barely get out of bed. I was missing school. It was pretty much miserable. I couldn't go out and play basketball at recess without feeling like I was going to pass out when I got back inside. I felt so sick. I was facing basically a lifetime of dialysis, and I don't even like to think about what my life would be like if I was on that. So after the surgery, life got a lot better for me. I was able to do more things. I was able to wrestle in high school. I became the captain of the team, and that was great. I was able to be a normal kid with my friends. And because they used my own cells to build this bladder, it's going to be with me. I've got it for life, so I'm all set. (Applause) Juan Enriquez: These experiments sometimes work, and it's very cool when they do. Luke, come up please. (Applause) So Luke, before last night, when's the last time you saw Tony? LM: Ten years ago, when I had my surgery -- and it's really great to see him. (Laughter) (Applause) JE: And tell us a little bit about what you're doing. LM: Well right now I'm in college at the University of Connecticut. I'm a sophomore and studying communications, TV and mass media, and basically trying to live life like a normal kid, which I always wanted growing up. But it was hard to do that when I was born with spina bifida and my kidneys and bladder weren't working. I went through about 16 surgeries, and it seemed impossible to do that when I was in kidney failure when I was 10. And this surgery came along and basically made me who I am today and saved my life. (Applause) JE: And Tony's done hundreds of these? LM: What I know from, he's working really hard in his lab and coming up with crazy stuff. I know I was one of the first 10 people to have this surgery. And when I was 10, I didn't realize how amazing it was. I was a little kid, and I was like, "Yeah. I'll have that. I'll have that surgery." (Laughter) All I wanted to do was to get better, and I didn't realize how amazing it really was until now that I'm older and I see the amazing things that he's doing. JE: When you got this call out of the blue -- Tony's really shy, and it took a lot of convincing to get somebody as modest as Tony to allow us to bring Luke. So Luke, you go to your communications professors -- you're majoring in communications -- and you ask them for permission to come to TED, which might have a little bit to do with communications, and what was their reaction? LM: Most of my professors were all for it, and they said, "Bring pictures and show me the clips online," and "I'm happy for you." There were a couple that were a little stubborn, but I had to talk to them. I pulled them aside. JE: Well, it's an honor and a privilege to meet you. Thank you so much. (LM: Thank you so much.) JE: Thank you, Tony. (Applause)
Can I say how delighted I am to be away from the calm of Westminster and Whitehall? (Laughter) This is Kim, a nine-year-old Vietnam girl, her back ruined by napalm, and she awakened the conscience of the nation of America to begin to end the Vietnam War. This is Birhan, who was the Ethiopian girl who launched Live Aid in the 1980s, 15 minutes away from death when she was rescued, and that picture of her being rescued is one that went round the world. This is Tiananmen Square. A man before a tank became a picture that became a symbol for the whole world of resistance. This next is the Sudanese girl, a few moments from death, a vulture hovering in the background, a picture that went round the world and shocked people into action on poverty. This is Neda, the Iranian girl who was shot while at a demonstration with her father in Iran only a few weeks ago, and she is now the focus, rightly so, of the YouTube generation. And what do all these pictures and events have in common? What they have in common is what we see unlocks what we cannot see. What we see unlocks the invisible ties and bonds of sympathy that bring us together to become a human community. What these pictures demonstrate is that we do feel the pain of others, however distantly. What I think these pictures demonstrate is that we do believe in something bigger than ourselves. What these pictures demonstrate is that there is a moral sense across all religions, across all faiths, across all continents -- a moral sense that not only do we share the pain of others, and believe in something bigger than ourselves but we have a duty to act when we see things that are wrong that need righted, see injuries that need to be corrected, see problems that need to be rectified. There is a story about Olof Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister, going to see Ronald Reagan in America in the 1980s. Before he arrived Ronald Reagan said -- and he was the Swedish Social Democratic Prime Minister -- "Isn’t this man a communist?" The reply was, "No, Mr President, he’s an anti-communist." And Ronald Reagan said, "I don’t care what kind of communist he is!" (Laughter) Ronald Reagan asked Olof Palme, the Social Democratic Prime Minister of Sweden, "Well, what do you believe in? Do you want to abolish the rich?" He said, "No, I want to abolish the poor." Our responsibility is to let everyone have the chance to realize their potential to the full. I believe there is a moral sense and a global ethic that commands attention from people of every religion and every faith, and people of no faith. But I think what's new is that we now have the capacity to communicate instantaneously across frontiers right across the world. We now have the capacity to find common ground with people who we will never meet, but who we will meet through the Internet and through all the modern means of communication; that we now have the capacity to organize and take collective action together to deal with the problem or an injustice that we want to deal with; and I believe that this makes this a unique age in human history, and it is the start of what I would call the creation of a truly global society. Go back 200 years when the slave trade was under pressure from William Wilberforce and all the protesters. They protested across Britain. They won public opinion over a long period of time. But it took 24 years for the campaign to be successful. What could they have done with the pictures that they could have shown if they were able to use the modern means of communication to win people’s hearts and minds? Or if you take Eglantyne Jebb, the woman who created Save the Children 90 years ago. She was so appalled by what was happening in Austria as a result of the First World War and what was happening to children who were part of the defeated families of Austria, that in Britain she wanted to take action, but she had to go house to house, leaflet to leaflet, to get people to attend a rally in the Royal Albert Hall that eventually gave birth to Save the Children, an international organization that is now fully recognized as one of the great institutions in our land and in the world. But what more could she have done if she’d had the modern means of communications available to her to create a sense that the injustice that people saw had to be acted upon immediately? Now look at what’s happened in the last 10 years. In Philippines in 2001, President Estrada -- a million people texted each other about the corruption of that regime, eventually brought it down and it was, of course, called the "coup de text." (Laughter) Then you have in Zimbabwe the first election under Robert Mugabe a year ago. Because people were able to take mobile phone photographs of what was happening at the polling stations, it was impossible for that Premier to fix that election in the way that he wanted to do. Or take Burma and the monks that were blogging out, a country that nobody knew anything about that was happening, until these blogs told the world that there was a repression, meaning that lives were being lost and people were being persecuted and Aung San Suu Kyi, who is one of the great prisoners of conscience of the world, had to be listened to. Then take Iran itself, and what people are doing today: following what happened to Neda, people who are preventing the security services of Iran finding those people who are blogging out of Iran, any by everybody who is blogging, changing their address to Tehran, Iran, and making it difficult for the security services. Take, therefore, what modern technology is capable of: the power of our moral sense allied to the power of communications and our ability to organize internationally. That, in my view, gives us the first opportunity as a community to fundamentally change the world. Foreign policy can never be the same again. It cannot be run by elites; it’s got to be run by listening to the public opinions of peoples who are blogging, who are communicating with each other around the world. 200 years ago the problem we had to solve was slavery. 150 years ago I suppose the main problem in a country like ours was how young people, children, had the right to education. 100 years ago in most countries in Europe, the pressure was for the right to vote. 50 years ago the pressure was for the right to social security and welfare. In the last 50-60 years we have seen fascism, anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid, discrimination on the basis of sex and gender and sexuality; all these have come under pressure because of the campaigns that have been run by people to change the world. I was with Nelson Mandela a year ago, when he was in London. I was at a concert that he was attending to mark his birthday and for the creation of new resources for his foundation. I was sitting next to Nelson Mandela -- I was very privileged to do so -- when Amy Winehouse came onto the stage. (Laughter) And Nelson Mandela was quite surprised at the appearance of the singer and I was explaining to him at the time who she was. Amy Winehouse said, "Nelson Mandela and I have a lot in common. My husband too has spent a long time in prison." (Laughter) Nelson Mandela then went down to the stage and he summarized the challenge for us all. He said in his lifetime he had climbed a great mountain, the mountain of challenging and then defeating racial oppression and defeating apartheid. He said that there was a greater challenge ahead, the challenge of poverty, of climate change -- global challenges that needed global solutions and needed the creation of a truly global society. We are the first generation which is in a position to do this. Combine the power of a global ethic with the power of our ability to communicate and organize globally, with the challenges that we now face, most of which are global in their nature. Climate change cannot be solved in one country, but has got to be solved by the world working together. A financial crisis, just as we have seen, could not be solved by America alone or Europe alone; it needed the world to work together. Take the problems of security and terrorism and, equally, the problem of human rights and development: they cannot be solved by Africa alone; they cannot be solved by America or Europe alone. We cannot solve these problems unless we work together. So the great project of our generation, it seems to me, is to build for the first time, out of a global ethic and our global ability to communicate and organize together, a truly global society, built on that ethic but with institutions that can serve that global society and make for a different future. We have now, and are the first generation with, the power to do this. Take climate change. Is it not absolutely scandalous that we have a situation where we know that there is a climate change problem, where we know also that that will mean we have to give more resources to the poorest countries to deal with that, when we want to create a global carbon market, but there is no global institution that people have been able to agree upon to deal with this problem? One of the things that has got to come out of Copenhagen in the next few months is an agreement that there will be a global environmental institution that is able to deal with the problems of persuading the whole of the world to move along a climate-change agenda. (Applause) One of the reasons why an institution is not in itself enough is that we have got to persuade people around the world to change their behavior as well, so you need that global ethic of fairness and responsibility across the generations. Take the financial crisis. If people in poorer countries can be hit by a crisis that starts in New York or starts in the sub-prime market of the United States of America. If people can find that that sub-prime product has been transferred across nations many, many times until it ends up in banks in Iceland or the rest in Britain, and people's ordinary savings are affected by it, then you cannot rely on a system of national supervision. You need in the long run for stability, for economic growth, for jobs, as well as for financial stability, global economic institutions that make sure that growth to be sustained has to be shared, and are built on the principle that the prosperity of this world is indivisible. So another challenge for our generation is to create global institutions that reflect our ideas of fairness and responsibility, not the ideas that were the basis of the last stage of financial development over these recent years. Then take development and take the partnership we need between our countries and the rest of the world, the poorest part of the world. We do not have the basis of a proper partnership for the future, and yet, out of people’s desire for a global ethic and a global society that can be done. I have just been talking to the President of Sierra Leone. This is a country of six and a half million people, but it has only 80 doctors; it has 200 nurses; it has 120 midwives. You cannot begin to build a healthcare system for six million people with such limited resources. Or take the girl I met when I was in Tanzania, a girl called Miriam. She was 11 years old; her parents had both died from AIDS, her mother and then her father. She was an AIDS orphan being handed across different extended families to be cared for. She herself was suffering from HIV; she was suffering from tuberculosis. I met her in a field, she was ragged, she had no shoes. When you looked in her eyes, any girl at the age of eleven is looking forward to the future, but there was an unreachable sadness in that girl’s eyes and if I could have translated that to the rest of the world for that moment, I believe that all the work that it had done for the global HIV/AIDS fund would be rewarded by people being prepared to make donations. We must then build a proper relationship between the richest and the poorest countries based on our desire that they are able to fend for themselves with the investment that is necessary in their agriculture, so that Africa is not a net importer of food, but an exporter of food. Take the problems of human rights and the problems of security in so many countries around the world. Burma is in chains, Zimbabwe is a human tragedy, in Sudan thousands of people have died unnecessarily for wars that we could prevent. In the Rwanda Children's Museum, there is a photograph of a 10-year-old boy and the Children's Museum is commemorating the lives that were lost in the Rwandan genocide where a million people died. There is a photograph of a boy called David. Beside that photograph there is the information about his life. It said "David, age 10." David: ambition to be a doctor. Favorite sport: football. What did he enjoy most? Making people laugh. How did he die? Tortured to death. Last words said to his mother who was also tortured to death: "Don't worry. The United Nations are coming." And we never did. And that young boy believed our promises that we would help people in difficulty in Rwanda, and we never did. So we have got to create in this world also institutions for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, but also for reconstruction and security for some of the conflict-ridden states of the world. So my argument today is basically this. We have the means by which we could create a truly global society. The institutions of this global society can be created by our endeavors. That global ethic can infuse the fairness and responsibility that is necessary for these institutions to work, but we should not lose the chance in this generation, in this decade in particular, with President Obama in America, with other people working with us around the world, to create global institutions for the environment, and for finance, and for security and for development, that make sense of our responsibility to other peoples, our desire to bind the world together, and our need to tackle problems that everybody knows exist. It is said that in Ancient Rome that when Cicero spoke to his audiences, people used to turn to each other and say about Cicero, "Great speech." But it is said that in Ancient Greece when Demosthenes spoke to his audiences, people turned to each other and didn’t say "Great speech." They said, "Let's march." We should be marching towards a global society. Thank you. (Applause)
Just a moment ago, my daughter Rebecca texted me for good luck. Her text said, "Mom, you will rock." I love this. Getting that text was like getting a hug. And so there you have it. I embody the central paradox. I'm a woman who loves getting texts who's going to tell you that too many of them can be a problem. Actually that reminder of my daughter brings me to the beginning of my story. 1996, when I gave my first TEDTalk, Rebecca was five years old and she was sitting right there in the front row. I had just written a book that celebrated our life on the internet and I was about to be on the cover of Wired magazine. In those heady days, we were experimenting with chat rooms and online virtual communities. We were exploring different aspects of ourselves. And then we unplugged. I was excited. And, as a psychologist, what excited me most was the idea that we would use what we learned in the virtual world about ourselves, about our identity, to live better lives in the real world. Now fast-forward to 2012. I'm back here on the TED stage again. My daughter's 20. She's a college student. She sleeps with her cellphone, so do I. And I've just written a new book, but this time it's not one that will get me on the cover of Wired magazine. So what happened? I'm still excited by technology, but I believe, and I'm here to make the case, that we're letting it take us places that we don't want to go. Over the past 15 years, I've studied technologies of mobile communication and I've interviewed hundreds and hundreds of people, young and old, about their plugged in lives. And what I've found is that our little devices, those little devices in our pockets, are so psychologically powerful that they don't only change what we do, they change who we are. Some of the things we do now with our devices are things that, only a few years ago, we would have found odd or disturbing, but they've quickly come to seem familiar, just how we do things. So just to take some quick examples: People text or do email during corporate board meetings. They text and shop and go on Facebook during classes, during presentations, actually during all meetings. People talk to me about the important new skill of making eye contact while you're texting. (Laughter) People explain to me that it's hard, but that it can be done. Parents text and do email at breakfast and at dinner while their children complain about not having their parents' full attention. But then these same children deny each other their full attention. This is a recent shot of my daughter and her friends being together while not being together. And we even text at funerals. I study this. We remove ourselves from our grief or from our revery and we go into our phones. Why does this matter? It matters to me because I think we're setting ourselves up for trouble -- trouble certainly in how we relate to each other, but also trouble in how we relate to ourselves and our capacity for self-reflection. We're getting used to a new way of being alone together. People want to be with each other, but also elsewhere -- connected to all the different places they want to be. People want to customize their lives. They want to go in and out of all the places they are because the thing that matters most to them is control over where they put their attention. So you want to go to that board meeting, but you only want to pay attention to the bits that interest you. And some people think that's a good thing. But you can end up hiding from each other, even as we're all constantly connected to each other. A 50-year-old business man lamented to me that he feels he doesn't have colleagues anymore at work. When he goes to work, he doesn't stop by to talk to anybody, he doesn't call. And he says he doesn't want to interrupt his colleagues because, he says, "They're too busy on their email." But then he stops himself and he says, "You know, I'm not telling you the truth. I'm the one who doesn't want to be interrupted. I think I should want to, but actually I'd rather just do things on my Blackberry." Across the generations, I see that people can't get enough of each other, if and only if they can have each other at a distance, in amounts they can control. I call it the Goldilocks effect: not too close, not too far, just right. But what might feel just right for that middle-aged executive can be a problem for an adolescent who needs to develop face-to-face relationships. An 18-year-old boy who uses texting for almost everything says to me wistfully, "Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I'd like to learn how to have a conversation." When I ask people "What's wrong with having a conversation?" People say, "I'll tell you what's wrong with having a conversation. It takes place in real time and you can't control what you're going to say." So that's the bottom line. Texting, email, posting, all of these things let us present the self as we want to be. We get to edit, and that means we get to delete, and that means we get to retouch, the face, the voice, the flesh, the body -- not too little, not too much, just right. Human relationships are rich and they're messy and they're demanding. And we clean them up with technology. And when we do, one of the things that can happen is that we sacrifice conversation for mere connection. We short-change ourselves. And over time, we seem to forget this, or we seem to stop caring. I was caught off guard when Stephen Colbert asked me a profound question, a profound question. He said, "Don't all those little tweets, don't all those little sips of online communication, add up to one big gulp of real conversation?" My answer was no, they don't add up. Connecting in sips may work for gathering discreet bits of information, they may work for saying, "I'm thinking about you," or even for saying, "I love you," -- I mean, look at how I felt when I got that text from my daughter -- but they don't really work for learning about each other, for really coming to know and understand each other. And we use conversations with each other to learn how to have conversations with ourselves. So a flight from conversation can really matter because it can compromise our capacity for self-reflection. For kids growing up, that skill is the bedrock of development. Over and over I hear, "I would rather text than talk." And what I'm seeing is that people get so used to being short-changed out of real conversation, so used to getting by with less, that they've become almost willing to dispense with people altogether. So for example, many people share with me this wish, that some day a more advanced version of Siri, the digital assistant on Apple's iPhone, will be more like a best friend, someone who will listen when others won't. I believe this wish reflects a painful truth that I've learned in the past 15 years. That feeling that no one is listening to me is very important in our relationships with technology. That's why it's so appealing to have a Facebook page or a Twitter feed -- so many automatic listeners. And the feeling that no one is listening to me make us want to spend time with machines that seem to care about us. We're developing robots, they call them sociable robots, that are specifically designed to be companions -- to the elderly, to our children, to us. Have we so lost confidence that we will be there for each other? During my research I worked in nursing homes, and I brought in these sociable robots that were designed to give the elderly the feeling that they were understood. And one day I came in and a woman who had lost a child was talking to a robot in the shape of a baby seal. It seemed to be looking in her eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. It comforted her. And many people found this amazing. But that woman was trying to make sense of her life with a machine that had no experience of the arc of a human life. That robot put on a great show. And we're vulnerable. People experience pretend empathy as though it were the real thing. So during that moment when that woman was experiencing that pretend empathy, I was thinking, "That robot can't empathize. It doesn't face death. It doesn't know life." And as that woman took comfort in her robot companion, I didn't find it amazing; I found it one of the most wrenching, complicated moments in my 15 years of work. But when I stepped back, I felt myself at the cold, hard center of a perfect storm. We expect more from technology and less from each other. And I ask myself, "Why have things come to this?" And I believe it's because technology appeals to us most where we are most vulnerable. And we are vulnerable. We're lonely, but we're afraid of intimacy. And so from social networks to sociable robots, we're designing technologies that will give us the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. We turn to technology to help us feel connected in ways we can comfortably control. But we're not so comfortable. We are not so much in control. These days, those phones in our pockets are changing our minds and hearts because they offer us three gratifying fantasies. One, that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be; two, that we will always be heard; and three, that we will never have to be alone. And that third idea, that we will never have to be alone, is central to changing our psyches. Because the moment that people are alone, even for a few seconds, they become anxious, they panic, they fidget, they reach for a device. Just think of people at a checkout line or at a red light. Being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved. And so people try to solve it by connecting. But here, connection is more like a symptom than a cure. It expresses, but it doesn't solve, an underlying problem. But more than a symptom, constant connection is changing the way people think of themselves. It's shaping a new way of being. The best way to describe it is, I share therefore I am. We use technology to define ourselves by sharing our thoughts and feelings even as we're having them. So before it was: I have a feeling, I want to make a call. Now it's: I want to have a feeling, I need to send a text. The problem with this new regime of "I share therefore I am" is that, if we don't have connection, we don't feel like ourselves. We almost don't feel ourselves. So what do we do? We connect more and more. But in the process, we set ourselves up to be isolated. How do you get from connection to isolation? You end up isolated if you don't cultivate the capacity for solitude, the ability to be separate, to gather yourself. Solitude is where you find yourself so that you can reach out to other people and form real attachments. When we don't have the capacity for solitude, we turn to other people in order to feel less anxious or in order to feel alive. When this happens, we're not able to appreciate who they are. It's as though we're using them as spare parts to support our fragile sense of self. We slip into thinking that always being connected is going to make us feel less alone. But we're at risk, because actually it's the opposite that's true. If we're not able to be alone, we're going to be more lonely. And if we don't teach our children to be alone, they're only going to know how to be lonely. When I spoke at TED in 1996, reporting on my studies of the early virtual communities, I said, "Those who make the most of their lives on the screen come to it in a spirit of self-reflection." And that's what I'm calling for here, now: reflection and, more than that, a conversation about where our current use of technology may be taking us, what it might be costing us. We're smitten with technology. And we're afraid, like young lovers, that too much talking might spoil the romance. But it's time to talk. We grew up with digital technology and so we see it as all grown up. But it's not, it's early days. There's plenty of time for us to reconsider how we use it, how we build it. I'm not suggesting that we turn away from our devices, just that we develop a more self-aware relationship with them, with each other and with ourselves. I see some first steps. Start thinking of solitude as a good thing. Make room for it. Find ways to demonstrate this as a value to your children. Create sacred spaces at home -- the kitchen, the dining room -- and reclaim them for conversation. Do the same thing at work. At work, we're so busy communicating that we often don't have time to think, we don't have time to talk, about the things that really matter. Change that. Most important, we all really need to listen to each other, including to the boring bits. Because it's when we stumble or hesitate or lose our words that we reveal ourselves to each other. Technology is making a bid to redefine human connection -- how we care for each other, how we care for ourselves -- but it's also giving us the opportunity to affirm our values and our direction. I'm optimistic. We have everything we need to start. We have each other. And we have the greatest chance of success if we recognize our vulnerability. That we listen when technology says it will take something complicated and promises something simpler. So in my work, I hear that life is hard, relationships are filled with risk. And then there's technology -- simpler, hopeful, optimistic, ever-young. It's like calling in the cavalry. An ad campaign promises that online and with avatars, you can "Finally, love your friends love your body, love your life, online and with avatars." We're drawn to virtual romance, to computer games that seem like worlds, to the idea that robots, robots, will someday be our true companions. We spend an evening on the social network instead of going to the pub with friends. But our fantasies of substitution have cost us. Now we all need to focus on the many, many ways technology can lead us back to our real lives, our own bodies, our own communities, our own politics, our own planet. They need us. Let's talk about how we can use digital technology, the technology of our dreams, to make this life the life we can love. Thank you. (Applause)
This is Shivdutt Yadav, and he's from Uttar Pradesh, India. Now Shivdutt was visiting the local land registry office in Uttar Pradesh, and he discovered that official records were listing him as dead. His land was no longer registered in his name. His brothers, Chandrabhan and Phoolchand, were also listed as dead. Family members had bribed officials to interrupt the hereditary transfer of land by having the brothers declared dead, allowing them to inherit their father's share of the ancestral farmland. Because of this, all three brothers and their families had to vacate their home. According to the Yadav family, the local court has been scheduling a case review since 2001, but a judge has never appeared. There are several instances in Uttar Pradesh of people dying before their case is given a proper review. Shivdutt's father's death and a want for his property led to this corruption. He was laid to rest in the Ganges River, where the dead are cremated along the banks of the river or tied to heavy stones and sunk in the water. Photographing these brothers was a disorienting exchange because on paper they don't exist, and a photograph is so often used as an evidence of life. Yet, these men remain dead. This quandary led to the title of the project, which considers in many ways that we are all the living dead and that we in some ways represent ghosts of the past and the future. So this story is the first of 18 chapters in my new body of work titled "A Living Man Declared Dead and Other Chapters." And for this work, I traveled around the world over a four-year period researching and recording bloodlines and their related stories. I was interested in ideas surrounding fate and whether our fate is determined by blood, chance or circumstance. The subjects I documented ranged from feuding families in Brazil to victims of genocide in Bosnia to the first woman to hijack an airplane and the living dead in India. In each chapter, you can see the external forces of governance, power and territory or religion colliding with the internal forces of psychological and physical inheritance. Each work that I make is comprised of three segments. On the left are one or more portrait panels in which I systematically order the members of a given bloodline. This is followed by a text panel, it's designed in scroll form, in which I construct the narrative at stake. And then on the right is what I refer to as a footnote panel. It's a space that's more intuitive in which I present fragments of the story, beginnings of other stories, photographic evidence. And it's meant to kind of reflect how we engage with histories or stories on the Internet, in a less linear form. So it's more disordered. And this disorder is in direct contrast to the unalterable order of a bloodline. In my past projects I've often worked in serial form, documenting things that have the appearance of being comprehensive through a determined title and a determined presentation, but in fact, are fairly abstract. In this project I wanted to work in the opposite direction and find an absolute catalog, something that I couldn't interrupt, curate or edit by choice. This led me to blood. A bloodline is determined and ordered. But the project centers on the collision of order and disorder -- the order of blood butting up against the disorder represented in the often chaotic and violent stories that are the subjects of my chapters. In chapter two, I photograph the descendants of Arthur Ruppin. He was sent in 1907 to Palestine by the Zionist organization to look at areas for Jewish settlement and acquire land for Jewish settlement. He oversaw land acquisition on behalf of the Palestine Land Development Company whose work led to the establishment of a Jewish state. Through my research at the Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, I wanted to look at the early paperwork of the establishment of the Jewish state. And I found these maps which you see here. And these are studies commissioned by the Zionist organization for alternative areas for Jewish settlement. In this, I was interested in the consequences of geography and imagining how the world would be different if Israel were in Uganda, which is what these maps demonstrate. These archives in Jerusalem, they maintain a card index file of the earliest immigrants and applicants for immigration to Palestine, and later Israel, from 1919 to 1965. Chapter three: Joseph Nyamwanda Jura Ondijo treated patients outside of Kisumu, Kenya for AIDS, tuberculosis, infertility, mental illness, evil spirits. He's most often paid for his services in cash, cows or goats. But sometimes when his female patients can't afford his services, their families give the women to Jura in exchange for medical treatment. As a result of these transactions, Jura has nine wives, 32 children and 63 grandchildren. In his bloodline you see the children and grandchildren here. Two of his wives were brought to him suffering from infertility and he cured them, three for evil spirits, one for an asthmatic condition and severe chest pain and two wives Ondijo claims he took for love, paying their families a total of 16 cows. One wife deserted him and another passed away during treatment for evil spirits. Polygamy is widely practiced in Kenya. It's common among a privileged class capable of paying numerous dowries and keeping multiple homes. Instances of prominent social and political figures in polygamous relationships has led to the perception of polygamy as a symbol of wealth, status and power. You may notice in several of the chapters that I photographed there are empty portraits. These empty portraits represent individuals, living individuals, who couldn't be present. And the reasons for their absence are given in my text panel. They include dengue fever, imprisonment, army service, women not allowed to be photographed for religious and cultural reasons. And in this particular chapter, it's children whose mothers wouldn't allow them to travel to the photographic shoot for fear that their fathers would kidnap them during it. Twenty-four European rabbits were brought to Australia in 1859 by a British settler for sporting purposes, for hunting. And within a hundred years, that population of 24 had exploded to half a billion. The European rabbit has no natural predators in Australia, and it competes with native wildlife and damages native plants and degrades the land. Since the 1950s, Australia has been introducing lethal diseases into the wild rabbit population to control growth. These rabbits were bred at a government facility, Biosecurity Queensland, where they bred three bloodlines of rabbits and have infected them with a lethal disease and are monitoring their progress to see if it will effectively kill them. So they're testing its virulence. During the course of this trial, all of the rabbits died, except for a few, which were euthanized. Haigh's Chocolate, in collaboration with the Foundation for Rabbit-Free Australia, stopped all production of the Easter Bunny in chocolate and has replaced it with the Easter Bilby. Now this was done to counter the annual celebration of rabbits and presumably make the public more comfortable with the killing of rabbits and promote an animal that's native to Australia, and actually an animal that is threatened by the European rabbit. In chapter seven, I focus on the effects of a genocidal act on one bloodline. So over a two-day period, six individuals from this bloodline were killed in the Srebrenica massacre. This is the only work in which I visually represent the dead. But I only represent those that were killed in the Srebrenica massacre, which is recorded as the largest mass murder in Europe since the Second World War. And during this massacre, 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically executed. So when you look at a detail of this work, you can see, the man on the upper-left is the father of the woman sitting next to him. Her name is Zumra. She is followed by her four children, all of whom were killed in the Srebrenica massacre. Following those four children is Zumra's younger sister who is then followed by her children who were killed as well. During the time I was in Bosnia, the mortal remains of Zumra's eldest son were exhumed from a mass grave. And I was therefore able to photograph the fully assembled remains. However, the other individuals are represented by these blue slides, which show tooth and bone samples that were matched to DNA evidence collected from family members to prove they were the identities of those individuals. They've all been given a proper burial, so what remains are these blue slides at the International Commission for Missing Persons. These are personal effects dug up from a mass grave that are awaiting identification from family members and graffiti at the Potochari battery factory, which was where the Dutch U.N. soldiers were staying, and also the Serbian soldiers later during the times of the executions. This is video footage used at the Milosevic trial, which from top to bottom shows a Serbian scorpion unit being blessed by an Orthodox priest before rounding up the boys and men and killing them. Chapter 15 is more of a performance piece. I solicited China's State Council Information Office in 2009 to select a multi-generational bloodline to represent China for this project. They chose a large family from Beijing for its size, and they declined to give me any further reasoning for their choice. This is one of the rare situations where I have no empty portraits. Everyone showed up. You can also see the evolution of the one-child-only policy as it travels through the bloodline. Previously known as the Department of Foreign Propaganda, the State Council Information Office is responsible for all of China's external publicity operations. It controls all foreign media and image production outside of China from foreign media working within China. It also monitors the Internet and instructs local media on how to handle any potentially controversial issues, including Tibet, ethnic minorities, Human Rights, religion, democracy movements and terrorism. For the footnote panel in this work, this office instructed me to photograph their central television tower in Beijing. And I also photographed the gift bag they gave me when I left. These are the descendants of Hans Frank who was Hitler's personal legal advisor and governor general of occupied Poland. Now this bloodline includes numerous empty portraits, highlighting a complex relationship to one's family history. The reasons for these absences include people who declined participation. There's also parents who participated who wouldn't let their children participate because they thought they were too young to decide for themselves. Another section of the family presented their clothing, as opposed to their physical presence, because they didn't want to be identified with the past that I was highlighting. And finally, another individual sat for me from behind and later rescinded his participation, so I had to pixelate him out so he's unrecognizable. In the footnote panel that accompanies this work I photographed an official Adolph Hitler postage stamp and an imitation of that stamp produced by British Intelligence with Hans Frank's image on it. It was released in Poland to create friction between Frank and Hitler, so that Hitler would imagine Frank was trying to usurp his power. Again, talking about fate, I was interested in the stories and fate of particular works of art. These paintings were taken by Hans Frank during the time of the Third Reich. And I'm interested in the impact of their absence and presence through time. They are Leonardo da Vinci's "Lady With an Ermine," Rembrandt's "Landscape With Good Samaritan" and Raphael's "Portrait of a Youth," which has never been found. Chapter 12 highlights people being born into a battle that is not of their making, but becomes their own. So this is the Ferraz family and the Novaes family. And they are in an active blood feud. This feud has been going on since 1991 in Northeast Brazil in Pernambuco, and it involved the deaths of 20 members of the families and 40 others associated with the feud, including hired hit men, innocent bystanders and friends. Tensions between these two families date back to 1913 when there was a dispute over local political power. But it got violent in the last two decades and includes decapitation and the death of two mayors. Installed into a protective wall surrounding the suburban home of Louis Novaes, who's the head of the Novaes family, are these turret holes, which were used for shooting and looking. Brazil's northeast state of Pernambuco is one of the nation's most violent regions. It's rooted in a principle of retributive justice, or an eye for an eye, so retaliatory killings have led to several deaths in the area. This story, like many of the stories in my chapters, reads almost as an archetypal episode, like something out of Shakespeare, that's happening now and will happen again in the future. I'm interested in these ideas of repetition. So after I returned home, I received word that one member of the family had been shot 30 times in the face. Chapter 17 is an exploration of the absence of a bloodline and the absence of a history. Children at this Ukrainian orphanage are between the ages of six and 16. This piece is ordered by age because it can't be ordered by blood. In a 12-month period when I was at the orphanage, only one child had been adopted. Children have to leave the orphanage at age 16, despite the fact that there's often nowhere for them to go. It's commonly reported in Ukraine that children, when leaving the orphanage are targeted for human trafficking, child pornography and prostitution. Many have to turn to criminal activity for their survival, and high rates of suicide are recorded. This is a boys' bedroom. There's an insufficient supply of beds at the orphanage and not enough warm clothing. Children bathe infrequently because the hot water isn't turned on until October. This is a girls' bedroom. And the director listed the orphanage's most urgent needs as an industrial size washing machine and dryer, four vacuum cleaners, two computers, a video projector, a copy machine, winter shoes and a dentist's drill. This photograph, which I took at the orphanage of one of the classrooms, shows a sign which I had translated when I got home. And it reads: "Those who do not know their past are not worthy of their future." There are many more chapters in this project. This is just an abridged rendering of over a thousand images. And this mass pile of images and stories forms an archive. And within this accumulation of images and texts, I'm struggling to find patterns and imagine that the narratives that surround the lives we lead are just as coded as blood itself. But archives exist because there's something that can't necessarily be articulated. Something is said in the gaps between all the information that's collected. And there's this relentless persistence of birth and death and an unending collection of stories in between. It's almost machine-like the way people are born and people die, and the stories keep coming and coming. And in this, I'm considering, is this actual accumulation leading to some sort of evolution, or are we on repeat over and over again? Thank you. (Applause)
Thank you so much. It's really scary to be here among the smartest of the smart. I'm here to tell you a few tales of passion. There's a Jewish saying that I love. What is truer than truth? Answer: The story. I'm a storyteller. I want to convey something that is truer than truth about our common humanity. All stories interest me, and some haunt me until I end up writing them. Certain themes keep coming up: justice, loyalty, violence, death, political and social issues, freedom. I'm aware of the mystery around us, so I write about coincidences, premonitions, emotions, dreams, the power of nature, magic. In the last 20 years I have published a few books, but I have lived in anonymity until February of 2006, when I carried the Olympic flag in the Winter Olympics in Italy. That made me a celebrity. Now people recognize me in Macy's, and my grandchildren think that I'm cool. (Laughter) Allow me to tell you about my four minutes of fame. One of the organizers of the Olympic ceremony, of the opening ceremony, called me and said that I had been selected to be one of the flag-bearers. I replied that surely this was a case of mistaken identity because I'm as far as you can get from being an athlete. Actually, I wasn't even sure that I could go around the stadium without a walker. (Laughter) I was told that this was no laughing matter. This would be the first time that only women would carry the Olympic flag. Five women, representing five continents, and three Olympic gold medal winners. My first question was, naturally, what was I going to wear? (Laughter) A uniform, she said, and asked for my measurements. My measurements. I had a vision of myself in a fluffy anorak, looking like the Michelin Man. (Laughter) By the middle of February, I found myself in Turin, where enthusiastic crowds cheered when any of the 80 Olympic teams was in the street. Those athletes had sacrificed everything to compete in the games. They all deserved to win, but there's the element of luck. A speck of snow, an inch of ice, the force of the wind, can determine the result of a race or a game. However, what matters most -- more than training or luck -- is the heart. Only a fearless and determined heart will get the gold medal. It is all about passion. The streets of Turin were covered with red posters announcing the slogan of the Olympics. Passion lives here. Isn't it always true? Heart is what drives us and determines our fate. That is what I need for my characters in my books: a passionate heart. I need mavericks, dissidents, adventurers, outsiders and rebels, who ask questions, bend the rules and take risks. People like all of you in this room. Nice people with common sense do not make interesting characters. (Laughter) They only make good former spouses. (Laughter) (Applause) In the green room of the stadium, I met the other flag bearers: three athletes, and the actresses Susan Sarandon and Sophia Loren. Also, two women with passionate hearts: Wangari Maathai, the Nobel prizewinner from Kenya who has planted 30 million trees. And by doing so, she has changed the soil, the weather, in some places in Africa, and of course the economic conditions in many villages. And Somaly Mam, a Cambodian activist who fights passionately against child prostitution. When she was 14 years old, her grandfather sold her to a brothel. She told us of little girls raped by men who believe that having sex with a very young virgin will cure them from AIDS. And of brothels where children are forced to receive five, 15 clients per day, and if they rebel, they are tortured with electricity. In the green room I received my uniform. It was not the kind of outfit that I normally wear, but it was far from the Michelin Man suit that I had anticipated. Not bad, really. I looked like a refrigerator. (Laughter) But so did most of the flag-bearers, except Sophia Loren, the universal symbol of beauty and passion. Sophia is over 70 and she looks great. She's sexy, slim and tall, with a deep tan. Now, how can you have a deep tan and have no wrinkles? I don't know. When asked in a TV interview, "How could she look so good?" She replied, "Posture. My back is always straight, and I don't make old people's noises." (Laughter) So, there you have some free advice from one of the most beautiful women on earth. No grunting, no coughing, no wheezing, no talking to yourselves, no farting. (Laughter) Well, she didn't say that exactly. (Laughter) At some point around midnight, we were summoned to the wings of the stadium, and the loudspeakers announced the Olympic flag, and the music started -- by the way, the same music that starts here, the Aida March. Sophia Loren was right in front of me -- she's a foot taller than I am, not counting the poofy hair. (Laughter) She walked elegantly, like a giraffe on the African savannah, holding the flag on her shoulder. I jogged behind (Laughter) -- on my tiptoes -- holding the flag on my extended arm, so that my head was actually under the damn flag. (Laughter) All the cameras were, of course, on Sophia. That was fortunate for me, because in most press photos I appear too, although often between Sophia's legs. (Laughter) A place where most men would love to be. (Laughter) (Applause) The best four minutes of my entire life were those in the Olympic stadium. My husband is offended when I say this -- although I have explained to him that what we do in private usually takes less than four minutes -- (Laughter) -- so he shouldn't take it personally. I have all the press clippings of those four magnificent minutes, because I don't want to forget them when old age destroys my brain cells. I want to carry in my heart forever the key word of the Olympics -- passion. So here's a tale of passion. The year is 1998, the place is a prison camp for Tutsi refugees in Congo. By the way, 80 percent of all refugees and displaced people in the world are women and girls. We can call this place in Congo a death camp, because those who are not killed will die of disease or starvation. The protagonists of this story are a young woman, Rose Mapendo, and her children. She's pregnant and a widow. Soldiers have forced her to watch as her husband was tortured and killed. Somehow she manages to keep her seven children alive, and a few months later, she gives birth to premature twins. Two tiny little boys. She cuts the umbilical cord with a stick, and ties it with her own hair. She names the twins after the camp's commanders to gain their favor, and feeds them with black tea because her milk cannot sustain them. When the soldiers burst in her cell to rape her oldest daughter, she grabs hold of her and refuses to let go, even when they hold a gun to her head. Somehow, the family survives for 16 months, and then, by extraordinary luck, and the passionate heart of a young American man, Sasha Chanoff, who manages to put her in a U.S. rescue plane, Rose Mapendo and her nine children end up in Phoenix, Arizona, where they're now living and thriving. Mapendo, in Swahili, means great love. The protagonists of my books are strong and passionate women like Rose Mapendo. I don't make them up. There's no need for that. I look around and I see them everywhere. I have worked with women and for women all my life. I know them well. I was born in ancient times, at the end of the world, in a patriarchal Catholic and conservative family. No wonder that by age five I was a raging feminist -- although the term had not reached Chile yet, so nobody knew what the heck was wrong with me. (Laughter) I would soon find out that there was a high price to pay for my freedom, and for questioning the patriarchy. But I was happy to pay it, because for every blow that I received, I was able to deliver two. (Laughter) Once, when my daughter Paula was in her twenties, she said to me that feminism was dated, that I should move on. We had a memorable fight. Feminism is dated? Yes, for privileged women like my daughter and all of us here today, but not for most of our sisters in the rest of the world who are still forced into premature marriage, prostitution, forced labor -- they have children that they don't want or they cannot feed. They have no control over their bodies or their lives. They have no education and no freedom. They are raped, beaten up and sometimes killed with impunity. For most Western young women of today, being called a feminist is an insult. Feminism has never been sexy, but let me assure you that it never stopped me from flirting, and I have seldom suffered from lack of men. (Laughter) Feminism is not dead, by no means. It has evolved. If you don't like the term, change it, for Goddess' sake. Call it Aphrodite, or Venus, or bimbo, or whatever you want; the name doesn't matter, as long as we understand what it is about, and we support it. So here's another tale of passion, and this is a sad one. The place is a small women's clinic in a village in Bangladesh. The year is 2005. Jenny is a young American dental hygienist who has gone to the clinic as a volunteer during her three-week vacation. She's prepared to clean teeth, but when she gets there, she finds out that there are no doctors, no dentists, and the clinic is just a hut full of flies. Outside, there is a line of women who have waited several hours to be treated. The first patient is in excruciating pain because she has several rotten molars. Jenny realizes that the only solution is to pull out the bad teeth. She's not licensed for that; she has never done it. She risks a lot and she's terrified. She doesn't even have the proper instruments, but fortunately she has brought some Novocaine. Jenny has a brave and passionate heart. She murmurs a prayer and she goes ahead with the operation. At the end, the relieved patient kisses her hands. That day the hygienist pulls out many more teeth. The next morning, when she comes again to the so-called clinic, her first patient is waiting for her with her husband. The woman's face looks like a watermelon. It is so swollen that you can't even see the eyes. The husband, furious, threatens to kill the American. Jenny is horrified at what she has done, but then the translator explains that the patient's condition has nothing to do with the operation. The day before, her husband beat her up because she was not home in time to prepare dinner for him. Millions of women live like this today. They are the poorest of the poor. Although women do two-thirds of the world's labor, they own less than one percent of the world's assets. They are paid less than men for the same work if they're paid at all, and they remain vulnerable because they have no economic independence, and they are constantly threatened by exploitation, violence and abuse. It is a fact that giving women education, work, the ability to control their own income, inherit and own property, benefits the society. If a woman is empowered, her children and her family will be better off. If families prosper, the village prospers, and eventually so does the whole country. Wangari Maathai goes to a village in Kenya. She talks with the women and explains that the land is barren because they have cut and sold the trees. She gets the women to plant new trees and water them, drop by drop. In a matter of five or six years, they have a forest, the soil is enriched, and the village is saved. The poorest and most backward societies are always those that put women down. Yet this obvious truth is ignored by governments and also by philanthropy. For every dollar given to a women's program, 20 dollars are given to men's programs. Women are 51 percent of humankind. Empowering them will change everything -- more than technology and design and entertainment. I can promise you that women working together -- linked, informed and educated -- can bring peace and prosperity to this forsaken planet. In any war today, most of the casualties are civilians, mainly women and children. They are collateral damage. Men run the world, and look at the mess we have. What kind of world do we want? This is a fundamental question that most of us are asking. Does it make sense to participate in the existing world order? We want a world where life is preserved and the quality of life is enriched for everybody, not only for the privileged. In January I saw an exhibit of Fernando Botero's paintings at the UC Berkeley library. No museum or gallery in the United States, except for the New York gallery that carries Botero's work, has dared to show the paintings because the theme is the Abu Ghraib prison. They are huge paintings of torture and abuse of power, in the voluminous Botero style. I have not been able to get those images out of my mind or my heart. What I fear most is power with impunity. I fear abuse of power, and the power to abuse. In our species, the alpha males define reality, and force the rest of the pack to accept that reality and follow the rules. The rules change all the time, but they always benefit them, and in this case, the trickle-down effect, which does not work in economics, works perfectly. Abuse trickles down from the top of the ladder to the bottom. Women and children, especially the poor, are at the bottom. Even the most destitute of men have someone they can abuse -- a woman or a child. I'm fed up with the power that a few exert over the many through gender, income, race, and class. I think that the time is ripe to make fundamental changes in our civilization. But for real change, we need feminine energy in the management of the world. We need a critical number of women in positions of power, and we need to nurture the feminine energy in men. I'm talking about men with young minds, of course. Old guys are hopeless; we have to wait for them to die off. (Laughter) Yes, I would love to have Sophia Loren's long legs and legendary breasts. But given a choice, I would rather have the warrior hearts of Wangari Maathai, Somaly Mam, Jenny and Rose Mapendo. I want to make this world good. Not better, but to make it good. Why not? It is possible. Look around in this room -- all this knowledge, energy, talent and technology. Let's get off our fannies, roll up our sleeves and get to work, passionately, in creating an almost perfect world. Thank you.
They told me that I'm a traitor to my own profession, that I should be fired, have my medical license taken away, that I should go back to my own country. My email got hacked. In a discussion forum for other doctors, someone took credit for "Twitter-bombing" my account. Now, I didn't know if this was a good or bad thing, but then came the response: "Too bad it wasn't a real bomb." I never thought that I would do something that would provoke this level of anger among other doctors. Becoming a doctor was my dream. I grew up in China, and my earliest memories are of being rushed to the hospital because I had such bad asthma that I was there nearly every week. I had this one doctor, Dr. Sam, who always took care of me. She was about the same age as my mother. She had this wild, curly hair, and she always wore these bright yellow flowery dresses. She was one of those doctors who, if you fell and you broke your arm, she would ask you why you weren't laughing because it's your humerus. Get it? See, you'd groan, but she'd always make you feel better after having seen her. Well, we all have that childhood hero that we want to grow up to be just like, right? Well, I wanted to be just like Dr. Sam. When I was eight, my parents and I moved to the U.S., and ours became the typical immigrant narrative. My parents cleaned hotel rooms and washed dishes and pumped gas so that I could pursue my dream. Well, eventually I learned enough English, and my parents were so happy the day that I got into medical school and took my oath of healing and service. But then one day, everything changed. My mother called me to tell me that she wasn't feeling well, she had a cough that wouldn't go away, she was short of breath and tired. Well, I knew that my mother was someone who never complained about anything. For her to tell me that something was the matter, I knew something had to be really wrong. And it was: We found out that she had stage IV breast cancer, cancer that by then had spread to her lungs, her bones, and her brain. My mother was brave, though, and she had hope. She went through surgery and radiation, and was on her third round of chemotherapy when she lost her address book. She tried to look up her oncologist's phone number on the Internet and she found it, but she found something else too. On several websites, he was listed as a highly paid speaker to a drug company, and in fact often spoke on behalf of the same chemo regimen that he had prescribed her. She called me in a panic, and I didn't know what to believe. Maybe this was the right chemo regimen for her, but maybe it wasn't. It made her scared and it made her doubt. When it comes to medicine, having that trust is a must, and when that trust is gone, then all that's left is fear. There's another side to this fear. As a medical student, I was taking care of this 19-year-old who was biking back to his dorm when he got struck and hit, run over by an SUV. He had seven broken ribs, shattered hip bones, and he was bleeding inside his belly and inside his brain. Now, imagine being his parents who flew in from Seattle, 2,000 miles away, to find their son in a coma. I mean, you'd want to find out what's going on with him, right? They asked to attend our bedside rounds where we discussed his condition and his plan, which I thought was a reasonable request, and also would give us a chance to show them how much we were trying and how much we cared. The head doctor, though, said no. He gave all kinds of reasons. Maybe they'll get in the nurse's way. Maybe they'll stop students from asking questions. He even said, "What if they see mistakes and sue us?" What I saw behind every excuse was deep fear, and what I learned was that to become a doctor, we have to put on our white coats, put up a wall, and hide behind it. There's a hidden epidemic in medicine. Of course, patients are scared when they come to the doctor. Imagine you wake up with this terrible bellyache, you go to the hospital, you're lying in this strange place, you're on this hospital gurney, you're wearing this flimsy gown, strangers are coming to poke and prod at you. You don't know what's going to happen. You don't even know if you're going to get the blanket you asked for 30 minutes ago. But it's not just patients who are scared; doctors are scared too. We're scared of patients finding out who we are and what medicine is all about. And so what do we do? We put on our white coats and we hide behind them. Of course, the more we hide, the more people want to know what it is that we're hiding. The more fear then spirals into mistrust and poor medical care. We don't just have a fear of sickness, we have a sickness of fear. Can we bridge this disconnect between what patients need and what doctors do? Can we overcome the sickness of fear? Let me ask you differently: If hiding isn't the answer, what if we did the opposite? What if doctors were to become totally transparent with their patients? Last fall, I conducted a research study to find out what it is that people want to know about their healthcare. I didn't just want to study patients in a hospital, but everyday people. So my two medical students, Suhavi Tucker and Laura Johns, literally took their research to the streets. They went to banks, coffee shops, senior centers, Chinese restaurants and train stations. What did they find? Well, when we asked people, "What do you want to know about your healthcare?" people responded with what they want to know about their doctors, because people understand health care to be the individual interaction between them and their doctors. When we asked, "What do you want to know about your doctors?" people gave three different answers. Some want to know that their doctor is competent and certified to practice medicine. Some want to be sure that their doctor is unbiased and is making decisions based on evidence and science, not on who pays them. Surprisingly to us, many people want to know something else about their doctors. Jonathan, a 28-year-old law student, says he wants to find someone who is comfortable with LGBTQ patients and specializes in LGBT health. Serena, a 32-year-old accountant, says that it's important to her for her doctor to share her values when it comes to reproductive choice and women's rights. Frank, a 59-year-old hardware store owner, doesn't even like going to the doctor and wants to find someone who believes in prevention first, but who is comfortable with alternative treatments. One after another, our respondents told us that that doctor-patient relationship is a deeply intimate one — that to show their doctors their bodies and tell them their deepest secrets, they want to first understand their doctor's values. Just because doctors have to see every patient doesn't mean that patients have to see every doctor. People want to know about their doctors first so that they can make an informed choice. As a result of this, I formed a campaign, Who's My Doctor? that calls for total transparency in medicine. Participating doctors voluntarily disclose on a public website not just information about where we went to medical school and what specialty we're in, but also our conflicts of interest. We go beyond the Government in the Sunshine Act about drug company affiliations, and we talk about how we're paid. Incentives matter. If you go to your doctor because of back pain, you might want to know he's getting paid 5,000 dollars to perform spine surgery versus 25 dollars to refer you to see a physical therapist, or if he's getting paid the same thing no matter what he recommends. Then, we go one step further. We add our values when it comes to women's health, LGBT health, alternative medicine, preventive health, and end-of-life decisions. We pledge to our patients that we are here to serve you, so you have a right to know who we are. We believe that transparency can be the cure for fear. I thought some doctors would sign on and others wouldn't, but I had no idea of the huge backlash that would ensue. Within one week of starting Who's My Doctor? Medscape's public forum and several online doctors' communities had thousands of posts about this topic. Here are a few. From a gastroenterologist in Portland: "I devoted 12 years of my life to being a slave. I have loans and mortgages. I depend on lunches from drug companies to serve patients." Well, times may be hard for everyone, but try telling your patient making 35,000 dollars a year to serve a family of four that you need the free lunch. From an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte: "I find it an invasion of my privacy to disclose where my income comes from. My patients don't disclose their incomes to me." But your patients' sources of income don't affect your health. From a psychiatrist in New York City: "Pretty soon we will have to disclose whether we prefer cats to dogs, what model of car we drive, and what toilet paper we use." Well, how you feel about Toyotas or Cottonelle won't affect your patients' health, but your views on a woman's right to choose and preventive medicine and end-of-life decisions just might. And my favorite, from a Kansas City cardiologist: "More government-mandated stuff? Dr. Wen needs to move back to her own country." Well, two pieces of good news. First of all, this is meant to be voluntary and not mandatory, and second of all, I'm American and I'm already here. (Laughter) (Applause) Within a month, my employers were getting calls asking for me to be fired. I received mail at my undisclosed home address with threats to contact the medical board to sanction me. My friends and family urged me to quit this campaign. After the bomb threat, I was done. But then I heard from patients. Over social media, a TweetChat, which I'd learned what that was by then, generated 4.3 million impressions, and thousands of people wrote to encourage me to continue. They wrote with things like, "If doctors are doing something they're that ashamed of, they shouldn't be doing it." "Elected officials have to disclose campaign contributions. Lawyers have to disclose conflicts of interests. Why shouldn't doctors?" And finally, many people wrote and said, "Let us patients decide what's important when we're choosing a doctor." In our initial trial, over 300 doctors have taken the total transparency pledge. What a crazy new idea, right? But actually, this is not that new of a concept at all. Remember Dr. Sam, my doctor in China, with the goofy jokes and the wild hair? Well, she was my doctor, but she was also our neighbor who lived in the building across the street. I went to the same school as her daughter. My parents and I trusted her because we knew who she was and what she stood for, and she had no need to hide from us. Just one generation ago, this was the norm in the U.S. as well. You knew that your family doctor was the father of two teenage boys, that he quit smoking a few years ago, that he says he's a regular churchgoer, but you see him twice a year: once at Easter and once when his mother-in-law comes to town. You knew what he was about, and he had no need to hide from you. But the sickness of fear has taken over, and patients suffer the consequences. I know this firsthand. My mother fought her cancer for eight years. She was a planner, and she thought a lot about how she wanted to live and how she wanted to die. Not only did she sign advance directives, she wrote a 12-page document about how she had suffered enough, how it was time for her to go. One day, when I was a resident physician, I got a call to say that she was in the intensive care unit. By the time I got there, she was about to be intubated and put on a breathing machine. "But this is not what she wants," I said, "and we have documents." The ICU doctor looked at me in the eye, pointed at my then 16-year-old sister, and said, "Do you remember when you were that age? How would you have liked to grow up without your mother?" Her oncologist was there too, and said, "This is your mother. Can you really face yourself for the rest of your life if you don't do everything for her?" I knew my mother so well. I understood what her directives meant so well, but I was a physician. That was the single hardest decision I ever made, to let her die in peace, and I carry those words of those doctors with me every single day. We can bridge the disconnect between what doctors do and what patients need. We can get there, because we've been there before, and we know that transparency gets us to that trust. Research has shown us that openness also helps doctors, that having open medical records, being willing to talk about medical errors, will increase patient trust, improve health outcomes, and reduce malpractice. That openness, that trust, is only going to be more important as we move from the infectious to the behavioral model of disease. Bacteria may not care so much about trust and intimacy, but for people to tackle the hard lifestyle choices, to address issues like smoking cessation, blood-pressure management and diabetes control, well, that requires us to establish trust. Here's what other transparent doctors have said. Brandon Combs, an internist in Denver: "This has brought me closer to my patients. The type of relationship I've developed — that's why I entered medicine." Aaron Stupple, an internist in Denver: "I tell my patients that I am totally open with them. I don't hide anything from them. This is me. Now tell me about you. We're in this together." May Nguyen, a family physician in Houston: "My colleagues are astounded by what I'm doing. They ask me how I could be so brave. I said, I'm not being brave, it's my job." I leave you today with a final thought. Being totally transparent is scary. You feel naked, exposed and vulnerable, but that vulnerability, that humility, it can be an extraordinary benefit to the practice of medicine. When doctors are willing to step off our pedestals, take off our white coats, and show our patients who we are and what medicine is all about, that's when we begin to overcome the sickness of fear. That's when we establish trust. That's when we change the paradigm of medicine from one of secrecy and hiding to one that is fully open and engaged for our patients. Thank you. (Applause)
What has the War on Drugs done to the world? Look at the murder and mayhem in Mexico, Central America, so many other parts of the planet, the global black market estimated at 300 billion dollars a year, prisons packed in the United States and elsewhere, police and military drawn into an unwinnable war that violates basic rights, and ordinary citizens just hope they don't get caught in the crossfire, and meanwhile, more people using more drugs than ever. It's my country's history with alcohol prohibition and Al Capone, times 50. Which is why it's particularly galling to me as an American that we've been the driving force behind this global drug war. Ask why so many countries criminalize drugs they'd never heard of, why the U.N. drug treaties emphasize criminalization over health, even why most of the money worldwide for dealing with drug abuse goes not to helping agencies but those that punish, and you'll find the good old U.S. of A. Why did we do this? Some people, especially in Latin America, think it's not really about drugs. It's just a subterfuge for advancing the realpolitik interests of the U.S. But by and large, that's not it. We don't want gangsters and guerrillas funded with illegal drug money terrorizing and taking over other nations. No, the fact is, America really is crazy when it comes to drugs. I mean, don't forget, we're the ones who thought that we could prohibit alcohol. So think about our global drug war not as any sort of rational policy, but as the international projection of a domestic psychosis. (Applause) But here's the good news. Now it's the Russians leading the Drug War and not us. Most politicians in my country want to roll back the Drug War now, put fewer people behind bars, not more, and I'm proud to say as an American that we now lead the world in reforming marijuana policies. It's now legal for medical purposes in almost half our 50 states, millions of people can purchase their marijuana, their medicine, in government- licensed dispensaries, and over half my fellow citizens now say it's time to legally regulate and tax marijuana more or less like alcohol. That's what Colorado and Washington are doing, and Uruguay, and others are sure to follow. So that's what I do: work to end the Drug War. I think it all started growing up in a fairly religious, moral family, eldest son of a rabbi, going off to university where I smoked some marijuana and I liked it. (Laughter) And I liked drinking too, but it was obvious that alcohol was really the more dangerous of the two, but my friends and I could get busted for smoking a joint. Now, that hypocrisy kept bugging me, so I wrote my Ph.D dissertation on international drug control. I talked my way into the State Department. I got a security clearance. I interviewed hundreds of DEA and other law enforcement agents all around Europe and the Americas, and I'd ask them, "What do you think the answer is?" Well, in Latin America, they'd say to me, "You can't really cut off the supply. The answer lies back in the U.S., in cutting off the demand." So then I go back home and I talk to people involved in anti-drug efforts there, and they'd say, "You know, Ethan, you can't really cut off the demand. The answer lies over there. You've got to cut off the supply." Then I'd go and talk to the guys in customs trying to stop drugs at the borders, and they'd say, "You're not going to stop it here. The answer lies over there, in cutting off supply and demand." And it hit me: Everybody involved in this thought the answer lay in that area about which they knew the least. So that's when I started reading everything I could about psychoactive drugs: the history, the science, the politics, all of it, and the more one read, the more it hit you how a thoughtful, enlightened, intelligent approach took you over here, whereas the politics and laws of my country were taking you over here. And that disparity struck me as this incredible intellectual and moral puzzle. There's probably never been a drug-free society. Virtually every society has ingested psychoactive substances to deal with pain, increase our energy, socialize, even commune with God. Our desire to alter our consciousness may be as fundamental as our desires for food, companionship and sex. So our true challenge is to learn how to live with drugs so they cause the least possible harm and in some cases the greatest possible benefit. I'll tell you something else I learned, that the reason some drugs are legal and others not has almost nothing to do with science or health or the relative risk of drugs, and almost everything to do with who uses and who is perceived to use particular drugs. In the late 19th century, when most of the drugs that are now illegal were legal, the principal consumers of opiates in my country and others were middle-aged white women, using them to alleviate aches and pains when few other analgesics were available. And nobody thought about criminalizing it back then because nobody wanted to put Grandma behind bars. But when hundreds of thousands of Chinese started showing up in my country, working hard on the railroads and the mines and then kicking back in the evening just like they had in the old country with a few puffs on that opium pipe, that's when you saw the first drug prohibition laws in California and Nevada, driven by racist fears of Chinese transforming white women into opium-addicted sex slaves. The first cocaine prohibition laws, similarly prompted by racist fears of black men sniffing that white powder and forgetting their proper place in Southern society. And the first marijuana prohibition laws, all about fears of Mexican migrants in the West and the Southwest. And what was true in my country, is true in so many others as well, with both the origins of these laws and their implementation. Put it this way, and I exaggerate only slightly: If the principal smokers of cocaine were affluent older white men and the principal consumers of Viagra were poor young black men, then smokable cocaine would be easy to get with a prescription from your doctor and selling Viagra would get you five to 10 years behind bars. (Applause) I used to be a professor teaching about this. Now I'm an activist, a human rights activist, and what drives me is my shame at living in an otherwise great nation that has less than five percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. It's the people I meet who have lost someone they love to drug-related violence or prison or overdose or AIDS because our drug policies emphasize criminalization over health. It's good people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their freedom, even their children to the state, not because they hurt anyone but solely because they chose to use one drug instead of another. So is legalization the answer? On that, I'm torn: three days a week I think yes, three days a week I think no, and on Sundays I'm agnostic. But since today is Tuesday, let me just say that legally regulating and taxing most of the drugs that are now criminalized would radically reduce the crime, violence, corruption and black markets, and the problems of adulterated and unregulated drugs, and improve public safety, and allow taxpayer resources to be developed to more useful purposes. I mean, look, the markets in marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine are global commodities markets just like the global markets in alcohol, tobacco, coffee, sugar, and so many other things. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Knock out one source and another inevitably emerges. People tend to think of prohibition as the ultimate form of regulation when in fact it represents the abdication of regulation with criminals filling the void. Which is why putting criminal laws and police front and center in trying to control a dynamic global commodities market is a recipe for disaster. And what we really need to do is to bring the underground drug markets as much as possible aboveground and regulate them as intelligently as we can to minimize both the harms of drugs and the harms of prohibitionist policies. Now, with marijuana, that obviously means legally regulating and taxing it like alcohol. The benefits of doing so are enormous, the risks minimal. Will more people use marijuana? Maybe, but it's not going to be young people, because it's not going to be legalized for them, and quite frankly, they already have the best access to marijuana. I think it's going to be older people. It's going to be people in their 40s and 60s and 80s who find they prefer a little marijuana to that drink in the evening or the sleeping pill or that it helps with their arthritis or diabetes or maybe helps spice up a long-term marriage. (Laughter) And that just might be a net public health benefit. As for the other drugs, look at Portugal, where nobody goes to jail for possessing drugs, and the government's made a serious commitment to treating addiction as a health issue. Look at Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, England, where people who have been addicted to heroin for many years and repeatedly tried to quit and failed can get pharmaceutical heroin and helping services in medical clinics, and the results are in: Illegal drug abuse and disease and overdoses and crime and arrests all go down, health and well-being improve, taxpayers benefit, and many drug users even put their addictions behind them. Look at New Zealand, which recently enacted a law allowing certain recreational drugs to be sold legally provided their safety had been established. Look here in Brazil, and some other countries, where a remarkable psychoactive substance, ayahuasca, can be legally bought and consumed provided it's done so within a religious context. Look in Bolivia and Peru, where all sorts of products made from the coca leaf, the source of cocaine, are sold legally over the counter with no apparent harm to people's public health. I mean, don't forget, Coca-Cola had cocaine in it until 1900, and so far as we know was no more addictive than Coca-Cola is today. Conversely, think about cigarettes: Nothing can both hook you and kill you like cigarettes. When researchers ask heroin addicts what's the toughest drug to quit, most say cigarettes. Yet in my country and many others, half of all the people who were ever addicted to cigarettes have quit without anyone being arrested or put in jail or sent to a "treatment program" by a prosecutor or a judge. What did it were higher taxes and time and place restrictions on sale and use and effective anti-smoking campaigns. Now, could we reduce smoking even more by making it totally illegal? Probably. But just imagine the drug war nightmare that would result. So the challenges we face today are twofold. The first is the policy challenge of designing and implementing alternatives to ineffective prohibitionist policies, even as we need to get better at regulating and living with the drugs that are now legal. But the second challenge is tougher, because it's about us. The obstacles to reform lie not just out there in the power of the prison industrial complex or other vested interests that want to keep things the way they are, but within each and every one of us. It's our fears and our lack of knowledge and imagination that stands in the way of real reform. And ultimately, I think that boils down to the kids, and to every parent's desire to put our baby in a bubble, and the fear that somehow drugs will pierce that bubble and put our young ones at risk. In fact, sometimes it seems like the entire War on Drugs gets justified as one great big child protection act, which any young person can tell you it's not. So here's what I say to teenagers. First, don't do drugs. Second, don't do drugs. Third, if you do do drugs, there's some things I want you to know, because my bottom line as your parent is, come home safely at the end of the night and grow up and lead a healthy and good adulthood. That's my drug education mantra: Safety first. So this is what I've dedicated my life to, to building an organization and a movement of people who believe we need to turn our backs on the failed prohibitions of the past and embrace new drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights, where people who come from across the political spectrum and every other spectrum as well, where people who love our drugs, people who hate drugs, and people who don't give a damn about drugs, but every one of us believes that this War on Drugs, this backward, heartless, disastrous War on Drugs, has got to end. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. Thank you. Chris Anderson: Ethan, congrats — quite the reaction. That was a powerful talk. Not quite a complete standing O, though, and I'm guessing that some people here and maybe a few watching online, maybe someone knows a teenager or a friend or whatever who got sick, maybe died from some drug overdose. I'm sure you've had these people approach you before. What do you say to them? Ethan Nadelmann: Chris, the most amazing thing that's happened of late is that I've met a growing number of people who have actually lost a sibling or a child to a drug overdose, and 10 years ago, those people just wanted to say, let's line up all the drug dealers and shoot them and that will solve it. And what they've come to understand is that the Drug War did nothing to protect their kids. If anything, it made it more likely that those kids were put at risk. And so they're now becoming part of this drug policy reform movement. There's other people who have kids, one's addicted to alcohol, the other one's addicted to cocaine or heroin, and they ask themselves the question: Why does this kid get to take one step at a time and try to get better and that one's got to deal with jail and police and criminals all the time? So everybody's understanding, the Drug War's not protecting anybody. CA: Certainly in the U.S., you've got political gridlock on most issues. Is there any realistic chance of anything actually shifting on this issue in the next five years? EN: I'd say it's quite remarkable. I'm getting all these calls from journalists now who are saying to me, "Ethan, it seems like the only two issues advancing politically in America right now are marijuana law reform and gay marriage. What are you doing right?" And then you're looking at bipartisanship breaking out with, actually, Republicans in the Congress and state legislatures allowing bills to be enacted with majority Democratic support, so we've gone from being sort of the third rail, the most fearful issue of American politics, to becoming one of the most successful. CA: Ethan, thank you so much for coming to TEDGlobal. EN: Chris, thanks so much. CA: Thank you. EN: Thank you. (Applause)
I have a doppelganger. (Laughter) Dr. Gero is a brilliant but slightly mad scientist in the "Dragonball Z: Android Saga." If you look very carefully, you see that his skull has been replaced with a transparent Plexiglas dome so that the workings of his brain can be observed and also controlled with light. That's exactly what I do -- optical mind control. (Laughter) But in contrast to my evil twin who lusts after world domination, my motives are not sinister. I control the brain in order to understand how it works. Now wait a minute, you may say, how can you go straight to controlling the brain without understanding it first? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Many neuroscientists agree with this view and think that understanding will come from more detailed observation and analysis. They say, "If we could record the activity of our neurons, we would understand the brain." But think for a moment what that means. Even if we could measure what every cell is doing at all times, we would still have to make sense of the recorded activity patterns, and that's so difficult, chances are we'll understand these patterns just as little as the brains that produce them. Take a look at what brain activity might look like. In this simulation, each black dot is one nerve cell. The dot is visible whenever a cell fires an electrical impulse. There's 10,000 neurons here. So you're looking at roughly one percent of the brain of a cockroach. Your brains are about 100 million times more complicated. Somewhere, in a pattern like this, is you, your perceptions, your emotions, your memories, your plans for the future. But we don't know where, since we don't know how to read the pattern. We don't understand the code used by the brain. To make progress, we need to break the code. But how? An experienced code-breaker will tell you that in order to figure out what the symbols in a code mean, it's essential to be able to play with them, to rearrange them at will. So in this situation too, to decode the information contained in patterns like this, watching alone won't do. We need to rearrange the pattern. In other words, instead of recording the activity of neurons, we need to control it. It's not essential that we can control the activity of all neurons in the brain, just some. The more targeted our interventions, the better. And I'll show you in a moment how we can achieve the necessary precision. And since I'm realistic, rather than grandiose, I don't claim that the ability to control the function of the nervous system will at once unravel all its mysteries. But we'll certainly learn a lot. Now, I'm by no means the first person to realize how powerful a tool intervention is. The history of attempts to tinker with the function of the nervous system is long and illustrious. It dates back at least 200 years, to Galvani's famous experiments in the late 18th century and beyond. Galvani showed that a frog's legs twitched when he connected the lumbar nerve to a source of electrical current. This experiment revealed the first, and perhaps most fundamental, nugget of the neural code: that information is written in the form of electrical impulses. Galvani's approach of probing the nervous system with electrodes has remained state-of-the-art until today, despite a number of drawbacks. Sticking wires into the brain is obviously rather crude. It's hard to do in animals that run around, and there is a physical limit to the number of wires that can be inserted simultaneously. So around the turn of the last century, I started to think, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if one could take this logic and turn it upside down?" So instead of inserting a wire into one spot of the brain, re-engineer the brain itself so that some of its neural elements become responsive to diffusely broadcast signals such as a flash of light. Such an approach would literally, in a flash of light, overcome many of the obstacles to discovery. First, it's clearly a non-invasive, wireless form of communication. And second, just as in a radio broadcast, you can communicate with many receivers at once. You don't need to know where these receivers are, and it doesn't matter if these receivers move -- just think of the stereo in your car. It gets even better, for it turns out that we can fabricate the receivers out of materials that are encoded in DNA. So each nerve cell with the right genetic makeup will spontaneously produce a receiver that allows us to control its function. I hope you'll appreciate the beautiful simplicity of this concept. There's no high-tech gizmos here, just biology revealed through biology. Now let's take a look at these miraculous receivers up close. As we zoom in on one of these purple neurons, we see that its outer membrane is studded with microscopic pores. Pores like these conduct electrical current and are responsible for all the communication in the nervous system. But these pores here are special. They are coupled to light receptors similar to the ones in your eyes. Whenever a flash of light hits the receptor, the pore opens, an electrical current is switched on, and the neuron fires electrical impulses. Because the light-activated pore is encoded in DNA, we can achieve incredible precision. This is because, although each cell in our bodies contains the same set of genes, different mixes of genes get turned on and off in different cells. You can exploit this to make sure that only some neurons contain our light-activated pore and others don't. So in this cartoon, the bluish white cell in the upper-left corner does not respond to light because it lacks the light-activated pore. The approach works so well that we can write purely artificial messages directly to the brain. In this example, each electrical impulse, each deflection on the trace, is caused by a brief pulse of light. And the approach, of course, also works in moving, behaving animals. This is the first ever such experiment, sort of the optical equivalent of Galvani's. It was done six or seven years ago by my then graduate student, Susana Lima. Susana had engineered the fruit fly on the left so that just two out of the 200,000 cells in its brain expressed the light-activated pore. You're familiar with these cells because they are the ones that frustrate you when you try to swat the fly. They trained the escape reflex that makes the fly jump into the air and fly away whenever you move your hand in position. And you can see here that the flash of light has exactly the same effect. The animal jumps, it spreads its wings, it vibrates them, but it can't actually take off because the fly is sandwiched between two glass plates. Now to make sure that this was no reaction of the fly to a flash it could see, Susana did a simple but brutally effective experiment. She cut the heads off of her flies. These headless bodies can live for about a day, but they don't do much. They just stand around and groom excessively. So it seems that the only trait that survives decapitation is vanity. (Laughter) Anyway, as you'll see in a moment, Susana was able to turn on the flight motor of what's the equivalent of the spinal cord of these flies and get some of the headless bodies to actually take off and fly away. They didn't get very far, obviously. Since we took these first steps, the field of optogenetics has exploded. And there are now hundreds of labs using these approaches. And we've come a long way since Galvani's and Susana's first successes in making animals twitch or jump. We can now actually interfere with their psychology in rather profound ways, as I'll show you in my last example, which is directed at a familiar question. Life is a string of choices creating a constant pressure to decide what to do next. We cope with this pressure by having brains, and within our brains, decision-making centers that I've called here the "Actor." The Actor implements a policy that takes into account the state of the environment and the context in which we operate. Our actions change the environment, or context, and these changes are then fed back into the decision loop. Now to put some neurobiological meat on this abstract model, we constructed a simple one-dimensional world for our favorite subject, fruit flies. Each chamber in these two vertical stacks contains one fly. The left and the right halves of the chamber are filled with two different odors, and a security camera watches as the flies pace up and down between them. Here's some such CCTV footage. Whenever a fly reaches the midpoint of the chamber where the two odor streams meet, it has to make a decision. It has to decide whether to turn around and stay in the same odor, or whether to cross the midline and try something new. These decisions are clearly a reflection of the Actor's policy. Now for an intelligent being like our fly, this policy is not written in stone but rather changes as the animal learns from experience. We can incorporate such an element of adaptive intelligence into our model by assuming that the fly's brain contains not only an Actor, but a different group of cells, a "Critic," that provides a running commentary on the Actor's choices. You can think of this nagging inner voice as sort of the brain's equivalent of the Catholic Church, if you're an Austrian like me, or the super-ego, if you're Freudian, or your mother, if you're Jewish. (Laughter) Now obviously, the Critic is a key ingredient in what makes us intelligent. So we set out to identify the cells in the fly's brain that played the role of the Critic. And the logic of our experiment was simple. We thought if we could use our optical remote control to activate the cells of the Critic, we should be able, artificially, to nag the Actor into changing its policy. In other words, the fly should learn from mistakes that it thought it had made but, in reality, it had not made. So we bred flies whose brains were more or less randomly peppered with cells that were light addressable. And then we took these flies and allowed them to make choices. And whenever they made one of the two choices, chose one odor, in this case the blue one over the orange one, we switched on the lights. If the Critic was among the optically activated cells, the result of this intervention should be a change in policy. The fly should learn to avoid the optically reinforced odor. Here's what happened in two instances: We're comparing two strains of flies, each of them having about 100 light-addressable cells in their brains, shown here in green on the left and on the right. What's common among these groups of cells is that they all produce the neurotransmitter dopamine. But the identities of the individual dopamine-producing neurons are clearly largely different on the left and on the right. Optically activating these hundred or so cells into two strains of flies has dramatically different consequences. If you look first at the behavior of the fly on the right, you can see that whenever it reaches the midpoint of the chamber where the two odors meet, it marches straight through, as it did before. Its behavior is completely unchanged. But the behavior of the fly on the left is very different. Whenever it comes up to the midpoint, it pauses, it carefully scans the odor interface as if it was sniffing out its environment, and then it turns around. This means that the policy that the Actor implements now includes an instruction to avoid the odor that's in the right half of the chamber. This means that the Critic must have spoken in that animal, and that the Critic must be contained among the dopamine-producing neurons on the left, but not among the dopamine producing neurons on the right. Through many such experiments, we were able to narrow down the identity of the Critic to just 12 cells. These 12 cells, as shown here in green, send the output to a brain structure called the "mushroom body," which is shown here in gray. We know from our formal model that the brain structure at the receiving end of the Critic's commentary is the Actor. So this anatomy suggests that the mushroom bodies have something to do with action choice. Based on everything we know about the mushroom bodies, this makes perfect sense. In fact, it makes so much sense that we can construct an electronic toy circuit that simulates the behavior of the fly. In this electronic toy circuit, the mushroom body neurons are symbolized by the vertical bank of blue LEDs in the center of the board. These LED's are wired to sensors that detect the presence of odorous molecules in the air. Each odor activates a different combination of sensors, which in turn activates a different odor detector in the mushroom body. So the pilot in the cockpit of the fly, the Actor, can tell which odor is present simply by looking at which of the blue LEDs lights up. What the Actor does with this information depends on its policy, which is stored in the strengths of the connection, between the odor detectors and the motors that power the fly's evasive actions. If the connection is weak, the motors will stay off and the fly will continue straight on its course. If the connection is strong, the motors will turn on and the fly will initiate a turn. Now consider a situation in which the motors stay off, the fly continues on its path and it suffers some painful consequence such as getting zapped. In a situation like this, we would expect the Critic to speak up and to tell the Actor to change its policy. We have created such a situation, artificially, by turning on the critic with a flash of light. That caused a strengthening of the connections between the currently active odor detector and the motors. So the next time the fly finds itself facing the same odor again, the connection is strong enough to turn on the motors and to trigger an evasive maneuver. I don't know about you, but I find it exhilarating to see how vague psychological notions evaporate and give rise to a physical, mechanistic understanding of the mind, even if it's the mind of the fly. This is one piece of good news. The other piece of good news, for a scientist at least, is that much remains to be discovered. In the experiments I told you about, we have lifted the identity of the Critic, but we still have no idea how the Critic does its job. Come to think of it, knowing when you're wrong without a teacher, or your mother, telling you, is a very hard problem. There are some ideas in computer science and in artificial intelligence as to how this might be done, but we still haven't solved a single example of how intelligent behavior springs from the physical interactions in living matter. I think we'll get there in the not too distant future. Thank you. (Applause)
This is a photograph of a man whom for many years I plotted to kill. This is my father, Clinton George "Bageye" Grant. He's called Bageye because he has permanent bags under his eyes. As a 10-year-old, along with my siblings, I dreamt of scraping off the poison from fly-killer paper into his coffee, grounded down glass and sprinkling it over his breakfast, loosening the carpet on the stairs so he would trip and break his neck. But come the day, he would always skip that loose step, he would always bow out of the house without so much as a swig of coffee or a bite to eat. And so for many years, I feared that my father would die before I had a chance to kill him. (Laughter) Up until our mother asked him to leave and not come back, Bageye had been a terrifying ogre. He teetered permanently on the verge of rage, rather like me, as you see. He worked nights at Vauxhall Motors in Luton and demanded total silence throughout the house, so that when we came home from school at 3:30 in the afternoon, we would huddle beside the TV, and rather like safe-crackers, we would twiddle with the volume control knob on the TV so it was almost inaudible. And at times, when we were like this, so much "Shhh," so much "Shhh" going on in the house that I imagined us to be like the German crew of a U-boat creeping along the edge of the ocean whilst up above, on the surface, HMS Bageye patrolled ready to drop death charges at the first sound of any disturbance. So that lesson was the lesson that "Do not draw attention to yourself either in the home or outside of the home." Maybe it's a migrant lesson. We were to be below the radar, so there was no communication, really, between Bageye and us and us and Bageye, and the sound that we most looked forward to, you know when you're a child and you want your father to come home and it's all going to be happy and you're waiting for that sound of the door opening. Well the sound that we looked forward to was the click of the door closing, which meant he'd gone and would not come back. So for three decades, I never laid eyes on my father, nor he on me. We never spoke to each other for three decades, and then a couple of years ago, I decided to turn the spotlight on him. "You are being watched. Actually, you are. You are being watched." That was his mantra to us, his children. Time and time again he would say this to us. And this was the 1970s, it was Luton, where he worked at Vauxhall Motors, and he was a Jamaican. And what he meant was, you as a child of a Jamaican immigrant are being watched to see which way you turn, to see whether you conform to the host nation's stereotype of you, of being feckless, work-shy, destined for a life of crime. You are being watched, so confound their expectations of you. To that end, Bageye and his friends, mostly Jamaican, exhibited a kind of Jamaican bella figura: Turn your best side to the world, show your best face to the world. If you have seen some of the images of the Caribbean people arriving in the '40s and '50s, you might have noticed that a lot of the men wear trilbies. Now, there was no tradition of wearing trilbies in Jamaica. They invented that tradition for their arrival here. They wanted to project themselves in a way that they wanted to be perceived, so that the way they looked and the names that they gave themselves defined them. So Bageye is bald and has baggy eyes. Tidy Boots is very fussy about his footwear. Anxious is always anxious. Clock has one arm longer than the other. (Laughter) And my all-time favorite was the guy they called Summerwear. When Summerwear came to this country from Jamaica in the early '60s, he insisted on wearing light summer suits, no matter the weather, and in the course of researching their lives, I asked my mom, "Whatever became of Summerwear?" And she said, "He caught a cold and died." (Laughter) But men like Summerwear taught us the importance of style. Maybe they exaggerated their style because they thought that they were not considered to be quite civilized, and they transferred that generational attitude or anxiety onto us, the next generation, so much so that when I was growing up, if ever on the television news or radio a report came up about a black person committing some crime — a mugging, a murder, a burglary — we winced along with our parents, because they were letting the side down. You did not just represent yourself. You represented the group, and it was a terrifying thing to come to terms with, in a way, that maybe you were going to be perceived in the same light. So that was what needed to be challenged. Our father and many of his colleagues exhibited a kind of transmission but not receiving. They were built to transmit but not receive. We were to keep quiet. When our father did speak to us, it was from the pulpit of his mind. They clung to certainty in the belief that doubt would undermine them. But when I am working in my house and writing, after a day's writing, I rush downstairs and I'm very excited to talk about Marcus Garvey or Bob Marley and words are tripping out of my mouth like butterflies and I'm so excited that my children stop me, and they say, "Dad, nobody cares." (Laughter) But they do care, actually. They cross over. Somehow they find their way to you. They shape their lives according to the narrative of your life, as I did with my father and my mother, perhaps, and maybe Bageye did with his father. And that was clearer to me in the course of looking at his life and understanding, as they say, the Native Americans say, "Do not criticize the man until you can walk in his moccasins." But in conjuring his life, it was okay and very straightforward to portray a Caribbean life in England in the 1970s with bowls of plastic fruit, polystyrene ceiling tiles, settees permanently sheathed in their transparent covers that they were delivered in. But what's more difficult to navigate is the emotional landscape between the generations, and the old adage that with age comes wisdom is not true. With age comes the veneer of respectability and a veneer of uncomfortable truths. But what was true was that my parents, my mother, and my father went along with it, did not trust the state to educate me. So listen to how I sound. They determined that they would send me to a private school, but my father worked at Vauxhall Motors. It's quite difficult to fund a private school education and feed his army of children. I remember going on to the school for the entrance exam, and my father said to the priest — it was a Catholic school — he wanted a better "heducation" for the boy, but also, he, my father, never even managed to pass worms, never mind entrance exams. But in order to fund my education, he was going to have to do some dodgy stuff, so my father would fund my education by trading in illicit goods from the back of his car, and that was made even more tricky because my father, that's not his car by the way. My father aspired to have a car like that, but my father had a beaten-up Mini, and he never, being a Jamaican coming to this country, he never had a driving license, he never had any insurance or road tax or MOT. He thought, "I know how to drive; why do I need the state's validation?" But it became a little tricky when we were stopped by the police, and we were stopped a lot by the police, and I was impressed by the way that my father dealt with the police. He would promote the policeman immediately, so that P.C. Bloggs became Detective Inspector Bloggs in the course of the conversation and wave us on merrily. So my father was exhibiting what we in Jamaica called "playing fool to catch wise." But it lent also an idea that actually he was being diminished or belittled by the policeman — as a 10-year-old boy, I saw that — but also there was an ambivalence towards authority. So on the one hand, there was a mocking of authority, but on the other hand, there was a deference towards authority, and these Caribbean people had an overbearing obedience towards authority, which is very striking, very strange in a way, because migrants are very courageous people. They leave their homes. My father and my mother left Jamaica and they traveled 4,000 miles, and yet they were infantilized by travel. They were timid, and somewhere along the line, the natural order was reversed. The children became the parents to the parent. The Caribbean people came to this country with a five-year plan: they would work, some money, and then go back, but the five years became 10, the 10 became 15, and before you know it, you're changing the wallpaper, and at that point, you know you're here to stay. Although there's still the kind of temporariness that our parents felt about being here, but we children knew that the game was up. I think there was a feeling that they would not be able to continue with the ideals of the life that they expected. The reality was very much different. And also, that was true of the reality of trying to educate me. Having started the process, my father did not continue. It was left to my mother to educate me, and as George Lamming would say, it was my mother who fathered me. Even in his absence, that old mantra remained: You are being watched. But such ardent watchfulness can lead to anxiety, so much so that years later, when I was investigating why so many young black men were diagnosed with schizophrenia, six times more than they ought to be, I was not surprised to hear the psychiatrist say, "Black people are schooled in paranoia." And I wonder what Bageye would make of that. Now I also had a 10-year-old son, and turned my attention to Bageye and I went in search of him. He was back in Luton, he was now 82, and I hadn't seen him for 30-odd years, and when he opened the door, I saw this tiny little man with lambent, smiling eyes, and he was smiling, and I'd never seen him smile. I was very disconcerted by that. But we sat down, and he had a Caribbean friend with him, talking some old time talk, and my father would look at me, and he looked at me as if I would miraculously disappear as I had arisen. And he turned to his friend, and he said, "This boy and me have a deep, deep connection, deep, deep connection." But I never felt that connection. If there was a pulse, it was very weak or hardly at all. And I almost felt in the course of that reunion that I was auditioning to be my father's son. When the book came out, it had fair reviews in the national papers, but the paper of choice in Luton is not The Guardian, it's the Luton News, and the Luton News ran the headline about the book, "The Book That May Heal a 32-Year-Old Rift." And I understood that could also represent the rift between one generation and the next, between people like me and my father's generation, but there's no tradition in Caribbean life of memoirs or biographies. It was a tradition that you didn't chat about your business in public. But I welcomed that title, and I thought actually, yes, there is a possibility that this will open up conversations that we'd never had before. This will close the generation gap, perhaps. This could be an instrument of repair. And I even began to feel that this book may be perceived by my father as an act of filial devotion. Poor, deluded fool. Bageye was stung by what he perceived to be the public airing of his shortcomings. He was stung by my betrayal, and he went to the newspapers the next day and demanded a right of reply, and he got it with the headline "Bageye Bites Back." And it was a coruscating account of my betrayal. I was no son of his. He recognized in his mind that his colors had been dragged through the mud, and he couldn't allow that. He had to restore his dignity, and he did so, and initially, although I was disappointed, I grew to admire that stance. There was still fire bubbling through his veins, even though he was 82 years old. And if it meant that we would now return to 30 years of silence, my father would say, "If it's so, then it's so." Jamaicans will tell you that there's no such thing as facts, there are only versions. We all tell ourselves the versions of the story that we can best live with. Each generation builds up an edifice which they are reluctant or sometimes unable to disassemble, but in the writing, my version of the story began to change, and it was detached from me. I lost my hatred of my father. I did no longer want him to die or to murder him, and I felt free, much freer than I'd ever felt before. And I wonder whether that freedness could be transferred to him. In that initial reunion, I was struck by an idea that I had very few photographs of myself as a young child. This is a photograph of me, nine months old. In the original photograph, I'm being held up by my father, Bageye, but when my parents separated, my mother excised him from all aspects of our lives. She took a pair of scissors and cut him out of every photograph, and for years, I told myself the truth of this photograph was that you are alone, you are unsupported. But there's another way of looking at this photograph. This is a photograph that has the potential for a reunion, a potential to be reunited with my father, and in my yearning to be held up by my father, I held him up to the light. In that first reunion, it was very awkward and tense moments, and to lessen the tension, we decided to go for a walk. And as we walked, I was struck that I had reverted to being the child even though I was now towering above my father. I was almost a foot taller than my father. He was still the big man, and I tried to match his step. And I realized that he was walking as if he was still under observation, but I admired his walk. He walked like a man on the losing side of the F.A. Cup Final mounting the steps to collect his condolence medal. There was dignity in defeat. Thank you. (Applause)
As you might imagine, I'm absolutely passionate about dance. I'm passionate about making it, about watching it, about encouraging others to participate in it, and I'm also really passionate about creativity. Creativity for me is something that's absolutely critical, and I think it's something that you can teach. I think the technicities of creativity can be taught and shared, and I think you can find out things about your own personal physical signature, your own cognitive habits, and use that as a point of departure to misbehave beautifully. I was born in the 1970s, and John Travolta was big in those days: "Grease," "Saturday Night Fever," and he provided a fantastic kind of male role model for me to start dancing. My parents were very up for me going. They absolutely encouraged me to take risks, to go, to try, to try. I had an opportunity, an access to a local dance studio, and I had an enlightened teacher who allowed me to make up my own and invent my own dances, so what she did was let me make up my own ballroom and Latin American dances to teach to my peers. And that was the very first time that I found an opportunity to feel that I was able to express my own voice, and that's what's fueled me, then, to become a choreographer. I feel like I've got something to say and something to share. And I guess what's interesting is, is that I am now obsessed with the technology of the body. I think it's the most technologically literate thing that we have, and I'm absolutely obsessed with finding a way of communicating ideas through the body to audiences that might move them, touch them, help them think differently about things. So for me, choreography is very much a process of physical thinking. It's very much in mind, as well as in body, and it's a collaborative process. It's something that I have to do with other people. You know, it's a distributed cognitive process in a way. I work often with designers and visual artists, obviously dancers and other choreographers, but also, more and more, with economists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, people really who come from very different domains of expertise, where they bring their intelligence to bear on a different kind of creative process. What I thought we would do today a little bit is explore this idea of physical thinking, and we're all experts in physical thinking. Yeah, you all have a body, right? And we all know what that body is like in the real world, so one of the aspects of physical thinking that we think about a lot is this notion of proprioception, the sense of my own body in the space in the real world. So, we all understand what it feels like to know where the ends of your fingers are when you hold out your arms, yeah? You absolutely know that when you're going to grab a cup, or that cup moves and you have to renavigate it. So we're experts in physical thinking already. We just don't think about our bodies very much. We only think about them when they go wrong, so, when there's a broken arm, or when you have a heart attack, then you become really very aware of your bodies. But how is it that we can start to think about using choreographic thinking, kinesthetic intelligence, to arm the ways in which we think about things more generally? What I thought I'd do is, I'd make a TED premiere. I'm not sure if this is going to be good or not. I'll just be doing it. I thought what I'd do is, I'd use three versions of physical thinking to make something. I want to introduce you. This is Paolo. This is Catarina. (Applause) They have no idea what we're going to do. So this is not the type of choreography where I already have in mind what I'm going to make, where I've fixed the routine in my head and I'm just going to teach it to them, and these so-called empty vessels are just going to learn it. That's not the methodology at all that we work with. But what's important about it is how it is that they're grasping information, how they're taking information, how they're using it, and how they're thinking with it. I'm going to start really, really simply. Usually, dance has a stimulus or stimuli, and I thought I'd take something simple, TED logo, we can all see it, it's quite easy to work with, and I'm going to do something very simply, where you take one idea from a body, and it happens to be my body, and translate that into somebody else's body, so it's a direct transfer, transformation of energy. And I'm going to imagine this, you can do this too if you like, that I'm going to just take the letter "T" and I'm going to imagine it in mind, and I'm going to place that outside in the real world. So I absolutely see a letter "T" in front of me. Yeah? It's absolutely there. I can absolutely walk around it when I see it, yeah? It has a kind of a grammar. I know what I'm going to do with it, and I can start to describe it, so I can describe it very simply. I can describe it in my arms, right? So all I did was take my hand and then I move my hand. I can describe it, whoa, in my head, you know? Whoa. Okay. I can do also my shoulder. Yeah? It gives me something to do, something to work towards. If I were to take that letter "T" and flatten it down on the floor, here, maybe just off the floor, all of a sudden I could do maybe something with my knee, yeah? Whoa. So If I put the knee and the arms together, I've got something physical, yeah? And I can start to build something. So what I'm going to do just for one and a half minutes or so is I'm going to take that concept, I'm going to make something, and the dancers behind me are going to interpret it, they're going to snapshot it, they're going to take aspects of it, and it's almost like I'm offloading memory and they're holding onto memory? Yeah? And we'll see what we come up with. So just have a little watch about how they're, how they're accessing this and what they're doing, and I'm just going to take this letter "T," the letter "E," and the letter "D," to make something. Okay. Here goes. So I have to get myself in the zone. Right. It's a bit of a cross of my arm. So all I'm doing is exploring this space of "T" and flashing through it with some action. I'm not remembering what I'm doing. I'm just working on my task. My task is this "T." Going to watch it from the side, whoa. Strike moment. That's it. So we're starting to build a phrase. So what they're doing, let's see, something like that, so what they're doing is grasping aspects of that movement and they're generating it into a phrase. You can see the speed is extremely quick, yeah? I'm not asking them to copy exactly. They're using the information that they receive to generate the beginnings of a phrase. I can watch that and that can tell me something about how it is that they're moving. Yeah, they're super quick, right? So I've taken this aspect of TED and translated it into something that's physical. Some dancers, when they're watching action, take the overall shape, the arc of the movement, the kinetic sense of the movement, and use that for memory. Some work very much in specific detail. They start with small little units and build it up. Okay, you've got something? One more thing. So they're solving this problem for me, having a little -- They're constructing that phrase. They have something and they're going to hold on to it, yeah? One way of making. That's going to be my beginning in this world premiere. Okay. From there I'm going to do a very different thing. So basically I'm going to make a duet. I want you to think about them as architectural objects, so what they are, are just pure lines. They're no longer people, just pure lines, and I'm going to work with them almost as objects to think with, yeah? So what I'm thinking about is taking a few physical extensions from the body as I move, and I move them, and I do that by suggesting things to them: If, then; if, then. Okay, so here we go. Just grab this arm. Can you place that down into the floor? Yeah, down to the floor. Can you go underneath? Yeah. Cat, can you put leg over that side? Yeah. Can you rotate? Whoom, just go back to the beginning. Here we go, ready? And ... bam, bake ... (clicks metronome) Great. Okay, from there, you're both getting up. You're both getting up. Here we go. Good, now? Them. (Applause) So from there, from there, we're both getting up, we're both getting up, going in this direction, going underneath. Whoa, whoa, underneath. Whoa, underneath, whoo-um. Yeah? Underneath. Jump. Underneath. Jump. Paolo, kick. Don't care where. Kick. Kick, replace, change a leg. Kick, replace, change the leg. Yeah? Okay? Cat, almost get his head. Almost get his head. Whoaa. Just after it, maybe. Whoaa, whaaay, ooh. Grab her waist, come up back into her first, whoom, spin, turn her, whoo-aa. (Snaps) Great. Okay, let's have a little go from the beginning of that. Just, let me slow down here. Fancy having eight -- (Laughter) Fancy having eight hours with me in a day. So, maybe too much. So, here we go, ready, and -- (Clicks metronome) (Clicks metronome) Nice, good job. Yeah? Okay. (Applause) Okay, not bad. (Applause) A little bit more? Yeah. Just a little bit more, here we go, from that place. Separate. Face the front. Separate. Face the front. Imagine that there's a circle in front of you, yeah? Avoid it. Avoid it. Whoom. Kick it out of the way. Kick it out of the way. Throw it into the audience. Whoom. Throw it into the audience again. We've got mental architecture, we're sharing it, therefore solving a problem. They're enacting it. Let me just see that a little bit. Ready, and go. (Clicks metronome) Okay, brilliant. Okay, here we go. From the beginning, can we do our phrases first? And then that. And we're going to build something now, organize it, the phrases. Here we go. Nice and slow? Ready and go ... um. (Clicks metronome) (Clicks metronome) The duet starts. (Clicks metronome) (Clicks metronome) So yeah, okay, good. Okay, nice, very nice. (Applause) So good. So -- (Applause) Okay. So that was -- (Applause) Well done. (Applause) That was the second way of working. The first one, body-to-body transfer, yeah, with an outside mental architecture that I work with that they hold memory with for me. The second one, which is using them as objects to think with their architectural objects, I do a series of provocations, I say, "If this happens, then that. If this, if that happens -- " I've got lots of methods like that, but it's very, very quick, and this is a third method. They're starting it already, and this is a task-based method, where they have the autonomy to make all of the decisions for themselves. So I'd like us just to do, we're going to do a little mental dance, a little, in this little one minute, so what I'd love you to do is imagine, you can do this with your eyes closed, or open, and if you don't want to do it you can watch them, it's up to you. Just for a second, think about that word "TED" in front of you, so it's in mind, and it's there right in front of your mind. What I'd like you to do is transplant that outside into the real world, so just imagine that word "TED" in the real world. What I'd like you to do what that is take an aspect of it. I'm going to zone in on the "E," and I'm going to scale that "E" so it's absolutely massive, so I'm scaling that "E" so it's absolutely massive, and then I'm going to give it dimensionality. I'm going to think about it in 3D space. So now, instead of it just being a letter that's in front of me, it's a space that my body can go inside of. I now decide where I'm going to be in that space, so I'm down on this small part of the bottom rib of the letter "E," and I'm thinking about it, and I'm imagining this space that's really high and above. If I asked you to reach out — you don't have to literally do it, but in mind — reach out to the top of the "E," where would you reach? If you reach with your finger, where would it be? If you reach with your elbow, where would it be? If I already then said about that space that you're in, let's infuse it with the color red, what does that do to the body? If I then said to you, what happens if that whole wall on the side of "E" collapses and you have to use your weight to put it back up, what would you be able to do with it? So this is a mental picture, I'm describing a mental, vivid picture that enables dancers to make choices for themselves about what to make. Okay, you can open your eyes if you had them closed. So the dancers have been working on them. So just keep working on them for a little second. So they've been working on those mental architectures in the here. I know, I think we should keep them as a surprise. So here goes, world premiere dance. Yeah? Here we go. TED dance. Okay. Here it comes. I'm going to organize it quickly. So, you're going to do the first solo that we made, yeah blah blah blah blah, we go into the duet, yeah, blah blah blah blah. The next solo, blah blah blah blah, yeah, and both at the same time, you do the last solutions. Okay? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, world premiere, TED dance, three versions of physical thinking. (Applause) Well, clap afterwards, let's see if it's any good, yeah? (Laughter) So yeah, let's clap -- yeah, let's clap afterwards. Here we go. Catarina, big moment, here we go, one. (Clicks metronome) Here it comes, Cat. (Clicks metronome) Paolo, go. (Clicks metronome) Last you solo. The one you made. (Clicks metronome) (Clicks metronome) Well done. Okay, good. Super. So -- (Applause) So -- (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) So -- three versions. (Applause) Oh. (Laughs) (Applause) Three versions of physical thinking, yeah? Three versions of physical thinking. I'm hoping that today, what you're going to do is go away and make a dance for yourself, and if not that, at least misbehave more beautifully, more often. Thank you very much. (Applause) Thank you. Thank you. (Applause) Here we go. (Applause) (Applause)
So this is Anna Hazare, and Anna Hazare may well be the most cutting-edge digital activist in the world today. And you wouldn't know it by looking at him. Hazare is a 77-year-old Indian anticorruption and social justice activist. And in 2011, he was running a big campaign to address everyday corruption in India, a topic that Indian elites love to ignore. So as part of this campaign, he was using all of the traditional tactics that a good Gandhian organizer would use. So he was on a hunger strike, and Hazare realized through his hunger that actually maybe this time, in the 21st century, a hunger strike wouldn't be enough. So he started playing around with mobile activism. So the first thing he did is he said to people, "Okay, why don't you send me a text message if you support my campaign against corruption?" So he does this, he gives people a short code, and about 80,000 people do it. Okay, that's pretty respectable. But then he decides, "Let me tweak my tactics a little bit." He says, "Why don't you leave me a missed call?" Now, for those of you who have lived in the global South, you'll know that missed calls are a really critical part of global mobile culture. I see people nodding. People leave missed calls all the time: If you're running late for a meeting and you just want to let them know that you're on the way, you leave them a missed call. If you're dating someone and you just want to say "I miss you" you leave them a missed call. So a note for a dating tip here, in some cultures, if you want to please your lover, you call them and hang up. (Laughter) So why do people leave missed calls? Well, the reason of course is that they're trying to avoid charges associated with making calls and sending texts. So when Hazare asked people to leave him a missed call, let's have a little guess how many people actually did this? Thirty-five million. So this is one of the largest coordinated actions in human history. It's remarkable. And this reflects the extraordinary strength of the emerging Indian middle class and the power that their mobile phones bring. But he used that, Hazare ended up with this massive CSV file of mobile phone numbers, and he used that to deploy real people power on the ground to get hundreds of thousands of people out on the streets in Delhi to make a national point of everyday corruption in India. It's a really striking story. So this is me when I was 12 years old. I hope you see the resemblance. And I was also an activist, and I have been an activist all my life. I had this really funny childhood where I traipsed around the world meeting world leaders and Noble prize winners, talking about Third World debt, as it was then called, and demilitarization. I was a very, very serious child. (Laughter) And back then, in the early '90s, I had a very cutting-edge tech tool of my own: the fax. And the fax was the tool of my activism. And at that time, it was the best way to get a message to a lot of people all at once. I'll give you one example of a fax campaign that I ran. It was the eve of the Gulf War and I organized a global campaign to flood the hotel, the Intercontinental in Geneva, where James Baker and Tariq Aziz were meeting on the eve of the war, and I thought if I could flood them with faxes, we'll stop the war. Well, unsurprisingly, that campaign was wholly unsuccessful. There are lots of reasons for that, but there's no doubt that one sputtering fax machine in Geneva was a little bit of a bandwidth constraint in terms of the ability to get a message to lots of people. And so, I went on to discover some better tools. I cofounded Avaaz, which uses the Internet to mobilize people and now has almost 40 million members, and I now run Purpose, which is a home for these kinds of technology-powered movements. So what's the moral of this story? Is the moral of this story, you know what, the fax is kind of eclipsed by the mobile phone? This is another story of tech-determinism? Well, I would argue that there's actually more to it than that. I'd argue that in the last 20 years, something more fundamental has changed than just new tech. I would argue that there has been a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the world. You ask any activist how to understand the world, and they'll say, "Look at where the power is, who has it, how it's shifting." And I think we all sense that something big is happening. So Henry Timms and I — Henry's a fellow movement builder — got talking one day and we started to think, how can we make sense of this new world? How can we describe it and give it a framework that makes it more useful? Because we realized that many of the lessons that we were discovering in movements actually applied all over the world in many sectors of our society. So I want to introduce you to this framework: Old power, meet new power. And I want to talk to you about what new power is today. New power is the deployment of mass participation and peer coordination — these are the two key elements — to create change and shift outcomes. And we see new power all around us. This is Beppe Grillo he was a populist Italian blogger who, with a minimal political apparatus and only some online tools, won more than 25 percent of the vote in recent Italian elections. This is Airbnb, which in just a few years has radically disrupted the hotel industry without owning a single square foot of real estate. This is Kickstarter, which we know has raised over a billion dollars from more than five million people. Now, we're familiar with all of these models. But what's striking is the commonalities, the structural features of these new models and how they differ from old power. Let's look a little bit at this. Old power is held like a currency. New power works like a current. Old power is held by a few. New power isn't held by a few, it's made by many. Old power is all about download, and new power uploads. And you see a whole set of characteristics that you can trace, whether it's in media or politics or education. So we've talked a little bit about what new power is. Let's, for a second, talk about what new power isn't. New power is not your Facebook page. I assure you that having a social media strategy can enable you to do just as much download as you used to do when you had the radio. Just ask Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, I assure you that his Facebook page has not embraced the power of participation. New power is not inherently positive. In fact, this isn't an normative argument that we're making, there are many good things about new power, but it can produce bad outcomes. More participation, more peer coordination, sometimes distorts outcomes and there are some things, like things, for example, in the medical profession that we want new power to get nowhere near. And thirdly, new power is not the inevitable victor. In fact, unsurprisingly, as many of these new power models get to scale, what you see is this massive pushback from the forces of old power. Just look at this really interesting epic struggle going on right now between Edward Snowden and the NSA. You'll note that only one of the two people on this slide is currently in exile. And so, it's not at all clear that new power will be the inevitable victor. That said, keep one thing in mind: We're at the beginning of a very steep curve. So you think about some of these new power models, right? These were just like someone's garage idea a few years ago, and now they're disrupting entire industries. And so, what's interesting about new power, is the way it feeds on itself. Once you have an experience of new power, you tend to expect and want more of it. So let's say you've used a peer-to-peer lending platform like Lending Tree or Prosper, then you've figured out that you don't need the bank, and who wants the bank, right? And so, that experience tends to embolden you it tends to make you want more participation across more aspects of your life. And what this gives rise to is a set of values. We talked about the models that new power has engendered — the Airbnbs, the Kickstarters. What about the values? And this is an early sketch at what new power values look like. New power values prize transparency above all else. It's almost a religious belief in transparency, a belief that if you shine a light on something, it will be better. And remember that in the 20th century, this was not at all true. People thought that gentlemen should sit behind closed doors and make comfortable agreements. New power values of informal, networked governance. New power folks would never have invented the U.N. today, for better or worse. New power values participation, and new power is all about do-it-yourself. In fact, what's interesting about new power is that it eschews some of the professionalization and specialization that was all the rage in the 20th century. So what's interesting about these new power values and these new power models is what they mean for organizations. So we've spent a bit of time thinking, how can we plot organizations on a two-by-two where, essentially, we look at new power values and new power models and see where different people sit? We started with a U.S. analysis, and let me show you some interesting findings. So the first is Apple. In this framework, we actually described Apple as an old power company. That's because the ideology, the governing ideology of Apple is the ideology of the perfectionist product designer in Cupertino. It's absolutely about that beautiful, perfect thing descending upon us in perfection. And it does not value, as a company, transparency. In fact, it's very secretive. Now, Apple is one of the most succesful companies in the world. So this shows that you can still pursue a successful old power strategy. But one can argue that there's real vulnerabilites in that model. I think another interesting comparison is that of the Obama campaign versus the Obama presidency. (Applause) Now, I like President Obama, but he ran with new power at his back, right? And he said to people, we are the ones we've been waiting for. And he used crowdfunding to power a campaign. But when he got into office, he governed like more or less all the other presidents did. And this is a really interesting trend, is when new power gets powerful, what happens? So this is a framework you should look at and think about where your own organization sits on it. And think about where it should be in five or 10 years. So what do you do if you're old power? Well, if you're there thinking, in old power, this won't happen to us. Then just look at the Wikipedia entry for Encyclopædia Britannica. Let me tell you, it's a very sad read. But if you are old power, the most important thing you can do is to occupy yourself before others occupy you, before you are occupied. Imagine that a group of your biggest skeptics are camped in the heart of your organization asking the toughest questions and they can see everything inside of your organization. And ask them, would they like what they see and should our model change? What about if you're new power? Is new power kind of just riding the wave to glory? I would argue no. I would argue that there are some very real challenges to new power in this nascent phase. Let's stick with the Occupy Wall Street example for a moment. Occupy was this incredible example of new power, the purest example of new power. And yet, it failed to consolidate. So the energy that it created was great for the meme phase, but they were so committed to participation, that they never got anything done. And in fact that model means that the challenge for new power is: how do you use institutional power without being institutionalized? One the other end of the spectra is Uber. Uber is an amazing, highly scalable new power model. That network is getting denser and denser by the day. But what's really interesting about Uber is it hasn't really adopted new power values. This is a real quote from the Uber CEO recently: He says, "Once we get rid of the dude in the car" — he means drivers — "Uber will be cheaper." Now, new power models live and die by the strength of their networks. By whether the drivers and the consumers who use the service actually believe in it. Because they're not an exercise of top-down perfectionism, they are about the network. And so, the challenge, and this is why it's in no way surprising, is that Uber's drivers are now unionizing. It's extraordinary. Uber's drivers are turning on Uber. And the challenge for Uber — this isn't an easy situation for them — is that they are locked into a broader superstrcuture that is really old power. They've raised more than a billion dollars in the capital markets. Those markets expect a financial return, and they way you get a financial return is by squeezing and squeezing your users and your drivers for more and more value and giving that value to your investors. So the big question about the future of new power, in my view, is: Will that old power just emerge? So will new power elites just become old power and squeeze? Or will that new power base bite back? Will the next big Uber be co-owned by Uber drivers? And I think this going to be a very interesting structural question. Finally, think about new power being more than just an entity that scales things that make us have slightly better consumer experiences. My call to action for new power is to not be an island. We have major structural problems in the world today that could benefit enormously from the kinds of mass participation and peer coordination that these new power players know so well how to generate. And we badly need them to turn their energies and their power to big, what economists might call public goods problems, that are often beyond markets where investors can easily be found. And I think if we can do that, we might be able to fundamentally change not only human beings' sense of their own agency and power — because I think that's the most wonderful thing about new power, is that people feel more powerful — but we might also be able to change the way we relate to each other and the way we relate to authority and institutions. And to me, that's absolutely worth trying for. Thank you very much. (Applause)
To give me an idea of how many of you here may find what I'm about to tell you of practical value, let me ask you please to raise your hands: Who here is either over 65 years old or hopes to live past age 65 or has parents or grandparents who did live or have lived past 65, raise your hands please. (Laughter) Okay. You are the people to whom my talk will be of practical value. (Laughter) The rest of you won't find my talk personally relevant, but I think that you will still find the subject fascinating. I'm going to talk about growing older in traditional societies. This subject constitutes just one chapter of my latest book, which compares traditional, small, tribal societies with our large, modern societies, with respect to many topics such as bringing up children, growing older, health, dealing with danger, settling disputes, religion and speaking more than one language. Those tribal societies, which constituted all human societies for most of human history, are far more diverse than are our modern, recent, big societies. All big societies that have governments, and where most people are strangers to each other, are inevitably similar to each other and different from tribal societies. Tribes constitute thousands of natural experiments in how to run a human society. They constitute experiments from which we ourselves may be able to learn. Tribal societies shouldn't be scorned as primitive and miserable, but also they shouldn't be romanticized as happy and peaceful. When we learn of tribal practices, some of them will horrify us, but there are other tribal practices which, when we hear about them, we may admire and envy and wonder whether we could adopt those practices ourselves. Most old people in the U.S. end up living separately from their children and from most of their friends of their earlier years, and often they live in separate retirements homes for the elderly, whereas in traditional societies, older people instead live out their lives among their children, their other relatives, and their lifelong friends. Nevertheless, the treatment of the elderly varies enormously among traditional societies, from much worse to much better than in our modern societies. At the worst extreme, many traditional societies get rid of their elderly in one of four increasingly direct ways: by neglecting their elderly and not feeding or cleaning them until they die, or by abandoning them when the group moves, or by encouraging older people to commit suicide, or by killing older people. In which tribal societies do children abandon or kill their parents? It happens mainly under two conditions. One is in nomadic, hunter-gather societies that often shift camp and that are physically incapable of transporting old people who can't walk when the able-bodied younger people already have to carry their young children and all their physical possessions. The other condition is in societies living in marginal or fluctuating environments, such as the Arctic or deserts, where there are periodic food shortages, and occasionally there just isn't enough food to keep everyone alive. Whatever food is available has to be reserved for able-bodied adults and for children. To us Americans, it sounds horrible to think of abandoning or killing your own sick wife or husband or elderly mother or father, but what could those traditional societies do differently? They face a cruel situation of no choice. Their old people had to do it to their own parents, and the old people know what now is going to happen to them. At the opposite extreme in treatment of the elderly, the happy extreme, are the New Guinea farming societies where I've been doing my fieldwork for the past 50 years, and most other sedentary traditional societies around the world. In those societies, older people are cared for. They are fed. They remain valuable. And they continue to live in the same hut or else in a nearby hut near their children, relatives and lifelong friends. There are two main sets of reasons for this variation among societies in their treatment of old people. The variation depends especially on the usefulness of old people and on the society's values. First, as regards usefulness, older people continue to perform useful services. One use of older people in traditional societies is that they often are still effective at producing food. Another traditional usefulness of older people is that they are capable of babysitting their grandchildren, thereby freeing up their own adult children, the parents of those grandchildren, to go hunting and gathering food for the grandchildren. Still another traditional value of older people is in making tools, weapons, baskets, pots and textiles. In fact, they're usually the people who are best at it. Older people usually are the leaders of traditional societies, and the people most knowledgeable about politics, medicine, religion, songs and dances. Finally, older people in traditional societies have a huge significance that would never occur to us in our modern, literate societies, where our sources of information are books and the Internet. In contrast, in traditional societies without writing, older people are the repositories of information. It's their knowledge that spells the difference between survival and death for their whole society in a time of crisis caused by rare events for which only the oldest people alive have had experience. Those, then, are the ways in which older people are useful in traditional societies. Their usefulness varies and contributes to variation in the society's treatment of the elderly. The other set of reasons for variation in the treatment of the elderly is the society's cultural values. For example, there's particular emphasis on respect for the elderly in East Asia, associated with Confucius' doctrine of filial piety, which means obedience, respect and support for elderly parents. Cultural values that emphasize respect for older people contrast with the low status of the elderly in the U.S. Older Americans are at a big disadvantage in job applications. They're at a big disadvantage in hospitals. Our hospitals have an explicit policy called age-based allocation of healthcare resources. That sinister expression means that if hospital resources are limited, for example if only one donor heart becomes available for transplant, or if a surgeon has time to operate on only a certain number of patients, American hospitals have an explicit policy of giving preference to younger patients over older patients on the grounds that younger patients are considered more valuable to society because they have more years of life ahead of them, even though the younger patients have fewer years of valuable life experience behind them. There are several reasons for this low status of the elderly in the U.S. One is our Protestant work ethic which places high value on work, so older people who are no longer working aren't respected. Another reason is our American emphasis on the virtues of self-reliance and independence, so we instinctively look down on older people who are no longer self-reliant and independent. Still a third reason is our American cult of youth, which shows up even in our advertisements. Ads for Coca-Cola and beer always depict smiling young people, even though old as well as young people buy and drink Coca-Cola and beer. Just think, what's the last time you saw a Coke or beer ad depicting smiling people 85 years old? Never. Instead, the only American ads featuring white-haired old people are ads for retirement homes and pension planning. Well, what has changed in the status of the elderly today compared to their status in traditional societies? There have been a few changes for the better and more changes for the worse. Big changes for the better include the fact that today we enjoy much longer lives, much better health in our old age, and much better recreational opportunities. Another change for the better is that we now have specialized retirement facilities and programs to take care of old people. Changes for the worse begin with the cruel reality that we now have more old people and fewer young people than at any time in the past. That means that all those old people are more of a burden on the few young people, and that each old person has less individual value. Another big change for the worse in the status of the elderly is the breaking of social ties with age, because older people, their children, and their friends, all move and scatter independently of each other many times during their lives. We Americans move on the average every five years. Hence our older people are likely to end up living distant from their children and the friends of their youth. Yet another change for the worse in the status of the elderly is formal retirement from the workforce, carrying with it a loss of work friendships and a loss of the self-esteem associated with work. Perhaps the biggest change for the worse is that our elderly are objectively less useful than in traditional societies. Widespread literacy means that they are no longer useful as repositories of knowledge. When we want some information, we look it up in a book or we Google it instead of finding some old person to ask. The slow pace of technological change in traditional societies means that what someone learns there as a child is still useful when that person is old, but the rapid pace of technological change today means that what we learn as children is no longer useful 60 years later. And conversely, we older people are not fluent in the technologies essential for surviving in modern society. For example, as a 15-year-old, I was considered outstandingly good at multiplying numbers because I had memorized the multiplication tables and I know how to use logarithms and I'm quick at manipulating a slide rule. Today, though, those skills are utterly useless because any idiot can now multiply eight-digit numbers accurately and instantly with a pocket calculator. Conversely, I at age 75 am incompetent at skills essential for everyday life. My family's first TV set in 1948 had only three knobs that I quickly mastered: an on-off switch, a volume knob, and a channel selector knob. Today, just to watch a program on the TV set in my own house, I have to operate a 41-button TV remote that utterly defeats me. I have to telephone my 25-year-old sons and ask them to talk me through it while I try to push those wretched 41 buttons. What can we do to improve the lives of the elderly in the U.S., and to make better use of their value? That's a huge problem. In my remaining four minutes today, I can offer just a few suggestions. One value of older people is that they are increasingly useful as grandparents for offering high-quality childcare to their grandchildren, if they choose to do it, as more young women enter the workforce and as fewer young parents of either gender stay home as full-time caretakers of their children. Compared to the usual alternatives of paid babysitters and day care centers, grandparents offer superior, motivated, experienced child care. They've already gained experience from raising their own children. They usually love their grandchildren, and are eager to spend time with them. Unlike other caregivers, grandparents don't quit their job because they found another job with higher pay looking after another baby. A second value of older people is paradoxically related to their loss of value as a result of changing world conditions and technology. At the same time, older people have gained in value today precisely because of their unique experience of living conditions that have now become rare because of rapid change, but that could come back. For example, only Americans now in their 70s or older today can remember the experience of living through a great depression, the experience of living through a world war, and agonizing whether or not dropping atomic bombs would be more horrible than the likely consequences of not dropping atomic bombs. Most of our current voters and politicians have no personal experience of any of those things, but millions of older Americans do. Unfortunately, all of those terrible situations could come back. Even if they don't come back, we have to be able to plan for them on the basis of the experience of what they were like. Older people have that experience. Younger people don't. The remaining value of older people that I'll mention involves recognizing that while there are many things that older people can no longer do, there are other things that they can do better than younger people. A challenge for society is to make use of those things that older people are better at doing. Some abilities, of course, decrease with age. Those include abilities at tasks requiring physical strength and stamina, ambition, and the power of novel reasoning in a circumscribed situation, such as figuring out the structure of DNA, best left to scientists under the age of 30. Conversely, valuable attributes that increase with age include experience, understanding of people and human relationships, ability to help other people without your own ego getting in the way, and interdisciplinary thinking about large databases, such as economics and comparative history, best left to scholars over the age of 60. Hence older people are much better than younger people at supervising, administering, advising, strategizing, teaching, synthesizing, and devising long-term plans. I've seen this value of older people with so many of my friends in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, who are still active as investment managers, farmers, lawyers and doctors. In short, many traditional societies make better use of their elderly and give their elderly more satisfying lives than we do in modern, big societies. Paradoxically nowadays, when we have more elderly people than ever before, living healthier lives and with better medical care than ever before, old age is in some respects more miserable than ever before. The lives of the elderly are widely recognized as constituting a disaster area of modern American society. We can surely do better by learning from the lives of the elderly in traditional societies. But what's true of the lives of the elderly in traditional societies is true of many other features of traditional societies as well. Of course, I'm not advocating that we all give up agriculture and metal tools and return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. There are many obvious respects in which our lives today are far happier than those in small, traditional societies. To mention just a few examples, our lives are longer, materially much richer, and less plagued by violence than are the lives of people in traditional societies. But there are also things to be admired about people in traditional societies, and perhaps to be learned from them. Their lives are usually socially much richer than our lives, although materially poorer. Their children are more self-confident, more independent, and more socially skilled than are our children. They think more realistically about dangers than we do. They almost never die of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and the other noncommunicable diseases that will be the causes of death of almost all of us in this room today. Features of the modern lifestyle predispose us to those diseases, and features of the traditional lifestyle protect us against them. Those are just some examples of what we can learn from traditional societies. I hope that you will find it as fascinating to read about traditional societies as I found it to live in those societies. Thank you. (Applause)
Ten years ago, on a Tuesday morning, I conducted a parachute jump at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. It was a routine training jump, like many more I'd done since I became a paratrooper 27 years before. We went down to the airfield early because this is the Army and you always go early. You do some routine refresher training, and then you go to put on your parachute and a buddy helps you. And you put on the T-10 parachute. And you're very careful how you put the straps, particularly the leg straps because they go between your legs. And then you put on your reserve, and then you put on your heavy rucksack. And then a jumpmaster comes, and he's an experienced NCO in parachute operations. He checks you out, he grabs your adjusting straps and he tightens everything so that your chest is crushed, your shoulders are crushed down, and, of course, he's tightened so your voice goes up a couple octaves as well. Then you sit down, and you wait a little while, because this is the Army. Then you load the aircraft, and then you stand up and you get on, and you kind of lumber to the aircraft like this, in a line of people, and you sit down on canvas seats on either side of the aircraft. And you wait a little bit longer, because this is the Air Force teaching the Army how to wait. Then you take off. And it's painful enough now -- and I think it's designed this way -- it's painful enough so you want to jump. You didn't really want to jump, but you want out. So you get in the aircraft, you're flying along, and at 20 minutes out, these jumpmasters start giving you commands. They give 20 minutes -- that's a time warning. You sit there, OK. Then they give you 10 minutes. And of course, you're responding with all of these. And that's to boost everybody's confidence, to show that you're not scared. Then they give you, "Get ready." Then they go, "Outboard personnel, stand up." If you're an outboard personnel, now you stand up. If you're an inboard personnel, stand up. And then you hook up, and you hook up your static line. And at that point, you think, "Hey, guess what? I'm probably going to jump. There's no way to get out of this at this point." You go through some additional checks, and then they open the door. And this was that Tuesday morning in September, and it was pretty nice outside. So nice air comes flowing in. The jumpmasters start to check the door. And then when it's time to go, a green light goes and the jumpmaster goes, "Go." The first guy goes, and you're just in line, and you just kind of lumber to the door. Jump is a misnomer; you fall. You fall outside the door, you're caught in the slipstream. The first thing you do is lock into a tight body position -- head down in your chest, your arms extended, put over your reserve parachute. You do that because, 27 years before, an airborne sergeant had taught me to do that. I have no idea whether it makes any difference, but he seemed to make sense, and I wasn't going to test the hypothesis that he'd be wrong. And then you wait for the opening shock for your parachute to open. If you don't get an opening shock, you don't get a parachute -- you've got a whole new problem set. But typically you do; typically it opens. And of course, if your leg straps aren't set right, at that point you get another little thrill. Boom. So then you look around, you're under a canopy and you say, "This is good." Now you prepare for the inevitable. You are going to hit the ground. You can't delay that much. And you really can't decide where you hit very much, because they pretend you can steer, but you're being delivered. So you look around, where you're going to land, you try to make yourself ready. And then as you get close, you lower your rucksack below you on a lowering line, so that it's not on you when you land, and you prepare to do a parachute-landing fall. Now the Army teaches you to do five points of performance -- the toes of your feet, your calves, your thighs, your buttocks and your push-up muscles. It's this elegant little land, twist and roll. And that's not going to hurt. In 30-some years of jumping, I never did one. (Laughter) I always landed like a watermelon out of a third floor window. (Laughter) And as soon as I hit, the first thing I did is I'd see if I'd broken anything that I needed. I'd shake my head, and I'd ask myself the eternal question: "Why didn't I go into banking?" (Laughter) And I'd look around, and then I'd see another paratrooper, a young guy or girl, and they'd have pulled out their M4 carbine and they'd be picking up their equipment. They'd be doing everything that we had taught them. And I realized that, if they had to go into combat, they would do what we had taught them and they would follow leaders. And I realized that, if they came out of combat, it would be because we led them well. And I was hooked again on the importance of what I did. So now I do that Tuesday morning jump, but it's not any jump -- that was September 11th, 2001. And when we took off from the airfield, America was at peace. When we landed on the drop-zone, everything had changed. And what we thought about the possibility of those young soldiers going into combat as being theoretical was now very, very real -- and leadership seemed important. But things had changed; I was a 46-year-old brigadier general. I'd been successful, but things changed so much that I was going to have to make some significant changes, and on that morning, I didn't know it. I was raised with traditional stories of leadership: Robert E. Lee, John Buford at Gettysburg. And I also was raised with personal examples of leadership. This was my father in Vietnam. And I was raised to believe that soldiers were strong and wise and brave and faithful; they didn't lie, cheat, steal or abandon their comrades. And I still believe real leaders are like that. But in my first 25 years of career, I had a bunch of different experiences. One of my first battalion commanders, I worked in his battalion for 18 months and the only conversation he ever had with Lt. McChrystal was at mile 18 of a 25-mile road march, and he chewed my ass for about 40 seconds. And I'm not sure that was real interaction. But then a couple of years later, when I was a company commander, I went out to the National Training Center. And we did an operation, and my company did a dawn attack -- you know, the classic dawn attack: you prepare all night, move to the line of departure. And I had an armored organization at that point. We move forward, and we get wiped out -- I mean, wiped out immediately. The enemy didn't break a sweat doing it. And after the battle, they bring this mobile theater and they do what they call an "after action review" to teach you what you've done wrong. Sort of leadership by humiliation. They put a big screen up, and they take you through everything: "and then you didn't do this, and you didn't do this, etc." I walked out feeling as low as a snake's belly in a wagon rut. And I saw my battalion commander, because I had let him down. And I went up to apologize to him, and he said, "Stanley, I thought you did great." And in one sentence, he lifted me, put me back on my feet, and taught me that leaders can let you fail and yet not let you be a failure. When 9/11 came, 46-year-old Brig. Gen. McChrystal sees a whole new world. First, the things that are obvious, that you're familiar with: the environment changed -- the speed, the scrutiny, the sensitivity of everything now is so fast, sometimes it evolves faster than people have time to really reflect on it. But everything we do is in a different context. More importantly, the force that I led was spread over more than 20 countries. And instead of being able to get all the key leaders for a decision together in a single room and look them in the eye and build their confidence and get trust from them, I'm now leading a force that's dispersed, and I've got to use other techniques. I've got to use video teleconferences, I've got to use chat, I've got to use email, I've got to use phone calls -- I've got to use everything I can, not just for communication, but for leadership. A 22-year-old individual operating alone, thousands of miles from me, has got to communicate to me with confidence. I have to have trust in them and vice versa. And I also have to build their faith. And that's a new kind of leadership for me. We had one operation where we had to coordinate it from multiple locations. An emerging opportunity came -- didn't have time to get everybody together. So we had to get complex intelligence together, we had to line up the ability to act. It was sensitive, we had to go up the chain of command, convince them that this was the right thing to do and do all of this on electronic medium. We failed. The mission didn't work. And so now what we had to do is I had to reach out to try to rebuild the trust of that force, rebuild their confidence -- me and them, and them and me, and our seniors and us as a force -- all without the ability to put a hand on a shoulder. Entirely new requirement. Also, the people had changed. You probably think that the force that I led was all steely-eyed commandos with big knuckle fists carrying exotic weapons. In reality, much of the force I led looked exactly like you. It was men, women, young, old -- not just from military; from different organizations, many of them detailed to us just from a handshake. And so instead of giving orders, you're now building consensus and you're building a sense of shared purpose. Probably the biggest change was understanding that the generational difference, the ages, had changed so much. I went down to be with a Ranger platoon on an operation in Afghanistan, and on that operation, a sergeant in the platoon had lost about half his arm throwing a Taliban hand grenade back at the enemy after it had landed in his fire team. We talked about the operation, and then at the end I did what I often do with a force like that. I asked, "Where were you on 9/11?" And one young Ranger in the back -- his hair's tousled and his face is red and windblown from being in combat in the cold Afghan wind -- he said, "Sir, I was in the sixth grade." And it reminded me that we're operating a force that must have shared purpose and shared consciousness, and yet he has different experiences, in many cases a different vocabulary, a completely different skill set in terms of digital media than I do and many of the other senior leaders. And yet, we need to have that shared sense. It also produced something which I call an inversion of expertise, because we had so many changes at the lower levels in technology and tactics and whatnot, that suddenly the things that we grew up doing wasn't what the force was doing anymore. So how does a leader stay credible and legitimate when they haven't done what the people you're leading are doing? And it's a brand new leadership challenge. And it forced me to become a lot more transparent, a lot more willing to listen, a lot more willing to be reverse-mentored from lower. And yet, again, you're not all in one room. Then another thing. There's an effect on you and on your leaders. There's an impact, it's cumulative. You don't reset, or recharge your battery every time. I stood in front of a screen one night in Iraq with one of my senior officers and we watched a firefight from one of our forces. And I remembered his son was in our force. And I said, "John, where's your son? And how is he?" And he said, "Sir, he's fine. Thanks for asking." I said, "Where is he now?" And he pointed at the screen, he said, "He's in that firefight." Think about watching your brother, father, daughter, son, wife in a firefight in real time and you can't do anything about it. Think about knowing that over time. And it's a new cumulative pressure on leaders. And you have to watch and take care of each other. I probably learned the most about relationships. I learned they are the sinew which hold the force together. I grew up much of my career in the Ranger regiment. And every morning in the Ranger regiment, every Ranger -- and there are more than 2,000 of them -- says a six-stanza Ranger creed. You may know one line of it, it says, "I'll never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy." And it's not a mindless mantra, and it's not a poem. It's a promise. Every Ranger promises every other Ranger, "No matter what happens, no matter what it costs me, if you need me, I'm coming." And every Ranger gets that same promise from every other Ranger. Think about it. It's extraordinarily powerful. It's probably more powerful than marriage vows. And they've lived up to it, which gives it special power. And so the organizational relationship that bonds them is just amazing. And I learned personal relationships were more important than ever. We were in a difficult operation in Afghanistan in 2007, and an old friend of mine, that I had spent many years at various points of my career with -- godfather to one of their kids -- he sent me a note, just in an envelope, that had a quote from Sherman to Grant that said, "I knew if I ever got in a tight spot, that you would come, if alive." And having that kind of relationship, for me, turned out to be critical at many points in my career. And I learned that you have to give that in this environment, because it's tough. That was my journey. I hope it's not over. I came to believe that a leader isn't good because they're right; they're good because they're willing to learn and to trust. This isn't easy stuff. It's not like that electronic abs machine where, 15 minutes a month, you get washboard abs. (Laughter) And it isn't always fair. You can get knocked down, and it hurts and it leaves scars. But if you're a leader, the people you've counted on will help you up. And if you're a leader, the people who count on you need you on your feet. Thank you. (Applause)
I want to talk about the transformed media landscape, and what it means for anybody who has a message that they want to get out to anywhere in the world. And I want to illustrate that by telling a couple of stories about that transformation. I'll start here. Last November there was a presidential election. You probably read something about it in the papers. And there was some concern that in some parts of the country there might be voter suppression. And so a plan came up to video the vote. And the idea was that individual citizens with phones capable of taking photos or making video would document their polling places, on the lookout for any kind of voter suppression techniques, and would upload this to a central place. And that this would operate as a kind of citizen observation -- that citizens would not be there just to cast individual votes, but also to help ensure the sanctity of the vote overall. So this is a pattern that assumes we're all in this together. What matters here isn't technical capital, it's social capital. These tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring. It isn't when the shiny new tools show up that their uses start permeating society. It's when everybody is able to take them for granted. Because now that media is increasingly social, innovation can happen anywhere that people can take for granted the idea that we're all in this together. And so we're starting to see a media landscape in which innovation is happening everywhere, and moving from one spot to another. That is a huge transformation. Not to put too fine a point on it, the moment we're living through -- the moment our historical generation is living through -- is the largest increase in expressive capability in human history. Now that's a big claim. I'm going to try to back it up. There are only four periods in the last 500 years where media has changed enough to qualify for the label "revolution." The first one is the famous one, the printing press: movable type, oil-based inks, that whole complex of innovations that made printing possible and turned Europe upside-down, starting in the middle of the 1400s. Then, a couple of hundred years ago, there was innovation in two-way communication, conversational media: first the telegraph, then the telephone. Slow, text-based conversations, then real-time voice based conversations. Then, about 150 years ago, there was a revolution in recorded media other than print: first photos, then recorded sound, then movies, all encoded onto physical objects. And finally, about 100 years ago, the harnessing of electromagnetic spectrum to send sound and images through the air -- radio and television. This is the media landscape as we knew it in the 20th century. This is what those of us of a certain age grew up with, and are used to. But there is a curious asymmetry here. The media that is good at creating conversations is no good at creating groups. And the media that's good at creating groups is no good at creating conversations. If you want to have a conversation in this world, you have it with one other person. If you want to address a group, you get the same message and you give it to everybody in the group, whether you're doing that with a broadcasting tower or a printing press. That was the media landscape as we had it in the twentieth century. And this is what changed. This thing that looks like a peacock hit a windscreen is Bill Cheswick's map of the Internet. He traces the edges of the individual networks and then color codes them. The Internet is the first medium in history that has native support for groups and conversation at the same time. Whereas the phone gave us the one-to-one pattern, and television, radio, magazines, books, gave us the one-to-many pattern, the Internet gives us the many-to-many pattern. For the first time, media is natively good at supporting these kinds of conversations. That's one of the big changes. The second big change is that, as all media gets digitized, the Internet also becomes the mode of carriage for all other media, meaning that phone calls migrate to the Internet, magazines migrate to the Internet, movies migrate to the Internet. And that means that every medium is right next door to every other medium. Put another way, media is increasingly less just a source of information, and it is increasingly more a site of coordination, because groups that see or hear or watch or listen to something can now gather around and talk to each other as well. And the third big change is that members of the former audience, as Dan Gilmore calls them, can now also be producers and not consumers. Every time a new consumer joins this media landscape a new producer joins as well, because the same equipment -- phones, computers -- let you consume and produce. It's as if, when you bought a book, they threw in the printing press for free; it's like you had a phone that could turn into a radio if you pressed the right buttons. That is a huge change in the media landscape we're used to. And it's not just Internet or no Internet. We've had the Internet in its public form for almost 20 years now, and it's still changing as the media becomes more social. It's still changing patterns even among groups who know how to deal with the Internet well. Second story. Last May, China in the Sichuan province had a terrible earthquake, 7.9 magnitude, massive destruction in a wide area, as the Richter Scale has it. And the earthquake was reported as it was happening. People were texting from their phones. They were taking photos of buildings. They were taking videos of buildings shaking. They were uploading it to QQ, China's largest Internet service. They were Twittering it. And so as the quake was happening the news was reported. And because of the social connections, Chinese students coming elsewhere, and going to school, or businesses in the rest of the world opening offices in China -- there were people listening all over the world, hearing this news. The BBC got their first wind of the Chinese quake from Twitter. Twitter announced the existence of the quake several minutes before the US Geological Survey had anything up online for anybody to read. The last time China had a quake of that magnitude it took them three months to admit that it had happened. (Laughter) Now they might have liked to have done that here, rather than seeing these pictures go up online. But they weren't given that choice, because their own citizens beat them to the punch. Even the government learned of the earthquake from their own citizens, rather than from the Xinhua News Agency. And this stuff rippled like wildfire. For a while there the top 10 most clicked links on Twitter, the global short messaging service -- nine of the top 10 links were about the quake. People collating information, pointing people to news sources, pointing people to the US geological survey. The 10th one was kittens on a treadmill, but that's the Internet for you. (Laughter) But nine of the 10 in those first hours. And within half a day donation sites were up, and donations were pouring in from all around the world. This was an incredible, coordinated global response. And the Chinese then, in one of their periods of media openness, decided that they were going to let it go, that they were going to let this citizen reporting fly. And then this happened. People began to figure out, in the Sichuan Provence, that the reason so many school buildings had collapsed -- because tragically the earthquake happened during a school day -- the reason so many school buildings collapsed is that corrupt officials had taken bribes to allow those building to be built to less than code. And so they started, the citizen journalists started reporting that as well. And there was an incredible picture. You may have seen in on the front page of the New York Times. A local official literally prostrated himself in the street, in front of these protesters, in order to get them to go away. Essentially to say, "We will do anything to placate you, just please stop protesting in public." But these are people who have been radicalized, because, thanks to the one child policy, they have lost everyone in their next generation. Someone who has seen the death of a single child now has nothing to lose. And so the protest kept going. And finally the Chinese cracked down. That was enough of citizen media. And so they began to arrest the protesters. They began to shut down the media that the protests were happening on. China is probably the most successful manager of Internet censorship in the world, using something that is widely described as the Great Firewall of China. And the Great Firewall of China is a set of observation points that assume that media is produced by professionals, it mostly comes in from the outside world, it comes in relatively sparse chunks, and it comes in relatively slowly. And because of those four characteristics they are able to filter it as it comes into the country. But like the Maginot Line, the great firewall of China was facing in the wrong direction for this challenge, because not one of those four things was true in this environment. The media was produced locally. It was produced by amateurs. It was produced quickly. And it was produced at such an incredible abundance that there was no way to filter it as it appeared. And so now the Chinese government, who for a dozen years, has quite successfully filtered the web, is now in the position of having to decide whether to allow or shut down entire services, because the transformation to amateur media is so enormous that they can't deal with it any other way. And in fact that is happening this week. On the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen they just, two days ago, announced that they were simply shutting down access to Twitter, because there was no way to filter it other than that. They had to turn the spigot entirely off. Now these changes don't just affect people who want to censor messages. They also affect people who want to send messages, because this is really a transformation of the ecosystem as a whole, not just a particular strategy. The classic media problem, from the 20th century is, how does an organization have a message that they want to get out to a group of people distributed at the edges of a network. And here is the twentieth century answer. Bundle up the message. Send the same message to everybody. National message. Targeted individuals. Relatively sparse number of producers. Very expensive to do, so there is not a lot of competition. This is how you reach people. All of that is over. We are increasingly in a landscape where media is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap. Now most organizations that are trying to send messages to the outside world, to the distributed collection of the audience, are now used to this change. The audience can talk back. And that's a little freaky. But you can get used to it after a while, as people do. But that's not the really crazy change that we're living in the middle of. The really crazy change is here: it's the fact that they are no longer disconnected from each other, the fact that former consumers are now producers, the fact that the audience can talk directly to one another; because there is a lot more amateurs than professionals, and because the size of the network, the complexity of the network is actually the square of the number of participants, meaning that the network, when it grows large, grows very, very large. As recently at last decade, most of the media that was available for public consumption was produced by professionals. Those days are over, never to return. It is the green lines now, that are the source of the free content, which brings me to my last story. We saw some of the most imaginative use of social media during the Obama campaign. And I don't mean most imaginative use in politics -- I mean most imaginative use ever. And one of the things Obama did, was they famously, the Obama campaign did, was they famously put up MyBarackObama.com, myBO.com And millions of citizens rushed in to participate, and to try and figure out how to help. An incredible conversation sprung up there. And then, this time last year, Obama announced that he was going to change his vote on FISA, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He had said, in January, that he would not sign a bill that granted telecom immunity for possibly warrantless spying on American persons. By the summer, in the middle of the general campaign, He said, "I've thought about the issue more. I've changed my mind. I'm going to vote for this bill." And many of his own supporters on his own site went very publicly berserk. It was Senator Obama when they created it. They changed the name later. "Please get FISA right." Within days of this group being created it was the fastest growing group on myBO.com; within weeks of its being created it was the largest group. Obama had to issue a press release. He had to issue a reply. And he said essentially, "I have considered the issue. I understand where you are coming from. But having considered it all, I'm still going to vote the way I'm going to vote. But I wanted to reach out to you and say, I understand that you disagree with me, and I'm going to take my lumps on this one." This didn't please anybody. But then a funny thing happened in the conversation. People in that group realized that Obama had never shut them down. Nobody in the Obama campaign had ever tried to hide the group or make it harder to join, to deny its existence, to delete it, to take to off the site. They had understood that their role with myBO.com was to convene their supporters but not to control their supporters. And that is the kind of discipline that it takes to make really mature use of this media. Media, the media landscape that we knew, as familiar as it was, as easy conceptually as it was to deal with the idea that professionals broadcast messages to amateurs, is increasingly slipping away. In a world where media is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap, in a world of media where the former audience are now increasingly full participants, in that world, media is less and less often about crafting a single message to be consumed by individuals. It is more and more often a way of creating an environment for convening and supporting groups. And the choice we face, I mean anybody who has a message they want to have heard anywhere in the world, isn't whether or not that is the media environment we want to operate in. That's the media environment we've got. The question we all face now is, "How can we make best use of this media? Even though it means changing the way we've always done it." Thank you very much. (Applause)
Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah. So what the hell was that? Well, you don't know because you couldn't understand it. It wasn't clear. But hopefully, it was said with enough conviction that it was at least alluringly mysterious. Clarity or mystery? I'm balancing these two things in my daily work as a graphic designer, as well as my daily life as a New Yorker every day, and there are two elements that absolutely fascinate me. Here's an example. Now, how many people know what this is? Okay. Now how many people know what this is? Okay. Thanks to two more deft strokes by the genius Charles M. Schulz, we now have seven deft strokes that in and of themselves create an entire emotional life, one that has enthralled hundreds of millions of fans for over 50 years. This is actually a cover of a book that I designed about the work of Schulz and his art, which will be coming out this fall, and that is the entire cover. There is no other typographic information or visual information on the front, and the name of the book is "Only What's Necessary." So this is sort of symbolic about the decisions I have to make every day about the design that I'm perceiving, and the design I'm creating. So clarity. Clarity gets to the point. It's blunt. It's honest. It's sincere. We ask ourselves this. ["When should you be clear?"] Now, something like this, whether we can read it or not, needs to be really, really clear. Is it? This is a rather recent example of urban clarity that I just love, mainly because I'm always late and I am always in a hurry. So when these meters started showing up a couple of years ago on street corners, I was thrilled, because now I finally knew how many seconds I had to get across the street before I got run over by a car. Six? I can do that. (Laughter) So let's look at the yin to the clarity yang, and that is mystery. Mystery is a lot more complicated by its very definition. Mystery demands to be decoded, and when it's done right, we really, really want to. ["When should you be mysterious?"] In World War II, the Germans really, really wanted to decode this, and they couldn't. Here's an example of a design that I've done recently for a novel by Haruki Murakami, who I've done design work for for over 20 years now, and this is a novel about a young man who has four dear friends who all of a sudden, after their freshman year of college, completely cut him off with no explanation, and he is devastated. And the friends' names each have a connotation in Japanese to a color. So there's Mr. Red, there's Mr. Blue, there's Ms. White, and Ms. Black. Tsukuru Tazaki, his name does not correspond to a color, so his nickname is Colorless, and as he's looking back on their friendship, he recalls that they were like five fingers on a hand. So I created this sort of abstract representation of this, but there's a lot more going on underneath the surface of the story, and there's more going on underneath the surface of the jacket. The four fingers are now four train lines in the Tokyo subway system, which has significance within the story. And then you have the colorless subway line intersecting with each of the other colors, which basically he does later on in the story. He catches up with each of these people to find out why they treated him the way they did. And so this is the three-dimensional finished product sitting on my desk in my office, and what I was hoping for here is that you'll simply be allured by the mystery of what this looks like, and will want to read it to decode and find out and make more clear why it looks the way it does. ["The Visual Vernacular."] This is a way to use a more familiar kind of mystery. What does this mean? This is what it means. ["Make it look like something else."] The visual vernacular is the way we are used to seeing a certain thing applied to something else so that we see it in a different way. This is an approach I wanted to take to a book of essays by David Sedaris that had this title at the time. ["All the Beauty You Will Ever Need"] Now, the challenge here was that this title actually means nothing. It's not connected to any of the essays in the book. It came to the author's boyfriend in a dream. Thank you very much, so -- (Laughter) -- so usually, I am creating a design that is in some way based on the text, but this is all the text there is. So you've got this mysterious title that really doesn't mean anything, so I was trying to think: Where might I see a bit of mysterious text that seems to mean something but doesn't? And sure enough, not long after, one evening after a Chinese meal, this arrived, and I thought, "Ah, bing, ideagasm!" (Laughter) I've always loved the hilariously mysterious tropes of fortune cookies that seem to mean something extremely deep but when you think about them -- if you think about them -- they really don't. This says, "Hardly anyone knows how much is gained by ignoring the future." Thank you. (Laughter) But we can take this visual vernacular and apply it to Mr. Sedaris, and we are so familiar with how fortune cookie fortunes look that we don't even need the bits of the cookie anymore. We're just seeing this strange thing and we know we love David Sedaris, and so we're hoping that we're in for a good time. ["'Fraud' Essays by David Rakoff"] David Rakoff was a wonderful writer and he called his first book "Fraud" because he was getting sent on assignments by magazines to do things that he was not equipped to do. So he was this skinny little urban guy and GQ magazine would send him down the Colorado River whitewater rafting to see if he would survive. And then he would write about it, and he felt that he was a fraud and that he was misrepresenting himself. And so I wanted the cover of this book to also misrepresent itself and then somehow show a reader reacting to it. This led me to graffiti. I'm fascinated by graffiti. I think anybody who lives in an urban environment encounters graffiti all the time, and there's all different sorts of it. This is a picture I took on the Lower East Side of just a transformer box on the sidewalk and it's been tagged like crazy. Now whether you look at this and think, "Oh, that's a charming urban affectation," or you look at it and say, "That's illegal abuse of property," the one thing I think we can all agree on is that you cannot read it. Right? There is no clear message here. There is another kind of graffiti that I find far more interesting, which I call editorial graffiti. This is a picture I took recently in the subway, and sometimes you see lots of prurient, stupid stuff, but I thought this was interesting, and this is a poster that is saying rah-rah Airbnb, and someone has taken a Magic Marker and has editorialized about what they think about it. And it got my attention. So I was thinking, how do we apply this to this book? So I get the book by this person, and I start reading it, and I'm thinking, this guy is not who he says he is; he's a fraud. And I get out a red Magic Marker, and out of frustration just scribble this across the front. Design done. (Laughter) And they went for it! (Laughter) Author liked it, publisher liked it, and that is how the book went out into the world, and it was really fun to see people reading this on the subway and walking around with it and what have you, and they all sort of looked like they were crazy. (Laughter) ["'Perfidia' a novel by James Ellroy"] Okay, James Ellroy, amazing crime writer, a good friend, I've worked with him for many years. He is probably best known as the author of "The Black Dahlia" and "L.A. Confidential." His most recent novel was called this, which is a very mysterious name that I'm sure a lot of people know what it means, but a lot of people don't. And it's a story about a Japanese-American detective in Los Angeles in 1941 investigating a murder. And then Pearl Harbor happens, and as if his life wasn't difficult enough, now the race relations have really ratcheted up, and then the Japanese-American internment camps are quickly created, and there's lots of tension and horrible stuff as he's still trying to solve this murder. And so I did at first think very literally about this in terms of all right, we'll take Pearl Harbor and we'll add it to Los Angeles and we'll make this apocalyptic dawn on the horizon of the city. And so that's a picture from Pearl Harbor just grafted onto Los Angeles. My editor in chief said, "You know, it's interesting but I think you can do better and I think you can make it simpler." And so I went back to the drawing board, as I often do. But also, being alive to my surroundings, I work in a high-rise in Midtown, and every night, before I leave the office, I have to push this button to get out, and the big heavy glass doors open and I can get onto the elevator. And one night, all of a sudden, I looked at this and I saw it in a way that I hadn't really noticed it before. Big red circle, danger. And I thought this was so obvious that it had to have been done a zillion times, and so I did a Google image search, and I couldn't find another book cover that looked quite like this, and so this is really what solved the problem, and graphically it's more interesting and creates a bigger tension between the idea of a certain kind of sunrise coming up over L.A. and America. ["'Gulp' A tour of the human digestive system by Mary Roach."] Mary Roach is an amazing writer who takes potentially mundane scientific subjects and makes them not mundane at all; she makes them really fun. So in this particular case, it's about the human digestive system. So I'm trying to figure out what is the cover of this book going to be. This is a self-portrait. (Laughter) Every morning I look at myself in the medicine cabinet mirror to see if my tongue is black. And if it's not, I'm good to go. (Laughter) I recommend you all do this. But I also started thinking, here's our introduction. Right? Into the human digestive system. But I think what we can all agree on is that actual photographs of human mouths, at least based on this, are off-putting. (Laughter) So for the cover, then, I had this illustration done which is literally more palatable and reminds us that it's best to approach the digestive system from this end. (Laughter) I don't even have to complete the sentence. All right. ["Unuseful mystery"] What happens when clarity and mystery get mixed up? And we see this all the time. This is what I call unuseful mystery. I go down into the subway -- I take the subway a lot -- and this piece of paper is taped to a girder. Right? And now I'm thinking, uh-oh, and the train's about to come and I'm trying to figure out what this means, and thanks a lot. Part of the problem here is that they've compartmentalized the information in a way they think is helpful, and frankly, I don't think it is at all. So this is mystery we do not need. What we need is useful clarity, so just for fun, I redesigned this. This is using all the same elements. (Applause) Thank you. I am still waiting for a call from the MTA. (Laughter) You know, I'm actually not even using more colors than they use. They just didn't even bother to make the 4 and the 5 green, those idiots. (Laughter) So the first thing we see is that there is a service change, and then, in two complete sentences with a beginning, a middle and an end, it tells us what the change is and what's going to be happening. Call me crazy! (Laughter) ["Useful mystery"] All right. Now, here is a piece of mystery that I love: packaging. This redesign of the Diet Coke can by Turner Duckworth is to me truly a piece of art. It's a work of art. It's beautiful. But part of what makes it so heartening to me as a designer is that he's taken the visual vernacular of Diet Coke -- the typefaces, the colors, the silver background -- and he's reduced them to their most essential parts, so it's like going back to the Charlie Brown face. It's like, how can you give them just enough information so they know what it is but giving them the credit for the knowledge that they already have about this thing? It looks great, and you would go into a delicatessen and all of a sudden see that on the shelf, and it's wonderful. Which makes the next thing -- ["Unuseful clarity"] -- all the more disheartening, at least to me. So okay, again, going back down into the subway, after this came out, these are pictures that I took. Times Square subway station: Coca-Cola has bought out the entire thing for advertising. Okay? And maybe some of you know where this is going. Ahem. "You moved to New York with the clothes on your back, the cash in your pocket, and your eyes on the prize. You're on Coke." (Laughter) "You moved to New York with an MBA, one clean suit, and an extremely firm handshake. You're on Coke." (Laughter) These are real! (Laughter) Not even the support beams were spared, except they switched into Yoda mode. (Laughter) "Coke you're on." (Laughter) ["Excuse me, I'm on WHAT??"] This campaign was a huge misstep. It was pulled almost instantly due to consumer backlash and all sorts of unflattering parodies on the web -- (Laughter) -- and also that dot next to "You're on," that's not a period, that's a trademark. So thanks a lot. So to me, this was just so bizarre about how they could get the packaging so mysteriously beautiful and perfect and the message so unbearably, clearly wrong. It was just incredible to me. So I just hope that I've been able to share with you some of my insights on the uses of clarity and mystery in my work, and maybe how you might decide to be more clear in your life, or maybe to be a bit more mysterious and not so over-sharing. (Laughter) And if there's just one thing that I leave you with from this talk, I hope it's this: Blih blih blih blah. Blah blah blih blih. ["'Judge This,' Chip Kidd"] Blih blih blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah. (Applause)
We're here today to announce the first synthetic cell, a cell made by starting with the digital code in the computer, building the chromosome from four bottles of chemicals, assembling that chromosome in yeast, transplanting it into a recipient bacterial cell and transforming that cell into a new bacterial species. So this is the first self-replicating species that we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer. It also is the first species to have its own website encoded in its genetic code. But we'll talk more about the watermarks in a minute. This is a project that had its inception 15 years ago when our team then -- we called the institute TIGR -- was involved in sequencing the first two genomes in history. We did Haemophilus influenzae and then the smallest genome of a self-replicating organism, that of Mycoplasma genitalium. And as soon as we had these two sequences we thought, if this is supposed to be the smallest genome of a self-replicating species, could there be even a smaller genome? Could we understand the basis of cellular life at the genetic level? It's been a 15-year quest just to get to the starting point now to be able to answer those questions, because it's very difficult to eliminate multiple genes from a cell. You can only do them one at a time. We decided early on that we had to take a synthetic route, even though nobody had been there before, to see if we could synthesize a bacterial chromosome so we could actually vary the gene content to understand the essential genes for life. That started our 15-year quest to get here. But before we did the first experiments, we actually asked Art Caplan's team at the University of Pennsylvania to undertake a review of what the risks, the challenges, the ethics around creating new species in the laboratory were because it hadn't been done before. They spent about two years reviewing that independently and published their results in Science in 1999. Ham and I took two years off as a side project to sequence the human genome, but as soon as that was done we got back to the task at hand. In 2002, we started a new institute, the Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives, where we set out two goals: One, to understand the impact of our technology on the environment, and how to understand the environment better, and two, to start down this process of making synthetic life to understand basic life. In 2003, we published our first success. So Ham Smith and Clyde Hutchison developed some new methods for making error-free DNA at a small level. Our first task was a 5,000-letter code bacteriophage, a virus that attacks only E. coli. So that was the phage phi X 174, which was chosen for historical reasons. It was the first DNA phage, DNA virus, DNA genome that was actually sequenced. So once we realized that we could make 5,000-base pair viral-sized pieces, we thought, we at least have the means then to try and make serially lots of these pieces to be able to eventually assemble them together to make this mega base chromosome. So, substantially larger than we even thought we would go initially. There were several steps to this. There were two sides: We had to solve the chemistry for making large DNA molecules, and we had to solve the biological side of how, if we had this new chemical entity, how would we boot it up, activate it in a recipient cell. We had two teams working in parallel: one team on the chemistry, and the other on trying to be able to transplant entire chromosomes to get new cells. When we started this out, we thought the synthesis would be the biggest problem, which is why we chose the smallest genome. And some of you have noticed that we switched from the smallest genome to a much larger one. And we can walk through the reasons for that, but basically the small cell took on the order of one to two months to get results from, whereas the larger, faster-growing cell takes only two days. So there's only so many cycles we could go through in a year at six weeks per cycle. And you should know that basically 99, probably 99 percent plus of our experiments failed. So this was a debugging, problem-solving scenario from the beginning because there was no recipe of how to get there. So, one of the most important publications we had was in 2007. Carole Lartigue led the effort to actually transplant a bacterial chromosome from one bacteria to another. I think philosophically, that was one of the most important papers that we've ever done because it showed how dynamic life was. And we knew, once that worked, that we actually had a chance if we could make the synthetic chromosomes to do the same with those. We didn't know that it was going to take us several years more to get there. In 2008, we reported the complete synthesis of the Mycoplasma genitalium genome, a little over 500,000 letters of genetic code, but we have not yet succeeded in booting up that chromosome. We think in part, because of its slow growth and, in part, cells have all kinds of unique defense mechanisms to keep these events from happening. It turned out the cell that we were trying to transplant into had a nuclease, an enzyme that chews up DNA on its surface, and was happy to eat the synthetic DNA that we gave it and never got transplantations. But at the time, that was the largest molecule of a defined structure that had been made. And so both sides were progressing, but part of the synthesis had to be accomplished or was able to be accomplished using yeast, putting the fragments in yeast and yeast would assemble these for us. It's an amazing step forward, but we had a problem because now we had the bacterial chromosomes growing in yeast. So in addition to doing the transplant, we had to find out how to get a bacterial chromosome out of the eukaryotic yeast into a form where we could transplant it into a recipient cell. So our team developed new techniques for actually growing, cloning entire bacterial chromosomes in yeast. So we took the same mycoides genome that Carole had initially transplanted, and we grew that in yeast as an artificial chromosome. And we thought this would be a great test bed for learning how to get chromosomes out of yeast and transplant them. When we did these experiments, though, we could get the chromosome out of yeast but it wouldn't transplant and boot up a cell. That little issue took the team two years to solve. It turns out, the DNA in the bacterial cell was actually methylated, and the methylation protects it from the restriction enzyme, from digesting the DNA. So what we found is if we took the chromosome out of yeast and methylated it, we could then transplant it. Further advances came when the team removed the restriction enzyme genes from the recipient capricolum cell. And once we had done that, now we can take naked DNA out of yeast and transplant it. So last fall when we published the results of that work in Science, we all became overconfident and were sure we were only a few weeks away from being able to now boot up a chromosome out of yeast. Because of the problems with Mycoplasma genitalium and its slow growth about a year and a half ago, we decided to synthesize the much larger chromosome, the mycoides chromosome, knowing that we had the biology worked out on that for transplantation. And Dan led the team for the synthesis of this over one-million-base pair chromosome. But it turned out it wasn't going to be as simple in the end, and it set us back three months because we had one error out of over a million base pairs in that sequence. So the team developed new debugging software, where we could test each synthetic fragment to see if it would grow in a background of wild type DNA. And we found that 10 out of the 11 100,000-base pair pieces we synthesized were completely accurate and compatible with a life-forming sequence. We narrowed it down to one fragment; we sequenced it and found just one base pair had been deleted in an essential gene. So accuracy is essential. There's parts of the genome where it cannot tolerate even a single error, and then there's parts of the genome where we can put in large blocks of DNA, as we did with the watermarks, and it can tolerate all kinds of errors. So it took about three months to find that error and repair it. And then early one morning, at 6 a.m. we got a text from Dan saying that, now, the first blue colonies existed. So, it's been a long route to get here: 15 years from the beginning. We felt one of the tenets of this field was to make absolutely certain we could distinguish synthetic DNA from natural DNA. Early on, when you're working in a new area of science, you have to think about all the pitfalls and things that could lead you to believe that you had done something when you hadn't, and, even worse, leading others to believe it. So, we thought the worst problem would be a single molecule contamination of the native chromosome, leading us to believe that we actually had created a synthetic cell, when it would have been just a contaminant. So early on, we developed the notion of putting in watermarks in the DNA to absolutely make clear that the DNA was synthetic. And the first chromosome we built in 2008 -- the 500,000-base pair one -- we simply assigned the names of the authors of the chromosome into the genetic code, but it was using just amino acid single letter translations, which leaves out certain letters of the alphabet. So the team actually developed a new code within the code within the code. So it's a new code for interpreting and writing messages in DNA. Now, mathematicians have been hiding and writing messages in the genetic code for a long time, but it's clear they were mathematicians and not biologists because, if you write long messages with the code that the mathematicians developed, it would more than likely lead to new proteins being synthesized with unknown functions. So the code that Mike Montague and the team developed actually puts frequent stop codons, so it's a different alphabet but allows us to use the entire English alphabet with punctuation and numbers. So, there are four major watermarks all over 1,000 base pairs of genetic code. The first one actually contains within it this code for interpreting the rest of the genetic code. So in the remaining information, in the watermarks, contain the names of, I think it's 46 different authors and key contributors to getting the project to this stage. And we also built in a website address so that if somebody decodes the code within the code within the code, they can send an email to that address. So it's clearly distinguishable from any other species, having 46 names in it, its own web address. And we added three quotations, because with the first genome we were criticized for not trying to say something more profound than just signing the work. So we won't give the rest of the code, but we will give the three quotations. The first is, "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph and to recreate life out of life." It's a James Joyce quote. The second quotation is, "See things not as they are, but as they might be." It's a quote from the "American Prometheus" book on Robert Oppenheimer. And the last one is a Richard Feynman quote: "What I cannot build, I cannot understand." So, because this is as much a philosophical advance as a technical advance in science, we tried to deal with both the philosophical and the technical side. The last thing I want to say before turning it over to questions is that the extensive work that we've done -- asking for ethical review, pushing the envelope on that side as well as the technical side -- this has been broadly discussed in the scientific community, in the policy community and at the highest levels of the federal government. Even with this announcement, as we did in 2003 -- that work was funded by the Department of Energy, so the work was reviewed at the level of the White House, trying to decide whether to classify the work or publish it. And they came down on the side of open publication, which is the right approach -- we've briefed the White House, we've briefed members of Congress, we've tried to take and push the policy issues in parallel with the scientific advances. So with that, I would like to open it first to the floor for questions. Yes, in the back. Reporter: Could you explain, in layman's terms, how significant a breakthrough this is please? Craig Venter: Can we explain how significant this is? I'm not sure we're the ones that should be explaining how significant it is. It's significant to us. Perhaps it's a giant philosophical change in how we view life. We actually view it as a baby step in terms of, it's taken us 15 years to be able to do the experiment we wanted to do 15 years ago on understanding life at its basic level. But we actually believe this is going to be a very powerful set of tools and we're already starting in numerous avenues to use this tool. We have, at the Institute, ongoing funding now from NIH in a program with Novartis to try and use these new synthetic DNA tools to perhaps make the flu vaccine that you might get next year. Because instead of taking weeks to months to make these, Dan's team can now make these in less than 24 hours. So when you see how long it took to get an H1N1 vaccine out, we think we can shorten that process quite substantially. In the vaccine area, Synthetic Genomics and the Institute are forming a new vaccine company because we think these tools can affect vaccines to diseases that haven't been possible to date, things where the viruses rapidly evolve, such with rhinovirus. Wouldn't it be nice to have something that actually blocked common colds? Or, more importantly, HIV, where the virus evolves so quickly the vaccines that are made today can't keep up with those evolutionary changes. Also, at Synthetic Genomics, we've been working on major environmental issues. I think this latest oil spill in the Gulf is a reminder. We can't see CO2 -- we depend on scientific measurements for it and we see the beginning results of having too much of it -- but we can see pre-CO2 now floating on the waters and contaminating the beaches in the Gulf. We need some alternatives for oil. We have a program with Exxon Mobile to try and develop new strains of algae that can efficiently capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or from concentrated sources, make new hydrocarbons that can go into their refineries to make normal gasoline and diesel fuel out of CO2. Those are just a couple of the approaches and directions that we're taking. (Applause)
Ever since I was a little girl seeing "Star Wars" for the first time, I've been fascinated by this idea of personal robots. And as a little girl, I loved the idea of a robot that interacted with us much more like a helpful, trusted sidekick -- something that would delight us, enrich our lives and help us save a galaxy or two. I knew robots like that didn't really exist, but I knew I wanted to build them. So 20 years pass -- I am now a graduate student at MIT studying artificial intelligence, the year is 1997, and NASA has just landed the first robot on Mars. But robots are still not in our home, ironically. And I remember thinking about all the reasons why that was the case. But one really struck me. Robotics had really been about interacting with things, not with people -- certainly not in a social way that would be natural for us and would really help people accept robots into our daily lives. For me, that was the white space; that's what robots could not do yet. And so that year, I started to build this robot, Kismet, the world's first social robot. Three years later -- a lot of programming, working with other graduate students in the lab -- Kismet was ready to start interacting with people. (Video) Scientist: I want to show you something. Kismet: (Nonsense) Scientist: This is a watch that my girlfriend gave me. Kismet: (Nonsense) Scientist: Yeah, look, it's got a little blue light in it too. I almost lost it this week. Cynthia Breazeal: So Kismet interacted with people like kind of a non-verbal child or pre-verbal child, which I assume was fitting because it was really the first of its kind. It didn't speak language, but it didn't matter. This little robot was somehow able to tap into something deeply social within us -- and with that, the promise of an entirely new way we could interact with robots. So over the past several years I've been continuing to explore this interpersonal dimension of robots, now at the media lab with my own team of incredibly talented students. And one of my favorite robots is Leonardo. We developed Leonardo in collaboration with Stan Winston Studio. And so I want to show you a special moment for me of Leo. This is Matt Berlin interacting with Leo, introducing Leo to a new object. And because it's new, Leo doesn't really know what to make of it. But sort of like us, he can actually learn about it from watching Matt's reaction. (Video) Matt Berlin: Hello, Leo. Leo, this is Cookie Monster. Can you find Cookie Monster? Leo, Cookie Monster is very bad. He's very bad, Leo. Cookie Monster is very, very bad. He's a scary monster. He wants to get your cookies. (Laughter) CB: All right, so Leo and Cookie might have gotten off to a little bit of a rough start, but they get along great now. So what I've learned through building these systems is that robots are actually a really intriguing social technology, where it's actually their ability to push our social buttons and to interact with us like a partner that is a core part of their functionality. And with that shift in thinking, we can now start to imagine new questions, new possibilities for robots that we might not have thought about otherwise. But what do I mean when I say "push our social buttons?" Well, one of the things that we've learned is that, if we design these robots to communicate with us using the same body language, the same sort of non-verbal cues that people use -- like Nexi, our humanoid robot, is doing here -- what we find is that people respond to robots a lot like they respond to people. People use these cues to determine things like how persuasive someone is, how likable, how engaging, how trustworthy. It turns out it's the same for robots. It's turning out now that robots are actually becoming a really interesting new scientific tool to understand human behavior. To answer questions like, how is it that, from a brief encounter, we're able to make an estimate of how trustworthy another person is? Mimicry's believed to play a role, but how? Is it the mimicking of particular gestures that matters? It turns out it's really hard to learn this or understand this from watching people because when we interact we do all of these cues automatically. We can't carefully control them because they're subconscious for us. But with the robot, you can. And so in this video here -- this is a video taken from David DeSteno's lab at Northeastern University. He's a psychologist we've been collaborating with. There's actually a scientist carefully controlling Nexi's cues to be able to study this question. And the bottom line is -- the reason why this works is because it turns out people just behave like people even when interacting with a robot. So given that key insight, we can now start to imagine new kinds of applications for robots. For instance, if robots do respond to our non-verbal cues, maybe they would be a cool, new communication technology. So imagine this: What about a robot accessory for your cellphone? You call your friend, she puts her handset in a robot, and, bam! You're a MeBot -- you can make eye contact, you can talk with your friends, you can move around, you can gesture -- maybe the next best thing to really being there, or is it? To explore this question, my student, Siggy Adalgeirsson, did a study where we brought human participants, people, into our lab to do a collaborative task with a remote collaborator. The task involved things like looking at a set of objects on the table, discussing them in terms of their importance and relevance to performing a certain task -- this ended up being a survival task -- and then rating them in terms of how valuable and important they thought they were. The remote collaborator was an experimenter from our group who used one of three different technologies to interact with the participants. The first was just the screen. This is just like video conferencing today. The next was to add mobility -- so, have the screen on a mobile base. This is like, if you're familiar with any of the telepresence robots today -- this is mirroring that situation. And then the fully expressive MeBot. So after the interaction, we asked people to rate their quality of interaction with the technology, with a remote collaborator through this technology, in a number of different ways. We looked at psychological involvement -- how much empathy did you feel for the other person? We looked at overall engagement. We looked at their desire to cooperate. And this is what we see when they use just the screen. It turns out, when you add mobility -- the ability to roll around the table -- you get a little more of a boost. And you get even more of a boost when you add the full expression. So it seems like this physical, social embodiment actually really makes a difference. Now let's try to put this into a little bit of context. Today we know that families are living further and further apart, and that definitely takes a toll on family relationships and family bonds over distance. For me, I have three young boys, and I want them to have a really good relationship with their grandparents. But my parents live thousands of miles away, so they just don't get to see each other that often. We try Skype, we try phone calls, but my boys are little -- they don't really want to talk; they want to play. So I love the idea of thinking about robots as a new kind of distance-play technology. I imagine a time not too far from now -- my mom can go to her computer, open up a browser and jack into a little robot. And as grandma-bot, she can now play, really play, with my sons, with her grandsons, in the real world with his real toys. I could imagine grandmothers being able to do social-plays with their granddaughters, with their friends, and to be able to share all kinds of other activities around the house, like sharing a bedtime story. And through this technology, being able to be an active participant in their grandchildren's lives in a way that's not possible today. Let's think about some other domains, like maybe health. So in the United States today, over 65 percent of people are either overweight or obese, and now it's a big problem with our children as well. And we know that as you get older in life, if you're obese when you're younger, that can lead to chronic diseases that not only reduce your quality of life, but are a tremendous economic burden on our health care system. But if robots can be engaging, if we like to cooperate with robots, if robots are persuasive, maybe a robot can help you maintain a diet and exercise program, maybe they can help you manage your weight. Sort of like a digital Jiminy -- as in the well-known fairy tale -- a kind of friendly, supportive presence that's always there to be able to help you make the right decision in the right way at the right time to help you form healthy habits. So we actually explored this idea in our lab. This is a robot, Autom. Cory Kidd developed this robot for his doctoral work. And it was designed to be a robot diet-and-exercise coach. It had a couple of simple non-verbal skills it could do. It could make eye contact with you. It could share information looking down at a screen. You'd use a screen interface to enter information, like how many calories you ate that day, how much exercise you got. And then it could help track that for you. And the robot spoke with a synthetic voice to engage you in a coaching dialogue modeled after trainers and patients and so forth. And it would build a working alliance with you through that dialogue. It could help you set goals and track your progress, and it would help motivate you. So an interesting question is, does the social embodiment really matter? Does it matter that it's a robot? Is it really just the quality of advice and information that matters? To explore that question, we did a study in the Boston area where we put one of three interventions in people's homes for a period of several weeks. One case was the robot you saw there, Autom. Another was a computer that ran the same touch-screen interface, ran exactly the same dialogues. The quality of advice was identical. And the third was just a pen and paper log, because that's the standard intervention you typically get when you start a diet-and-exercise program. So one of the things we really wanted to look at was not how much weight people lost, but really how long they interacted with the robot. Because the challenge is not losing weight, it's actually keeping it off. And the longer you could interact with one of these interventions, well that's indicative, potentially, of longer-term success. So the first thing I want to look at is how long, how long did people interact with these systems. It turns out that people interacted with the robot significantly more, even though the quality of the advice was identical to the computer. When it asked people to rate it on terms of the quality of the working alliance, people rated the robot higher and they trusted the robot more. (Laughter) And when you look at emotional engagement, it was completely different. People would name the robots. They would dress the robots. (Laughter) And even when we would come up to pick up the robots at the end of the study, they would come out to the car and say good-bye to the robots. They didn't do this with a computer. The last thing I want to talk about today is the future of children's media. We know that kids spend a lot of time behind screens today, whether it's television or computer games or whatnot. My sons, they love the screen. They love the screen. But I want them to play; as a mom, I want them to play, like, real-world play. And so I have a new project in my group I wanted to present to you today called Playtime Computing that's really trying to think about how we can take what's so engaging about digital media and literally bring it off the screen into the real world of the child, where it can take on many of the properties of real-world play. So here's the first exploration of this idea, where characters can be physical or virtual, and where the digital content can literally come off the screen into the world and back. I like to think of this as the Atari Pong of this blended-reality play. But we can push this idea further. What if -- (Game) Nathan: Here it comes. Yay! CB: -- the character itself could come into your world? It turns out that kids love it when the character becomes real and enters into their world. And when it's in their world, they can relate to it and play with it in a way that's fundamentally different from how they play with it on the screen. Another important idea is this notion of persistence of character across realities. So changes that children make in the real world need to translate to the virtual world. So here, Nathan has changed the letter A to the number 2. You can imagine maybe these symbols give the characters special powers when it goes into the virtual world. So they are now sending the character back into that world. And now it's got number power. And then finally, what I've been trying to do here is create a really immersive experience for kids, where they really feel like they are part of that story, a part of that experience. And I really want to spark their imaginations the way mine was sparked as a little girl watching "Star Wars." But I want to do more than that. I actually want them to create those experiences. I want them to be able to literally build their imagination into these experiences and make them their own. So we've been exploring a lot of ideas in telepresence and mixed reality to literally allow kids to project their ideas into this space where other kids can interact with them and build upon them. I really want to come up with new ways of children's media that foster creativity and learning and innovation. I think that's very, very important. So this is a new project. We've invited a lot of kids into this space, and they think it's pretty cool. But I can tell you, the thing that they love the most is the robot. What they care about is the robot. Robots touch something deeply human within us. And so whether they're helping us to become creative and innovative, or whether they're helping us to feel more deeply connected despite distance, or whether they are our trusted sidekick who's helping us attain our personal goals in becoming our highest and best selves, for me, robots are all about people. Thank you. (Applause)
I'm going to try to give you a view of the world as I see it, the problems and the opportunities that we face, and then ask the question if we should be optimistic or pessimistic. And then I'll let you in on a secret, which is why I am an incurable optimist. Let me start off showing you an Al Gore movie that you may have seen before. Now, you've all seen "Inconvenient Truth." This is a little more inconvenient. (Video): Man: ... extremely dangerous questions. Because, with our present knowledge, we have no idea what would happen. Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the world's climate through the waste products of his civilization. Due to our release, through factories and automobiles every year, of more than six billion tons of carbon dioxide -- which helps air absorb heat from the sun -- our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer. This is bad? Well, it's been calculated a few degrees' rise in the earth's temperature would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi Valley. Tourists in glass-bottomed boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water. For, in weather, we're not only dealing with forces of a far greater variety than even the atomic physicist encounters, but with life itself. Larry Brilliant: Should we feel good, or should we feel bad that 50 years of foreknowledge accomplished so little? Well, it depends, really, on what your goals are. And I think, as my goals, I always go back to Gandhi's talisman. When Mahatma Gandhi was asked, "How do you know if the next act that you are about to do is the right one or the wrong one?" he said, "Consider the face of the poorest, most vulnerable human being that you ever chanced upon, and ask yourself if the act that you contemplate will be of benefit to that person. And if it will be, it's the right thing to do, and if not, rethink it." For those of us in this room, it's not just the poorest and the most vulnerable individual, it's the community, it's the culture, it's the world itself. And the trends for those who are at the periphery of our society, who are the poorest and the most vulnerable, the trends give rise to a great case for pessimism. But there's also a wonderful case for optimism. Let's review them both. First of all, the megatrends. There's two degrees, or three degrees of climate change baked into the system. It will cause rising seas. It will cause saline deposited into wells and into lands. It will disproportionately harm the poorest and the most vulnerable, as will the increasing rise of population. Even though we've dodged Paul Ehrlich's population bomb, and we will not see 20 billion people in this decade, as he had forecast, we eat as if we were 20 billion. And we consume so much that again, a rise of 6.5 billion to 9.5 billion in our grandchildren's lifetime will disproportionately hurt the poorest and the most vulnerable. That's why they migrate to cities. That's why in June of this year, we passed, as a species, 51 percent of us living in cities, and bustees, and slums, and shantytowns. The rural areas are no longer producing as much food as they did. The green revolution never reached Africa. And with desertification, sandstorms, the Gobi Desert, the Ogaden, we are finding increasing difficulty of a hectare to produce as many calories as it did even 15 years ago. So humans are turning more towards animal consumption. In Africa last year, Africans ate 600 million wild animals, and consumed two billion kilograms of bush meat. And every kilogram of bush meat contained hundreds of thousands of novel viruses that have never been charted, the genomic sequences of which we don't know. Their fitness for creating pandemics we are unaware of, but we are ripe for zoonotic-borne, emerging communicable diseases. Increasingly, I would say explosive growth of technology. Most of us are the beneficiaries of that growth. But it has a dark side -- in bioweapons, and in technology that puts us on a collision course to magnify any anger, hatred or feeling of marginalization. And in fact, with increasing globalization -- for which there are big winners and even bigger losers -- today the world is more diverse and unfair than perhaps it has ever been in history. One percent of us own 40 percent of all the goods and services. What will happen if the billion people today who live on less than one dollar a day rise to three billion in the next 30 years? The one percent will own even more than 40 percent of all the world's goods and services. Not because they've grown richer, but because the rest of the world has grown increasingly poorer. Last week, Bill Clinton at the TED Awards said, "This situation is unprecedented, unequal, unfair and unstable." So there's lots of reason for pessimism. Darfur is, at its origin, a resource war. Last year, there were 85,000 riots in China, 230 a day, that required police or military intervention. Most of them were about resources. We are facing an unprecedented number, scale of disasters. Some are weather-related, human-rights related, epidemics. And the newly emerging diseases may make H5N1 and bird flu a quaint forerunner of things to come. It's a destabilized world. And unlike destabilized world in the past, it will be broadcast to you on YouTube, you will see it on digital television and on your cell phones. What will that lead to? For some, it will lead to anger, religious and sectarian violence and terrorism. For others, withdrawal, nihilism, materialism. For us, where does it take us, as social activists and entrepreneurs? As we look at these trends, do we become despondent, or will we become energized? Let's look at one case, the case of Bangladesh. First, even if carbon dioxide emissions stopped today, global warming would continue. And even with global warming -- if you can see these blue lines, the dotted line shows that even if emissions of greenhouse gasses stopped today, the next decades will see rising sea levels. A minimum of 20 to 30 inches of increase in sea levels is the best case that we can hope for, and it could be 10 times that. What will that do to Bangladesh? Let's take a look. So here's Bangladesh. 70 percent of Bangladesh is at less than five feet above sea level. Let's go up and take a look at the Himalayas. And we'll watch as global warming makes them melt. More water comes down, the deforested areas, here in the Tarai, will be unable to absorb the effluent, because trees are like straws that suck up the extra seasonal water. Now we're looking down south, through the Kali Gandaki. Many of you, I think, have probably trekked here. And we're going to cruise down and take a look at Bangladesh and see what the impact will be of twin increases in water coming from the north, and in the seas rising from the south. Looking at the five major rivers that feed Bangladesh. And now let's look from the south, looking up, and let's see this in relief. A minimum of 20 to 40 inches of increase in seas, coupled with increasing flows from the Himalayas. And take a look at this. As many as 100 million refugees from Bangladesh could be expected to migrate into India and into China. This is the difficulty that one country faces. But if you look at the globe, all around the earth, wherever there is low-lying area, populated areas near the water, you will find increase in sea level that will challenge our way of life. Sub-Saharan Africa, and even our own San Francisco Bay Area. We're all in this together. This is not something that happens far away to people that we don't know. Global warming is something that happens to all of us, all at once. As are these newly emerging communicable diseases, names that you hadn't heard 20 years ago: ebola, lhasa fever, monkey pox. With the erosion of the green belt separating animals from humans, we live in each other's viral environment. Do you remember, 20 years ago, no one had ever heard of West Nile fever? And then we watched, as one case arrived on the East Coast of the United States and it marched every year, westwardly. Do you remember no one had heard of ebola until we heard of hundreds of people dying in Central Africa from it? It's just the beginning, unfortunately. There have been 30 novel emerging communicable diseases that begin in animals that have jumped species in the last 30 years. It's more than enough reason for pessimism. But now let's look at the case for optimism. (Laughter) Enough of the bad news. Human beings have always risen to the challenge. You just need to look at the list of Nobel laureates to remind ourselves. We've been here before, paralyzed by fear, paralyzed into inaction, when some -- probably one of you in this room -- jumped into the breach and created an organization like Physicians for Social Responsibility, which fought against the nuclear threat, Medicins Sans Frontieres, that renewed our commitment to disaster relief, Mohamed ElBaradei, and the tremendous hope and optimism that he brought all of us, and our own Muhammad Yunus. We've seen the eradication of smallpox. We may see the eradication of polio this year. Last year, there were only 2,000 cases in the world. We may see the eradication of guinea worm next year -- there are only 35,000 cases left in the world. 20 years ago, there were three and a half million. And we've seen a new disease, not like the 30 novel emerging communicable diseases. This disease is called sudden wealth syndrome. (Laughter) It's an amazing phenomenon. All throughout the technology world, we're seeing young people bitten by this disease of sudden wealth syndrome. But they're using their wealth in a way that their forefathers never did. They're not waiting until they die to create foundations. They're actively guiding their money, their resources, their hearts, their commitments, to make the world a better place. Certainly, nothing can give you more optimism than that. More reasons to be optimistic: in the '60s, and I am a creature of the '60s, there was a movement. We all felt that we were part of it, that a better world was right around the corner, that we were watching the birth of a world free of hatred and violence and prejudice. Today, there's another kind of movement. It's a movement to save the earth. It's just beginning. Five weeks ago, a group of activists from the business community gathered together to stop a Texas utility from building nine coal-fired electrical plants that would have contributed to destroying the environment. Six months ago, a group of business activists gathered together to join with the Republican governor in California to pass AB 32, the most far-reaching legislation in environmental history. Al Gore made presentations in the House and the Senate as an expert witness. Can you imagine? (Laughter) We're seeing an entente cordiale between science and religion that five years ago I would not have believed, as the evangelical community has understood the desperate situation of global warming. And now 4,000 churches have joined the environmental movement. It is something to be greatly optimistic about. The European 20-20-20 plan is an amazing breakthrough, something that should make all of us feel that hope is on the horizon. And on April 14th, there will be Step Up Day, where there will be a thousand individual mobilized social activist movements in the United States on protest against legislation -- pushing for legislation to stop global warming. And on July 7th, around the world, I learned only yesterday, there will be global Live Earth concerts. And you can feel this optimistic move to save the earth in the air. Now, that doesn't mean that people understand that global warming hurts the poorest and the weakest the most. That means that people are beginning the first step, which is acting out of their own self-interest. But I am seeing in the major funders, in CARE, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Hewlett, Mercy Corps, you guys, Google, so many other organizations, a beginning of understanding that we need to work not just on primary prevention of global warming, but on the secondary prevention of the consequences of global warming on the poorest and the most vulnerable. But for me, I have another reason to be an incurable optimist. And you've heard so many inspiring stories here, and I heard so many last night that I thought I would share a little bit of mine. My background is not exactly conventional medical training. And I lived in a Himalayan monastery, and I studied with a very wise teacher, who kicked me out of the monastery one day and told me that it was my destiny -- it felt like Yoda -- it is your destiny to go to work for WHO and to help eradicate smallpox, at a time when there was no smallpox program. It should make you optimistic that smallpox no longer exists because it was the worst disease in history. In the last century -- that's the one that was seven years ago -- half a billion people died from smallpox: more than all the wars in history, more than any other infectious disease in the history of the world. In the Summer of Love, in 1967, two million people, children, died of smallpox. It's not ancient history. When you read the biblical plague of boils, that was smallpox. Pharaoh Ramses the Fifth, whose picture is here, died of smallpox. To eradicate smallpox, we had to gather the largest United Nations army in history. We visited every house in India, searching for smallpox -- 120 million houses, once every month, for nearly two years. In a cruel reversal, after we had almost conquered smallpox -- and this is what you must learn as a social entrepreneur, the realm of the final inch. When we had almost eradicated smallpox, it came back again, because the company town of Tatanagar drew laborers, who could come there and get employment. And they caught smallpox in the one remaining place that had smallpox, and they went home to die. And when they did, they took smallpox to 10 other countries and reignited the epidemic. And we had to start all over again. But, in the end, we succeeded, and the last case of smallpox: this little girl, Rahima Banu -- Barisal, in Bangladesh -- when she coughed or breathed, and the last virus of smallpox left her lungs and fell on the dirt and the sun killed that last virus, thus ended a chain of transmission of history's greatest horror. How can that not make you optimistic? A disease which killed hundreds of thousands in India, and blinded half of all of those who were made blind in India, ended. And most importantly for us here in this room, a bond was created. Doctors, health workers, from 30 different countries, of every race, every religion, every color, worked together, fought alongside each other, fought against a common enemy, didn't fight against each other. How can that not make you feel optimistic for the future? Thank you very much. (Applause)
I've learned some of my most important life lessons from drug dealers and gang members and prostitutes, and I've had some of my most profound theological conversations not in the hallowed halls of a seminary but on a street corner on a Friday night, at 1 a.m. That's a little unusual, since I am a Baptist minister, seminary-trained, and pastored a church for over 20 years, but it's true. It came as a part of my participation in a public safety crime reduction strategy that saw a 79 percent reduction in violent crime over an eight-year period in a major city. But I didn't start out wanting to be a part of somebody's crime reduction strategy. I was 25, had my first church. If you would have asked me what my ambition was, I would have told you I wanted to be a megachurch pastor. I wanted a 15-, 20,000-member church. I wanted my own television ministry. I wanted my own clothing line. (Laughter) I wanted to be your long distance carrier. You know, the whole nine yards. (Laughter) After about a year of pastoring, my membership went up about 20 members. So megachurchdom was way down the road. But seriously, if you'd have said, "What is your ambition?" I would have said just to be a good pastor, to be able to be with people through all the passages of life, to preach messages that would have an everyday meaning for folks, and in the African-American tradition, to be able to represent the community that I serve. But there was something else that was happening in my city and in the entire metro area, and in most metro areas in the United States, and that was the homicide rate started to rise precipitously. And there were young people who were killing each other for reasons that I thought were very trivial, like bumping into someone in a high school hallway, and then after school, shooting the person. Someone with the wrong color shirt on, on the wrong street corner at the wrong time. And something needed to be done about that. It got to the point where it started to change the character of the city. You could go to any housing project, for example, like the one that was down the street from my church, and you would walk in, and it would be like a ghost town, because the parents wouldn't allow their kids to come out and play, even in the summertime, because of the violence. You would listen in the neighborhoods on any given night, and to the untrained ear, it sounded like fireworks, but it was gunfire. You'd hear it almost every night, when you were cooking dinner, telling your child a bedtime story, or just watching TV. And you can go to any emergency room at any hospital, and you would see lying on gurneys young black and Latino men shot and dying. And I was doing funerals, but not of the venerated matriarchs and patriarchs who'd lived a long life and there's a lot to say. I was doing funerals of 18-year-olds, 17-year-olds, and 16-year-olds, and I was standing in a church or at a funeral home struggling to say something that would make some meaningful impact. And so while my colleagues were building these cathedrals great and tall and buying property outside of the city and moving their congregations out so that they could create or recreate their cities of God, the social structures in the inner cities were sagging under the weight of all of this violence. And so I stayed, because somebody needed to do something, and so I had looked at what I had and moved on that. I started to preach decrying the violence in the community. And I started to look at the programming in my church, and I started to build programs that would catch the at-risk youth, those who were on the fence to the violence. I even tried to be innovative in my preaching. You all have heard of rap music, right? Rap music? I even tried to rap sermon one time. It didn't work, but at least I tried it. I'll never forget the young person who came to me after that sermon. He waited until everybody was gone, and he said, "Rev, rap sermon, huh?" And I was like, "Yeah, what do you think?" And he said, "Don't do that again, Rev." (Laughter) But I preached and I built these programs, and I thought maybe if my colleagues did the same that it would make a difference. But the violence just careened out of control, and people who were not involved in the violence were getting shot and killed: somebody going to buy a pack of cigarettes at a convenience store, or someone who was sitting at a bus stop just waiting for a bus, or kids who were playing in the park, oblivious to the violence on the other side of the park, but it coming and visiting them. Things were out of control, and I didn't know what to do, and then something happened that changed everything for me. It was a kid by the name of Jesse McKie, walking home with his friend Rigoberto Carrion to the housing project down the street from my church. They met up with a group of youth who were from a gang in Dorchester, and they were killed. But as Jesse was running from the scene mortally wounded, he was running in the direction of my church, and he died some 100, 150 yards away. If he would have gotten to the church, it wouldn't have made a difference, because the lights were out; nobody was home. And I took that as a sign. When they caught some of the youth that had done this deed, to my surprise, they were around my age, but the gulf that was between us was vast. It was like we were in two completely different worlds. And so as I contemplated all of this and looked at what was happening, I suddenly realized that there was a paradox that was emerging inside of me, and the paradox was this: in all of those sermons that I preached decrying the violence, I was also talking about building community, but I suddenly realized that there was a certain segment of the population that I was not including in my definition of community. And so the paradox was this: If I really wanted the community that I was preaching for, I needed to reach out and embrace this group that I had cut out of my definition. Which meant not about building programs to catch those who were on the fences of violence, but to reach out and to embrace those who were committing the acts of violence, the gang bangers, the drug dealers. As soon as I came to that realization, a quick question came to my mind. Why me? I mean, isn't this a law enforcement issue? This is why we have the police, right? As soon as the question, "Why me?" came, the answer came just as quickly: Why me? Because I'm the one who can't sleep at night thinking about it. Because I'm the one looking around saying somebody needs to do something about this, and I'm starting to realize that that someone is me. I mean, isn't that how movements start anyway? They don't start with a grand convention and people coming together and then walking in lockstep with a statement. But it starts with just a few, or maybe just one. It started with me that way, and so I decided to figure out the culture of violence in which these young people who were committing them existed, and I started to volunteer at the high school. After about two weeks of volunteering at the high school, I realized that the youth that I was trying to reach, they weren't going to high school. I started to walk in the community, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to realize that they weren't out during the day. So I started to walk the streets at night, late at night, going into the parks where they were, building the relationship that was necessary. A tragedy happened in Boston that brought a number of clergy together, and there was a small cadre of us who came to the realization that we had to come out of the four walls of our sanctuary and meet the youth where they were, and not try to figure out how to bring them in. And so we decided to walk together, and we would get together in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city on a Friday night and on a Saturday night at 10 p.m., and we would walk until 2 or 3 in the morning. I imagine we were quite the anomaly when we first started walking. I mean, we weren't drug dealers. We weren't drug customers. We weren't the police. Some of us would have collars on. It was probably a really odd thing. But they started speaking to us after a while, and what we found out is that while we were walking, they were watching us, and they wanted to make sure of a couple of things: that number one, we were going to be consistent in our behavior, that we would keep coming out there; and then secondly, they had wanted to make sure that we weren't out there to exploit them. Because there was always somebody who would say, "We're going to take back the streets," but they would always seem to have a television camera with them, or a reporter, and they would enhance their own reputation to the detriment of those on the streets. So when they saw that we had none of that, they decided to talk to us. And then we did an amazing thing for preachers. We decided to listen and not preach. Come on, give it up for me. (Laughter) (Applause) All right, come on, you're cutting into my time now, okay? (Laughter) But it was amazing. We said to them, "We don't know our own communities after 9 p.m. at night, between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., but you do. You are the subject matter experts, if you will, of that period of time. So talk to us. Teach us. Help us to see what we're not seeing. Help us to understand what we're not understanding." And they were all too happy to do that, and we got an idea of what life on the streets was all about, very different than what you see on the 11 o'clock news, very different than what is portrayed in popular media and even social media. And as we were talking with them, a number of myths were dispelled about them with us. And one of the biggest myths was that these kids were cold and heartless and uncharacteristically bold in their violence. What we found out was the exact opposite. Most of the young people who were out there on the streets are just trying to make it on the streets. And we also found out that some of the most intelligent and creative and magnificent and wise people that we've ever met were on the street, engaged in a struggle. And I know some of them call it survival, but I call them overcomers, because when you're in the conditions that they're in, to be able to live every day is an accomplishment of overcoming. And as a result of that, we said to them, "How do you see this church, how do you see this institution helping this situation?" And we developed a plan in conversation with these youths. We stopped looking at them as the problem to be solved, and we started looking at them as partners, as assets, as co-laborers in the struggle to reduce violence in the community. Imagine developing a plan, you have one minister at one table and a heroin dealer at the other table, coming up with a way in which the church can help the entire community. The Boston Miracle was about bringing people together. We had other partners. We had law enforcement partners. We had police officers. It wasn't the entire force, because there were still some who still had that lock-'em-up mentality, but there were other cops who saw the honor in partnering with the community, who saw the responsibility from themselves to be able to work as partners with community leaders and faith leaders in order to reduce violence in the community. Same with probation officers, same with judges, same with folks who were up that law enforcement chain, because they realized, like we did, that we'll never arrest ourselves out of this situation, that there will not be enough prosecutions made, and you cannot fill these jails up enough in order to alleviate the problem. I helped to start an organization 20 years ago, a faith-based organization, to deal with this issue. I left it about four years ago and started working in cities across the United States, 19 in total, and what I found out was that in those cities, there was always this component of community leaders who put their heads down and their nose to the grindstone, who checked their egos at the door and saw the whole as greater than the sum of its parts, and came together and found ways to work with youth out on the streets, that the solution is not more cops, but the solution is mining the assets that are there in the community, to have a strong community component in the collaboration around violence reduction. Now, there is a movement in the United States of young people who I am very proud of who are dealing with the structural issues that need to change if we're going to be a better society. But there is this political ploy to try to pit police brutality and police misconduct against black-on-black violence. But it's a fiction. It's all connected. When you think about decades of failed housing policies and poor educational structures, when you think about persistent unemployment and underemployment in a community, when you think about poor healthcare, and then you throw drugs into the mix and duffel bags full of guns, little wonder that you would see this culture of violence emerge. And then the response that comes from the state is more cops and more suppression of hot spots. It's all connected, and one of the wonderful things that we've been able to do is to be able to show the value of partnering together -- community, law enforcement, private sector, the city -- in order to reduce violence. You have to value that community component. I believe that we can end the era of violence in our cities. I believe that it is possible and that people are doing it even now. But I need your help. It can't just come from folks who are burning themselves out in the community. They need support. They need help. Go back to your city. Find those people. "You need some help? I'll help you out." Find those people. They're there. Bring them together with law enforcement, the private sector, and the city, with the one aim of reducing violence, but make sure that that community component is strong. Because the old adage that comes from Burundi is right: that you do for me, without me, you do to me. God bless you. Thank you. (Applause)
In terms of invention, I'd like to tell you the tale of one of my favorite projects. I think it's one of the most exciting that I'm working on, but I think it's also the simplest. It's a project that has the potential to make a huge impact around the world. It addresses one of the biggest health issues on the planet, the number one cause of death in children under five, which is ... ? Water-borne diseases? Diarrhea? Malnutrition? No, it's breathing the smoke from indoor cooking fires -- acute respiratory infections caused by this. Can you believe that? I find this shocking and somewhat appalling. Can't we make cleaner burning cooking fuels? Can't we make better stoves? How is it that this can lead to over two million deaths every year? I know Bill Joy was talking to you about the wonders of carbon nanotubes, so I'm going to talk to you about the wonders of carbon macro-tubes, which is charcoal. So this is a picture of rural Haiti. Haiti is now 98 percent deforested. You'll see scenes like this all over the island. It leads to all sorts of environmental problems and problems that affect people throughout the nation. A couple years ago there was severe flooding that led to thousands of deaths -- that's directly attributable to the fact that there are no trees on the hills to stabilize the soil. So the rains come, they go down the rivers, and the flooding happens. Now one of the reasons why there are so few trees is this: people need to cook, and they harvest wood and they make charcoal in order to do it. It's not that people are ignorant to the environmental damage. They know perfectly well, but they have no other choice. Fossil fuels are not available, and solar energy doesn't cook the way that they like their food prepared. And so this is what they do. You'll find families like this who go out into the forest to find a tree, cut it down and make charcoal out of it. So not surprisingly, there's a lot of effort that's been done to look at alternative cooking fuels. About four years ago I took a team of students down to Haiti, and we worked with Peace Corps volunteers there. This is one such volunteer, and this is a device that he had built in the village where he worked. And the idea was that you could take waste paper; you could compress it; and make briquettes that could be used for fuel. But this device was very slow. So our engineering students went to work on it, and with some very simple changes, they were able to triple the throughput of this device. So you could imagine they were very excited about it. And they took the briquettes back to MIT so that they could test them. And one of the things that they found was they didn't burn. So it was a little discouraging to the students. And in fact if you look closely, right here, you can see it says, "U.S. Peace Corps." As it turns out, there actually wasn't any waste paper in this village. And while it was a good use of government paperwork for this volunteer to bring it back with him to his village (Laughter), it was 800 kilometers away. And so we thought perhaps there might be a better way to come up with an alternative cooking fuel. What we wanted to do is we wanted to make a fuel that used something that was readily available on the local level. You see these all over Haiti as well. They're small-scale sugar mills. And the waste product from them after you extract the juice from the sugarcane is called "bagasse." It has no other use. It has no nutritional value, so they don't feed it to the animals. It just sits in a pile near the sugar mill until eventually they burn it. What we wanted to do was we wanted to find a way to harness this waste resource and turn it into a fuel that would be something that people could easily cook with, something like charcoal. So over the next couple of years, students and I worked to develop a process. So you start with the bagasse, and then you take a very simple kiln that you can make out of a waste fifty five-gallon oil drum. After some time, after setting it on fire, you seal it to restrict the oxygen that goes into the kiln, and then you end up with this carbonized material here. However, you can't burn this. It's too fine and it burns too quickly to be useful for cooking. So we had to try to find a way to form it into useful briquettes. And conveniently, one of my students was from Ghana, and he remembered a dish his mom used to make for him called "kokonte," which is a very sticky porridge made out of the cassava root. And so what we did was we looked, and we found that cassava is indeed grown in Haiti, under the name of "manioc." And in fact, it's grown all over the world -- yucca, tapioca, manioc, cassava, it's all the same thing -- a very starchy root vegetable. And you can make a very thick, sticky porridge out of it, which you can use to bind together the charcoal briquettes. So we did this. We went down to Haiti. These are the graduates of the first Ecole de Chabon, or Charcoal Institute. And these -- (Laughter) -- that's right. So I'm actually an instructor at MIT as well as CIT. And these are the briquettes that we made. Now I'm going to take you to a different continent. This is India, and this is the most commonly used cooking fuel in India; it's cow dung. And more than in Haiti, this produces really smoky fires, and this is where you see the health impacts of cooking with cow dung and biomass as a fuel. Kids and women are especially affected by it, because they're the ones who are around the cooking fires. So we wanted to see if we could introduce this charcoal-making technology there. Well unfortunately, they didn't have sugarcane and they didn't have cassava, but that didn't stop us. What we did was we found what were the locally available sources of biomass. And there was wheat straw and there was rice straw in this area. And what we could use as a binder was actually small amounts of cow manure, which they used ordinarily for their fuel. And we did side-by-side tests, and here you can see the charcoal briquettes and here the cow dung. And you can see that it's a lot cleaner burning of a cooking fuel. And in fact, it heats the water a lot more quickly. And so we were very happy, thus far. But one of the things that we found was when we did side-by-side comparisons with wood charcoal, it didn't burn as long. And the briquettes crumbled a little bit, and we lost energy as they fell apart as they were cooking. So we wanted to try to find a way to make a stronger briquette so that we could compete with wood charcoal in the markets in Haiti. So we went back to MIT, we took out the Instron machine, and we figured out what sort of forces did you need in order to compress a briquette to the level that you actually are getting improved performance out of it? And at the same time that we had students in the lab looking at this, we also had community partners in Haiti working to develop the process, to improve it and to make it more accessible to people in the villages there. And after some time, we developed a low-cost press that allows you to produce charcoal, which actually now burns longer, cleaner than wood charcoal. So now we're in a situation where we have a product, which is actually better than what you can buy in Haiti in the marketplace, which is a very wonderful place to be. In Haiti alone, about 30 million trees are cut down every year. There's a possibility of this being implemented and saving a good portion of those. In addition, the revenue generated from that charcoal is 260 million dollars. That's an awful lot for a country of Haiti -- with a population of eight million and an average income of less than 400 dollars. So this is where we're also moving ahead with our charcoal project. And one of the things that I think is also interesting, is I have a friend up at UC Berkeley who's been doing risk analysis. And he's looked at the problem of the health impacts of burning wood versus charcoal. And he's found that worldwide, you could prevent a million deaths switching from wood to charcoal as a cooking fuel. That's remarkable, but up until now, there weren't ways to do it without cutting down trees. But now we have a way that's using an agricultural waste material to create a cooking fuel. One of the really exciting things, though, is something that came out of the trip that I took to Ghana just last month. And this is, I think, the coolest thing, and it's even lower tech than what you just saw, if you can imagine such a thing. Here it is. So what is this? This is corncobs turned into charcoal. And the beauty of this is that you don't need to form briquettes -- it comes ready made. This is my $100 laptop, right here. And actually, like Nick, I brought samples. (Laughter) So we can pass these around. They're fully functional, field-tested, ready to roll out. And I think one of the things, which is also remarkable about this technology, is that the technology transfer is so easy. Compared to the sugarcane charcoal, where we actually have to teach people how to form it into briquettes and you have the extra step of cooking the binder, this comes pre-briquetted. And this is about the most exciting thing in my life right now, which is perhaps a sad commentary on my life. (Laughter) But once you see it, like you guys in the front row, all right, yeah, OK. So anyway -- (Laughter) -- here it is. And this is I think a perfect example of what Robert Wright was talking about in those non-zero-sum things. So not only do you have health benefits, you have environmental benefits. But this is one of the incredibly rare situations where you also have economic benefits. People can make their own cooking fuel from waste products. They can generate income from this. They can save the money that they were going to spend on charcoal, and they can produce excess and sell it in the market to people who aren't making their own. It's really rare that you don't have trade-offs between health and economics, or environment and economics. So this is a project that I just find extremely exciting, and I'm really looking forward to see where it takes us. So when we talk about, now, the future we will create, one of the things that I think is necessary is to have a very clear vision of the world that we live in. And now I don't actually mean the world that we live in. I mean the world where women spend two to three hours everyday grinding grain for their families to eat. I mean the world where advanced building materials means cement roofing tiles that are made by hand, and where, when you work 10 hours a day, you're still only earning 60 dollars in a month. I mean the world where women and children spend 40 billion hours a year fetching water. That's as if the entire workforce of the State of California worked full time for a year doing nothing but fetching water. It's a place where, for example, if this were India, in this room, only three of us would have a car. If this were Afghanistan, only one person in this room would know how the use the Internet. If this were Zambia, 300 of you would be farmers, 100 of you would have AIDS or HIV. And more than half of you would be living on less than a dollar a day. These are the issues that we need to come up with solutions for. These are the issues that we need to be training our engineers, our designers, our business people, our entrepreneurs to be facing. These are the solutions that we need to find. I have a few areas that I believe are especially important that we address. One of them is creating technologies to promote micro-finance and micro-enterprise, so that people who are living below the poverty line can find a way to move out -- and that they're not doing it using the same traditional basket making, poultry rearing, etc. But there are new technologies and new products that they can make on a small scale. The next thing I believe is that we need to create technologies for poor farmers to add value to their own crops. And we need to rethink our development strategies, so that we're not promoting educational campaigns to get them to stop being farmers, but rather to stop being poor farmers. And we need to think about how we can do that effectively. We need to work with the people in these communities, and give them the resources and the tools that they need to solve their own problems. That's the best way to do it. We shouldn't be doing it from outside. So we need to create this future, and we need to start doing it now. Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Tell us -- just while we see if someone has a question -- just tell us about one of the other things that you've worked on. Amy Smith: A couple of other things that we're working on are looking at ways to do low-cost water quality testing, so that communities can maintain their own water systems, know when they're working, know when they treat them, etc. We're also looking at low-cost water treatment systems. One of the really exciting things is looking at solar water disinfection and improving the ability to be able to do that. CA: What's the bottleneck to preventing this stuff getting from scale? Do you need to find entrepreneurs, or venture capitalists, or what do you need to take what you've got and get it to scale? AS: Yeah, I think its large numbers of people moving it forward. It's a difficult thing; it's a marketplace which is very fragmented and a consumer population with no income. So you can't use the same models that you use in the United States for making things move forward. And we're a pretty small staff, which is me. (Laughter) So, you know, I do what I can with the students. We have 30 students a year go out into the field and try to implement this and move it forward. The other thing is you have to do things with a long time frame, as -- you know, you can't expect to get something done in a year or two years; you have to be looking five or 10 years ahead. But I think with the vision to do that, we can move forward.