Datasets:

vietgpt

/

ted_talks_iwslt_en

like 1

Follow

VietGPT 4

Could I protect my father from the Armed Islamic Group with a paring knife? That was the question I faced one Tuesday morning in June of 1993, when I was a law student. I woke up early that morning in Dad's apartment on the outskirts of Algiers, Algeria, to an unrelenting pounding on the front door. It was a season as described by a local paper when every Tuesday a scholar fell to the bullets of fundamentalist assassins. My father's university teaching of Darwin had already provoked a classroom visit from the head of the so-called Islamic Salvation Front, who denounced Dad as an advocate of biologism before Dad had ejected the man, and now whoever was outside would neither identify himself nor go away. So my father tried to get the police on the phone, but perhaps terrified by the rising tide of armed extremism that had already claimed the lives of so many Algerian officers, they didn't even answer. And that was when I went to the kitchen, got out a paring knife, and took up a position inside the entryway. It was a ridiculous thing to do, really, but I couldn't think of anything else, and so there I stood. When I look back now, I think that that was the moment that set me on the path was to writing a book called "Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here: Untold Stories from the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism." The title comes from a Pakistani play. I think it was actually that moment that sent me on the journey to interview 300 people of Muslim heritage from nearly 30 countries, from Afghanistan to Mali, to find out how they fought fundamentalism peacefully like my father did, and how they coped with the attendant risks. Luckily, back in June of 1993, our unidentified visitor went away, but other families were so much less lucky, and that was the thought that motivated my research. In any case, someone would return a few months later and leave a note on Dad's kitchen table, which simply said, "Consider yourself dead." Subsequently, Algeria's fundamentalist armed groups would murder as many as 200,000 civilians in what came to be known as the dark decade of the 1990s, including every single one of the women that you see here. In its harsh counterterrorist response, the state resorted to torture and to forced disappearances, and as terrible as all of these events became, the international community largely ignored them. Finally, my father, an Algerian peasant's son turned professor, was forced to stop teaching at the university and to flee his apartment, but what I will never forget about Mahfoud Bennoune, my dad, was that like so many other Algerian intellectuals, he refused to leave the country and he continued to publish pointed criticisms, both of the fundamentalists and sometimes of the government they battled. For example, in a November 1994 series in the newspaper El Watan entitled "How Fundamentalism Produced a Terrorism without Precedent," he denounced what he called the terrorists' radical break with the true Islam as it was lived by our ancestors. These were words that could get you killed. My father's country taught me in that dark decade of the 1990s that the popular struggle against Muslim fundamentalism is one of the most important and overlooked human rights struggles in the world. This remains true today, nearly 20 years later. You see, in every country where you hear about armed jihadis targeting civilians, there are also unarmed people defying those militants that you don't hear about, and those people need our support to succeed. In the West, it's often assumed that Muslims generally condone terrorism. Some on the right think this because they view Muslim culture as inherently violent, and some on the left imagine this because they view Muslim violence, fundamentalist violence, solely as a product of legitimate grievances. But both views are dead wrong. In fact, many people of Muslim heritage around the world are staunch opponents both of fundamentalism and of terrorism, and often for very good reason. You see, they're much more likely to be victims of this violence than its perpetrators. Let me just give you one example. According to a 2009 survey of Arabic language media resources, between 2004 and 2008, no more than 15 percent of al Qaeda's victims were Westerners. That's a terrible toll, but the vast majority were people of Muslim heritage, killed by Muslim fundamentalists. Now I've been talking for the last five minutes about fundamentalism, and you have a right to know exactly what I mean. I cite the definition given by the Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas, and she says that fundamentalisms, note the "s," so within all of the world's great religious traditions, "fundamentalisms are political movements of the extreme right which in a context of globalization manipulate religion in order to achieve their political aims." Sadia Abbas has called this the radical politicization of theology. Now I want to avoid projecting the notion that there's sort of a monolith out there called Muslim fundamentalism that is the same everywhere, because these movements also have their diversities. Some use and advocate violence. Some do not, though they're often interrelated. They take different forms. Some may be non-governmental organizations, even here in Britain like Cageprisoners. Some may become political parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and some may be openly armed groups like the Taliban. But in any case, these are all radical projects. They're not conservative or traditional approaches. They're most often about changing people's relationship with Islam rather than preserving it. What I am talking about is the Muslim extreme right, and the fact that its adherents are or purport to be Muslim makes them no less offensive than the extreme right anywhere else. So in my view, if we consider ourselves liberal or left-wing, human rights-loving or feminist, we must oppose these movements and support their grassroots opponents. Now let me be clear that I support an effective struggle against fundamentalism, but also a struggle that must itself respect international law, so nothing I am saying should be taken as a justification for refusals to democratize, and here I send out a shout-out of support to the pro-democracy movement in Algeria today, Barakat. Nor should anything I say be taken as a justification of violations of human rights, like the mass death sentences handed out in Egypt earlier this week. But what I am saying is that we must challenge these Muslim fundamentalist movements because they threaten human rights across Muslim-majority contexts, and they do this in a range of ways, most obviously with the direct attacks on civilians by the armed groups that carry those out. But that violence is just the tip of the iceberg. These movements as a whole purvey discrimination against religious minorities and sexual minorities. They seek to curtail the freedom of religion of everyone who either practices in a different way or chooses not to practice. And most definingly, they lead an all-out war on the rights of women. Now, faced with these movements in recent years, Western discourse has most often offered two flawed responses. The first that one sometimes finds on the right suggests that most Muslims are fundamentalist or something about Islam is inherently fundamentalist, and this is just offensive and wrong, but unfortunately on the left one sometimes encounters a discourse that is too politically correct to acknowledge the problem of Muslim fundamentalism at all or, even worse, apologizes for it, and this is unacceptable as well. So what I'm seeking is a new way of talking about this all together, which is grounded in the lived experiences and the hope of the people on the front lines. I'm painfully aware that there has been an increase in discrimination against Muslims in recent years in countries like the U.K. and the U.S., and that too is a matter of grave concern, but I firmly believe that telling these counter-stereotypical stories of people of Muslim heritage who have confronted the fundamentalists and been their primary victims is also a great way of countering that discrimination. So now let me introduce you to four people whose stories I had the great honor of telling. Faizan Peerzada and the Rafi Peer Theatre workshop named for his father have for years promoted the performing arts in Pakistan. With the rise of jihadist violence, they began to receive threats to call off their events, which they refused to heed. And so a bomber struck their 2008 eighth world performing arts festival in Lahore, producing rain of glass that fell into the venue injuring nine people, and later that same night, the Peerzadas made a very difficult decision: they announced that their festival would continue as planned the next day. As Faizan said at the time, if we bow down to the Islamists, we'll just be sitting in a dark corner. But they didn't know what would happen. Would anyone come? In fact, thousands of people came out the next day to support the performing arts in Lahore, and this simultaneously thrilled and terrified Faizan, and he ran up to a woman who had come in with her two small children, and he said, "You do know there was a bomb here yesterday, and you do know there's a threat here today." And she said, "I know that, but I came to your festival with my mother when I was their age, and I still have those images in my mind. We have to be here." With stalwart audiences like this, the Peerzadas were able to conclude their festival on schedule. And then the next year, they lost all of their sponsors due to the security risk. So when I met them in 2010, they were in the middle of the first subsequent event that they were able to have in the same venue, and this was the ninth youth performing arts festival held in Lahore in a year when that city had already experienced 44 terror attacks. This was a time when the Pakistani Taliban had commenced their systematic targeting of girls' schools that would culminate in the attack on Malala Yousafzai. What did the Peerzadas do in that environment? They staged girls' school theater. So I had the privilege of watching "Naang Wal," which was a musical in the Punjabi language, and the girls of Lahore Grammar School played all the parts. They sang and danced, they played the mice and the water buffalo, and I held my breath, wondering, would we get to the end of this amazing show? And when we did, the whole audience collectively exhaled, and a few people actually wept, and then they filled the auditorium with the peaceful boom of their applause. And I remember thinking in that moment that the bombers made headlines here two years before but this night and these people are as important a story. Maria Bashir is the first and only woman chief prosecutor in Afghanistan. She's been in the post since 2008 and actually opened an office to investigate cases of violence against women, which she says is the most important area in her mandate. When I meet her in her office in Herat, she enters surrounded by four large men with four huge guns. In fact, she now has 23 bodyguards, because she has weathered bomb attacks that nearly killed her kids, and it took the leg off of one of her guards. Why does she continue? She says with a smile that that is the question that everyone asks— as she puts it, "Why you risk not living?" And it is simply that for her, a better future for all the Maria Bashirs to come is worth the risk, and she knows that if people like her do not take the risk, there will be no better future. Later on in our interview, Prosecutor Bashir tells me how worried she is about the possible outcome of government negotiations with the Taliban, the people who have been trying to kill her. "If we give them a place in the government," she asks, "Who will protect women's rights?" And she urges the international community not to forget its promise about women because now they want peace with Taliban. A few weeks after I leave Afghanistan, I see a headline on the Internet. An Afghan prosecutor has been assassinated. I google desperately, and thankfully that day I find out that Maria was not the victim, though sadly, another Afghan prosecutor was gunned down on his way to work. And when I hear headlines like that now, I think that as international troops leave Afghanistan this year and beyond, we must continue to care about what happens to people there, to all of the Maria Bashirs. Sometimes I still hear her voice in my head saying, with no bravado whatsoever, "The situation of the women of Afghanistan will be better someday. We should prepare the ground for this, even if we are killed." There are no words adequate to denounce the al Shabaab terrorists who attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi on the same day as a children's cooking competition in September of 2013. They killed 67, including poets and pregnant women. Far away in the American Midwest, I had the good fortune of meeting Somali-Americans who were working to counter the efforts of al Shabaab to recruit a small number of young people from their city of Minneapolis to take part in atrocities like Westgate. Abdirizak Bihi's studious 17-year-old nephew Burhan Hassan was recruited here in 2008, spirited to Somalia, and then killed when he tried to come home. Since that time, Mr. Bihi, who directs the no-budget Somali Education and Advocacy Center, has been vocally denouncing the recruitment and the failures of government and Somali-American institutions like the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center where he believes his nephew was radicalized during a youth program. But he doesn't just criticize the mosque. He also takes on the government for its failure to do more to prevent poverty in his community. Given his own lack of financial resources, Mr. Bihi has had to be creative. To counter the efforts of al Shabaab to sway more disaffected youth, in the wake of the group's 2010 attack on World Cup viewers in Uganda, he organized a Ramadan basketball tournament in Minneapolis in response. Scores of Somali-American kids came out to embrace sport despite the fatwa against it. They played basketball as Burhan Hassan never would again. For his efforts, Mr. Bihi has been ostracized by the leadership of the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center, with which he used to have good relations. He told me, "One day we saw the imam on TV calling us infidels and saying, 'These families are trying to destroy the mosque.'" This is at complete odds with how Abdirizak Bihi understands what he is trying to do by exposing al Shabaab recruitment, which is to save the religion I love from a small number of extremists. Now I want to tell one last story, that of a 22-year-old law student in Algeria named Amel Zenoune-Zouani who had the same dreams of a legal career that I did back in the '90s. She refused to give up her studies, despite the fact that the fundamentalists battling the Algerian state back then threatened all who continued their education. On January 26, 1997, Amel boarded the bus in Algiers where she was studying to go home and spend a Ramadan evening with her family, and would never finish law school. When the bus reached the outskirts of her hometown, it was stopped at a checkpoint manned by men from the Armed Islamic Group. Carrying her schoolbag, Amel was taken off the bus and killed in the street. The men who cut her throat then told everyone else, "If you go to university, the day will come when we will kill all of you just like this." Amel died at exactly 5:17 p.m., which we know because when she fell in the street, her watch broke. Her mother showed me the watch with the second hand still aimed optimistically upward towards a 5:18 that would never come. Shortly before her death, Amel had said to her mother of herself and her sisters, "Nothing will happen to us, Inshallah, God willing, but if something happens, you must know that we are dead for knowledge. You and father must keep your heads held high." The loss of such a young woman is unfathomable, and so as I did my research I found myself searching for Amel's hope again and her name even means "hope" in Arabic. I think I found it in two places. The first is in the strength of her family and all the other families to continue telling their stories and to go on with their lives despite the terrorism. In fact, Amel's sister Lamia overcame her grief, went to law school, and practices as a lawyer in Algiers today, something which is only possible because the armed fundamentalists were largely defeated in the country. And the second place I found Amel's hope was everywhere that women and men continue to defy the jihadis. We must support all of those in honor of Amel who continue this human rights struggle today, like the Network of Women Living Under Muslim Laws. It is not enough, as the victims rights advocate Cherifa Kheddar told me in Algiers, it is not enough just to battle terrorism. We must also challenge fundamentalism, because fundamentalism is the ideology that makes the bed of this terrorism. Why is it that people like her, like all of them are not more well known? Why is it that everyone knows who Osama bin Laden was and so few know of all of those standing up to the bin Ladens in their own contexts. We must change that, and so I ask you to please help share these stories through your networks. Look again at Amel Zenoune's watch, forever frozen, and now please look at your own watch and decide this is the moment that you commit to supporting people like Amel. We don't have the right to be silent about them because it is easier or because Western policy is flawed as well, because 5:17 is still coming to too many Amel Zenounes in places like northern Nigeria, where jihadis still kill students. The time to speak up in support of all of those who peacefully challenge fundamentalism and terrorism in their own communities is now. Thank you. (Applause)

As a magician, I try to create images that make people stop and think. I also try to challenge myself to do things that doctors say are not possible. I was buried alive in New York City in a coffin, buried alive in a coffin in April, 1999, for a week. I lived there with nothing but water. And it ended up being so much fun that I decided I could pursue doing more of these things. The next one is I froze myself in a block of ice for three days and three nights in New York City. That one was way more difficult than I had expected. The one after that, I stood on top of a hundred foot pillar for 36 hours. I began to hallucinate so hard that the buildings that were behind me started to look like big animal heads. So, next I went to London. In London I lived in a glass box for 44 days with nothing but water. It was, for me, one of the most difficult things I'd ever done, but it was also the most beautiful. There was so many skeptics, especially the press in London, that they started flying cheeseburgers on helicopters around my box to tempt me. (Laughter) So, I felt very validated when the New England Journal of Medicine actually used the research for science. My next pursuit was I wanted to see how long I could go without breathing, like how long I could survive with nothing, not even air. I didn't realize that it would become the most amazing journey of my life. As a young magician I was obsessed with Houdini and his underwater challenges. So, I began, early on, competing against the other kids, seeing how long I could stay underwater while they went up and down to breathe, you know, five times, while I stayed under on one breath. By the time I was a teenager I was able to hold my breath for three minutes and 30 seconds. I would later find out that was Houdini's personal record. In 1987 I heard of a story about a boy that fell through ice and was trapped under a river. He was underneath, not breathing for 45 minutes. When the rescue workers came they resuscitated him and there was no brain damage. His core temperature had dropped to 77 degrees. As a magician, I think everything is possible. And I think if something is done by one person it can be done by others. I started to think, if the boy could survive without breathing for that long, there must be a way that I could do it. So, I met with a top neurosurgeon. And I asked him, how long is it possible to go without breathing, like how long could I go without air? And he said to me that anything over six minutes you have a serious risk of hypoxic brain damage. So, I took that as a challenge, basically. (Laughter) My first try, I figured that I could do something similar, and I created a water tank, and I filled it with ice and freezing cold water. And I stayed inside of that water tank hoping my core temperature would start to drop. And I was shivering. In my first attempt to hold my breath I couldn't even last a minute. So, I realized that was completely not going to work. So, I went to talk to a doctor friend, and I asked him how could I do that? "I want to hold my breath for a really long time. How could it be done?" And he said, "David, you're a magician, create the illusion of not breathing, it will be much easier." (Laughter) So, he came up with this idea of creating a rebreather, with a CO2 scrubber, which was basically a tube from Home Depot, with a balloon duct-taped to it, that he thought we could put inside of me, and somehow be able to circulate the air and rebreathe with this thing in me. This is a little hard to watch. But this is that attempt. So, that clearly wasn't going to work. (Laughter) Then I actually started thinking about liquid breathing. There is a chemical that's called perflubron. And it's so high in oxygen levels that in theory you could breathe it. So, I got my hands on that chemical, filled the sink up with it, and stuck my face in the sink and tried to breathe that in, which was really impossible. It's basically like trying to breathe, as a doctor said, while having an elephant standing on your chest. So, that idea disappeared. Then I started thinking, would it be possible to hook up a heart/lung bypass machine and have a surgery where it was a tube going into my artery, and then appear to not breathe while they were oxygenating my blood? Which was another insane idea, obviously. Then I thought about the craziest idea of all the ideas: to actually do it. (Laughter) To actually try to hold my breath past the point that doctors would consider you brain dead. So, I started researching into pearl divers. You know, because they go down for four minutes on one breath. And when I was researching pearl divers, I found the world of free-diving. It was the most amazing thing that I ever discovered, pretty much. There is many different aspects to free-diving. There is depth records, where people go as deep as they can. And then there is static apnea. That's holding your breath as long as you can in one place without moving. That was the one that I studied. The first thing that I learned is when you're holding your breath you should never move at all; that wastes energy. And that depletes oxygen, and it builds up CO2 in your blood. So, I learned never to move. And I learned how to slow my heart rate down. I had to remain perfectly still and just relax and think that I wasn't in my body, and just control that. And then I learned how to purge. Purging is basically hyperventilating. You blow in and out ... You do that, you get lightheaded, you get tingling. And you're really ridding your body of CO2. So, when you hold your breath it's infinitely easier. Then I learned that you have to take a huge breath, and just hold and relax and never let any air out, and just hold and relax through all the pain. Every morning, this is for months, I would wake up and the first thing that I would do is I would hold my breath for, out of 52 minutes, I would hold my breath for 44 minutes. So, basically what that means is I would purge, I'd breath really hard for a minute. And I would hold, immediately after, for five and half minutes. Then I would breath again for a minute, purging as hard as I can, then immediately after that I would hold again for five and half minutes. I would repeat this process eight times in a row. Out of 52 minutes you're only breathing for eight minutes. At the end of that you're completely fried, your brain. You feel like you're walking around in a daze. And you have these awful headaches. Basically, I'm not the best person to talk to when I'm doing that stuff. I started learning about the world-record holder. His name is Tom Sietas. And this guy is perfectly built for holding his breath. He's six foot four. He's 160 pounds. And his total lung capacity is twice the size of an average person. I'm six foot one, and fat. We'll say big-boned. (Laughter) I had to drop 50 pounds in three months. So, everything that I put into my body I considered as medicine. Every bit of food was exactly what it was for its nutritional value. I ate really small controlled portions throughout the day. And I started to really adapt my body. (Laughter) The thinner I was, the longer I was able to hold my breath. And by eating so well and training so hard, my resting heart-rate dropped to 38 beats per minute. Which is lower than most Olympic athletes. In four months of training I was able to hold my breath for over seven minutes. I wanted to try holding my breath everywhere. I wanted to try it in the most extreme situations to see if I could slow my heart rate down under duress. (Laughter) I decided that I was going to break the world record live on prime-time television. The world record was eight minutes and 58 seconds, held by Tom Sietas, that guy with the whale lungs I told you about. (Laughter) I assumed that I could put a water tank at Lincoln center and if I stayed there a week not eating, I would get comfortable in that situation and I would slow my metabolism, which I was sure would help me hold my breath longer than I had been able to do it. I was completely wrong. I entered the sphere a week before the scheduled air date. And I thought everything seemed to be on track. Two days before my big breath hold attempt, for the record, the producers of my television special thought that just watching somebody holding their breath, and almost drowning, is too boring for television. (Laughter) So, I had to add handcuffs, while holding my breath, to escape from. This was a critical mistake. Because of the movement I was wasting oxygen. And by seven minutes I had gone into these awful convulsions. By 7:08 I started to black out. And by seven minutes and 30 seconds they had to pull my body out and bring me back. I had failed on every level. (Laughter) So, naturally, the only way out of the slump that I could think of was, I decided to call Oprah. (Laughter) I told her that I wanted to up the ante and hold my breath longer than any human being ever had. This was a different record. This was a pure O2 static apnea record that Guinness had set the world record at 13 minutes. So, basically you breath pure O2 first, oxygenating your body, flushing out CO2, and you are able to hold much longer. I realized that my real competition was the beaver. (Laughter) In January of '08 Oprah gave me four months to prepare and train. So, I would sleep in a hypoxic tent every night. A hypoxic tent is a tent that simulates altitude at 15,000 feet. So, it's like base camp Everest. What that does is, you start building up the red blood cell count in your body, which helps you carry oxygen better. Every morning, again, after getting out of that tent your brain is completely wiped out. My first attempt on pure O2, I was able to go up to 15 minutes. So, it was a pretty big success. The neurosurgeon pulled me out of the water because in his mind, at 15 minutes your brain is done, you're brain dead. So, he pulled me up, and I was fine. There was one person there that was definitely not impressed. It was my ex-girlfriend. While I was breaking the record underwater for the first time, she was sifting through my Blackberry, checking all my messages. (Laughter) My brother had a picture of it. It is really ... (Laughter) I then announced that I was going to go for Sietas' record, publicly. And what he did in response, is he went on Regis and Kelly, and broke his old record. Then his main competitor went out and broke his record. So, he suddenly pushed the record up to 16 minutes and 32 seconds. Which was three minutes longer than I had prepared. You know, it was longer than the record. Now, I wanted to get the Science Times to document this. I wanted to get them to do a piece on it. So, I did what any person seriously pursuing scientific advancement would do. I walked into the New York Times offices and did card tricks to everybody. (Laughter) So, I don't know if it was the magic or the lore of the Cayman islands, but John Tierney flew down and did a piece on the seriousness of breath-holding. While he was there I tried to impress him, of course. And I did a dive down to 160 feet, which is basically the height of a 16 story building, and as I was coming up, I blacked out underwater, which is really dangerous; that's how you drown. Luckily Kirk had seen me and he swam over and pulled me up. So, I started full focus. I completely trained to get my breath hold time up for what I needed to do. But there was no way to prepare for the live television aspect of it, being on Oprah. But in practice, I would do it face down, floating on the pool. But for TV they wanted me to be upright so they could see my face, basically. The other problem was the suit was so buoyant that they had to strap my feet in to keep me from floating up. So, I had to use my legs to hold my feet into the straps that were loose, which was a real problem for me. That made me extremely nervous, raising the heart rate. Then, what they also did was, which we never did before, is there was a heart-rate monitor. And it was right next to the sphere. So, every time my heart would beat I'd hear the beep-beep-beep-beep, you know, the ticking, really loud. Which was making me more nervous. And there is no way to slow my heart rate down. So, normally I would start at 38 beats per minute, and while holding my breath it would drop to 12 beats per minute, which is pretty unusual. (Laughter) This time it started at 120 beats, and it never went down. I spent the first five minutes underwater desperately trying to slow my heart rate down. I was just sitting there thinking, "I've got to slow this down. I'm going to fail, I'm going to fail." And I was getting more nervous. And the heart rate just kept going up and up, all the way up to 150 beats. Basically it's the same thing that created my downfall at Lincoln Center. It was a waste of O2. When I made it to the halfway mark, at eight minutes, I was 100 percent certain that I was not going to be able to make this. There was no way for me to do it. So, I figured, Oprah had dedicated an hour to doing this breath hold thing, if I had cracked early it would be a whole show about how depressed I am. (Laughter) So, I figured I'm better off just fighting and staying there until I black out, at least then they can pull me out and take care of me and all that. (Laughter) I kept pushing to 10 minutes. At 10 minutes you start getting all these really strong tingling sensations in your fingers and toes. And I knew that that was blood shunting, when the blood rushes away from your extremities to provide oxygen to your vital organs. At 11 minutes I started feeling throbbing sensations in my legs, and my lips started to feel really strange. At minute 12 I started to have ringing in my ears, and I started to feel my arm going numb. And I'm a hypochondriac, and I remember arm numb means heart attack. So, I started to really get really paranoid. Then at 13 minutes, maybe because of the hypochondria. I started feeling pains all over my chest. It was awful. At 14 minutes, I had these awful contractions, like this urge to breathe. (Laughter) At 15 minutes I was suffering major O2 deprivation to the heart. And I started having ischemia to the heart. My heartbeat would go from 120, to 50, to 150, to 40, to 20, to 150 again. It would skip a beat. It would start. It would stop. And I felt all this. And I was sure that I was going to have a heart attack. So, at 16 minutes what I did is I slid my feet out because I knew that if I did go out, if I did have a heart attack, they'd have to jump into the binding and take my feet out before pulling me up. So, I was really nervous. So, I let my feet out, and I started floating to the top. And I didn't take my head out. But I was just floating there waiting for my heart to stop, just waiting. They had doctors with the "Pst," you know, so, sitting there waiting. And then suddenly I hear screaming. And I think that there is some weird thing -- that I had died or something had happened. And then I realized that I had made it to 16:32. So, with the energy of everybody that was there I decided to keep pushing. And I went to 17 minutes and four seconds. (Applause) As though that wasn't enough, what I did immediately after is I went to Quest Labs and had them take every blood sample that they could to test for everything and to see where my levels were, so the doctors could use it, once again. I also didn't want anybody to question it. I had the world record and I wanted to make sure it was legitimate. So, I get to New York City the next day, and this kid walks up to me -- I'm walking out of the Apple store -- this kid walks up to me he's like, "Yo, D!" I'm like "Yeah?" He said, "If you really held your breath that long, why'd you come out of the water dry?" I was like "What?" (Laughter) And that's my life. So ... (Laughter) As a magician I try to show things to people that seem impossible. And I think magic, whether I'm holding my breath or shuffling a deck of cards, is pretty simple. It's practice, it's training, and it's -- It's practice, it's training and experimenting, while pushing through the pain to be the best that I can be. And that's what magic is to me, so, thank you. (Applause)

So my name is Amy Webb, and a few years ago I found myself at the end of yet another fantastic relationship that came burning down in a spectacular fashion. And I thought, what's wrong with me? I don't understand why this keeps happening. So I asked everybody in my life what they thought. I turned to my grandmother, who always had plenty of advice, and she said, "Stop being so picky. You've got to date around. And most importantly, true love will find you when you least expect it." Now as it turns out, I'm somebody who thinks a lot about data, as you'll soon find. I am constantly swimming in numbers, formulas and charts. I also have a very tight-knit family, and I'm very, very close with my sister, and as a result, I wanted to have the same type of family when I grew up. So I'm at the end of this bad breakup, I'm 30 years old, I figure I'm probably going to have to date somebody for about six months before I'm ready to get monogamous and before we can sort of cohabitate, and we have to do that for a while before we can get engaged. And if I want to start having children by the time I'm 35, that meant that I would have had to have been on my way to marriage five years ago. So that wasn't going to work. If my strategy was to least-expect my way into true love, then the variable that I had to deal with was serendipity. In short, I was trying to figure out what's the probability of my finding Mr. Right? Well, at the time I was living in the city of Philadelphia, and it's a big city, and I figured, in this entire place, there are lots of possibilities. So again, I started doing some math. Population of Philadelphia: it has 1.5 million people. I figure about half of that are men, so that takes the number down to 750,000. I'm looking for a guy between the ages of 30 and 36, which was only four percent of the population, so now I'm dealing with the possibility of 30,000 men. I was looking for somebody who was Jewish, because I am and that was important to me. That's only 2.3 percent of the population. I figure I'm attracted to maybe one out of 10 of those men, and there was no way I was going to deal with somebody who was an avid golfer. So that basically meant there were 35 men for me that I could possibly date in the entire city of Philadelphia. In the meantime, my very large Jewish family was already all married and well on their way to having lots and lots of children, and I felt like I was under tremendous peer pressure to get my life going already. So I have two possible strategies at this point I'm sort of figuring out. One, I can take my grandmother's advice and sort of least-expect my way into maybe bumping into the one out of 35 possible men in the entire 1.5-million-person city of Philadelphia, or I could try online dating. Now, I like the idea of online dating, because it's predicated on an algorithm, and that's really just a simple way of saying I've got a problem, I'm going to use some data, run it through a system and get to a solution. So online dating is the second most popular way that people now meet each other, but as it turns out, algorithms have been around for thousands of years in almost every culture. In fact, in Judaism, there were matchmakers a long time ago, and though they didn't have an explicit algorithm per se, they definitely were running through formulas in their heads, like, is the girl going to like the boy? Are the families going to get along? What's the rabbi going to say? Are they going to start having children right away? The matchmaker would sort of think through all of this, put two people together, and that would be the end of it. So in my case, I thought, well, will data and an algorithm lead me to my Prince Charming? So I decided to sign on. Now, there was one small catch. As I'm signing on to the various dating websites, as it happens, I was really, really busy. But that actually wasn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that I hate filling out questionnaires of any kind, and I certainly don't like questionnaires that are like Cosmo quizzes. So I just copied and pasted from my résumé. (Laughter) So in the descriptive part up top, I said that I was an award-winning journalist and a future thinker. When I was asked about fun activities and my ideal date, I said monetization and fluency in Japanese. I talked a lot about JavaScript. (Laughter) So obviously this was not the best way to put my most sexy foot forward. But the real failure was that there were plenty of men for me to date. These algorithms had a sea full of men that wanted to take me out on lots of dates -- what turned out to be truly awful dates. There was this guy Steve, the I.T. guy. The algorithm matched us up because we share a love of gadgets, we share a love of math and data and '80s music, and so I agreed to go out with him. So Steve the I.T. guy invited me out to one of Philadelphia's white-table-cloth, extremely expensive restaurants. And we went in, and right off the bat, our conversation really wasn't taking flight, but he was ordering a lot of food. In fact, he didn't even bother looking at the menu. He was ordering multiple appetizers, multiple entrées, for me as well, and suddenly there are piles and piles of food on our table, also lots and lots of bottles of wine. So we're nearing the end of our conversation and the end of dinner, and I've decided Steve the I.T. guy and I are really just not meant for each other, but we'll part ways as friends, when he gets up to go to the bathroom, and in the meantime, the bill comes to our table. And listen, I'm a modern woman. I am totally down with splitting the bill. But then Steve the I.T. guy didn't come back. (Gasping) And that was my entire month's rent. (Audience gasps) So needless to say, I was not having a good night. So I run home, I call my mother, I call my sister, and as I do, at the end of each one of these terrible, terrible dates, I regale them with the details. And they say to me, "Stop complaining." (Laughter) "You're just being too picky." So I said, fine, from here on out I'm only going on dates where I know there's Wi-Fi, and I'm bringing my laptop. I'm going to shove it into my bag, I'm going to have this email template, and I'm going to fill it out and collect information on all these different data points during the date to prove to everybody that empirically, these dates really are terrible. (Laughter) So I started tracking things like really stupid, awkward, sexual remarks; bad vocabulary; the number of times a man forced me to high-five him. (Laughter) So I started to crunch some numbers, and that allowed me to make some correlations. So as it turns out, for some reason, men who drink Scotch reference kinky sex immediately. (Laughter) Well, it turns out that these probably weren't bad guys. There were just bad for me. And as it happens, the algorithms that were setting us up, they weren't bad either. These algorithms were doing exactly what they were designed to do, which was to take our user-generated information, in my case, my résumé, and match it up with other people's information. See, the real problem here is that, while the algorithms work just fine, you and I don't, when confronted with blank windows where we're supposed to input our information online. Very few of us have the ability to be totally and brutally honest with ourselves. The other problem is that these websites are asking us questions like, are you a dog person or a cat person? Do you like horror films or romance films? I'm not looking for a pen pal. I'm looking for a husband. Right? So there's a certain amount of superficiality in that data. So I said fine, I've got a new plan. I'm going to keep using these online dating sites, but I'm going to treat them as databases, and rather than waiting for an algorithm to set me up, I think I'm going to try reverse-engineering this entire system. So knowing that there was superficial data that was being used to match me up with other people, I decided instead to ask my own questions. What was every single possible thing that I could think of that I was looking for in a mate? So I started writing and writing and writing, and at the end, I had amassed 72 different data points. I wanted somebody was Jew-ish, so I was looking for somebody who had the same background and thoughts on our culture, but wasn't going to force me to go to shul every Friday and Saturday. I wanted somebody who worked hard, because work for me is extremely important, but not too hard. For me, the hobbies that I have are really just new work projects that I've launched. I also wanted somebody who not only wanted two children, but was going to have the same attitude toward parenting that I do, so somebody who was going to be totally okay with forcing our child to start taking piano lessons at age three, and also maybe computer science classes if we could wrangle it. So things like that, but I also wanted somebody who would go to far-flung, exotic places, like Petra, Jordan. I also wanted somebody who would weigh 20 pounds more than me at all times, regardless of what I weighed. (Laughter) So I now have these 72 different data points, which, to be fair, is a lot. So what I did was, I went through and I prioritized that list. I broke it into a top tier and a second tier of points, and I ranked everything starting at 100 and going all the way down to 91, and listing things like I was looking for somebody who was really smart, who would challenge and stimulate me, and balancing that with a second tier and a second set of points. These things were also important to me but not necessarily deal-breakers. (Laughter) So once I had all this done, I then built a scoring system, because what I wanted to do was to sort of mathematically calculate whether or not I thought the guy that I found online would be a match with me. I figured there would be a minimum of 700 points before I would agree to email somebody or respond to an email message. For 900 points, I'd agree to go out on a date, and I wouldn't even consider any kind of relationship before somebody had crossed the 1,500 point threshold. Well, as it turns out, this worked pretty well. So I go back online now. I found Jewishdoc57 who's incredibly good-looking, incredibly well-spoken, he had hiked Mt. Fuji, he had walked along the Great Wall. He likes to travel as long as it doesn't involve a cruise ship. And I thought, I've done it! I've cracked the code. I have just found the Jewish Prince Charming of my family's dreams. There was only one problem: He didn't like me back. And I guess the one variable that I haven't considered is the competition. Who are all of the other women on these dating sites? I found SmileyGirl1978. She said she was a "Fun girl who is Happy and Outgoing." She listed her job as "teacher." She said she is "silly, nice and friendly." She likes to make people laugh "alot." At this moment I knew, clicking profile after profile that looked like this, that I needed to do some market research. So I created 10 fake male profiles. Now, before I lose all of you -- (Laughter) -- understand that I did this strictly to gather data about everybody else in the system. I didn't carry on crazy Catfish-style relationships with anybody. I really was just scraping their data. But I didn't want everybody's data. I only wanted data on the women who were going to be attracted to the type of man that I really, really wanted to marry. When I released these men into the wild, I did follow some rules. So I didn't reach out to any woman first. I just waited to see who these profiles were going to attract, and mainly what I was looking at was two different data sets. So I was looking at qualitative data, so what was the humor, the tone, the voice, the communication style that these women shared in common? And also quantitative data, so what was the average length of their profile, how much time was spent between messages? What I was trying to get at here was that I figured, in person, I would be just as competitive as a SmileyGirl1978. I wanted to figure out how to maximize my own profile online. Well, one month later, I had a lot of data, and I was able to do another analysis. And as it turns out, content matters a lot. So smart people tend to write a lot -- 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 words about themselves, which may all be very, very interesting. The challenge here, though, is that the popular men and women are sticking to 97 words on average that are written very, very well, even though it may not seem like it all the time. The other hallmark of the people who do this well is that they're using non-specific language. So in my case, "The English Patient" is my most favorite movie ever, but it doesn't work to use that in a profile, because that's a superficial data point, and somebody may disagree and decide they don't want to go out because they didn't like sitting through the three-hour movie. Also, optimistic language matters a lot. So this is a word cloud highlighting the most popular words that were used by the most popular women, words like "fun" and "girl" and "love." And what I realized was not that I had to dumb down my own profile. Remember, I'm somebody who said that I speak fluent Japanese and I know JavaScript and I was okay with that. The difference is that it's about being more approachable and helping people understand the best way to reach out to you. And as it turns out, timing is also really, really important. Just because you have access to somebody's mobile phone number or their instant message account and it's 2 o'clock in the morning and you happen to be awake, doesn't mean that that's a good time to communicate with those people. The popular women on these online sites spend an average of 23 hours in between each communication. And that's what we would normally do in the usual process of courtship. And finally -- there were the photos. All of the women who were popular showed some skin. They all looked really great, which turned out to be in sharp contrast to what I had uploaded. (Laughter) Once I had all of this information, I was able to create a super profile, so it was still me, but it was me optimized now for this ecosystem. And as it turns out, I did a really good job. I was the most popular person online. (Laughter) (Applause) And as it turns out, lots and lots of men wanted to date me. So I call my mom, I call my sister, I call my grandmother. I'm telling them about this fabulous news, and they say, "This is wonderful! How soon are you going out?" I said, "Actually, I'm not going to go out with anybody." Because remember, in my scoring system, they have to reach a minimum threshold of 700 points, and none of them have done that. They said, "What? You're still being too damn picky." Well, not too long after that, I found this guy, Thevenin, and he said that he was culturally Jewish, he said that his job was an arctic baby seal hunter, which I thought was very clever. He talked in detail about travel. He made a lot of really interesting cultural references. He looked and talked exactly like what I wanted, and immediately, he scored 850 points. It was enough for a date. Three weeks later, we met up in person for what turned out to be a 14-hour-long conversation that went from coffee shop to restaurant to another coffee shop to another restaurant, and when he dropped me back off at my house that night I re-scored him -- [1,050 points!] Thought, you know what, this entire time, I haven't been picky enough. Well, a year and a half after that, we were non-cruise ship traveling through Petra, Jordan, when he got down on his knee and proposed. A year after that, we were married, and about a year and a half after that, our daughter, Petra, was born. Audience: Oh! (Applause) [What it means...] Obviously, I'm having a fabulous life, so -- (Laughter) The question is, what does all of this mean for you? Well, as it turns out, there is an algorithm for love. It's just not the ones that we're being presented with online. In fact, it's something that you write yourself. So whether you're looking for a husband or a wife or you're trying to find your passion or you're trying to start a business, all you have to really do is figure out your own framework and play by your own rules, and feel free to be as picky as you want. Well, on my wedding day, I had a conversation again with my grandmother, and she said, "All right, maybe I was wrong. It looks like you did come up with a really, really great system. Now, your matzah balls ... They should be fluffy, not hard." (Laughter) And I'll take her advice on that. (Applause)

What I'm going to try to do is explain to you quickly how to predict, and illustrate it with some predictions about what Iran is going to do in the next couple of years. In order to predict effectively, we need to use science. And the reason that we need to use science is because then we can reproduce what we're doing; it's not just wisdom or guesswork. And if we can predict, then we can engineer the future. So if you are concerned to influence energy policy, or you are concerned to influence national security policy, or health policy, or education, science -- and a particular branch of science -- is a way to do it, not the way we've been doing it, which is seat-of-the-pants wisdom. Now before I get into how to do it let me give you a little truth in advertising, because I'm not engaged in the business of magic. There are lots of thing that the approach I take can predict, and there are some that it can't. It can predict complex negotiations or situations involving coercion -- that is in essence everything that has to do with politics, much of what has to do with business, but sorry, if you're looking to speculate in the stock market, I don't predict stock markets -- OK, it's not going up any time really soon. But I'm not engaged in doing that. I'm not engaged in predicting random number generators. I actually get phone calls from people who want to know what lottery numbers are going to win. I don't have a clue. I engage in the use of game theory, game theory is a branch of mathematics and that means, sorry, that even in the study of politics, math has come into the picture. We can no longer pretend that we just speculate about politics, we need to look at this in a rigorous way. Now, what is game theory about? It assumes that people are looking out for what's good for them. That doesn't seem terribly shocking -- although it's controversial for a lot of people -- that we are self-interested. In order to look out for what's best for them or what they think is best for them, people have values -- they identify what they want, and what they don't want. And they have beliefs about what other people want, and what other people don't want, how much power other people have, how much those people could get in the way of whatever it is that you want. And they face limitations, constraints, they may be weak, they may be located in the wrong part of the world, they may be Einstein, stuck away farming someplace in a rural village in India not being noticed, as was the case for Ramanujan for a long time, a great mathematician but nobody noticed. Now who is rational? A lot of people are worried about what is rationality about? You know, what if people are rational? Mother Theresa, she was rational. Terrorists, they're rational. Pretty much everybody is rational. I think there are only two exceptions that I'm aware of -- two-year-olds, they are not rational, they have very fickle preferences, they switch what they think all the time, and schizophrenics are probably not rational, but pretty much everybody else is rational. That is, they are just trying to do what they think is in their own best interest. Now in order to work out what people are going to do to pursue their interests, we have to think about who has influence in the world. If you're trying to influence corporations to change their behavior, with regard to producing pollutants, one approach, the common approach, is to exhort them to be better, to explain to them what damage they're doing to the planet. And many of you may have noticed that doesn't have as big an effect, as perhaps you would like it to have. But if you show them that it's in their interest, then they're responsive. So, we have to work out who influences problems. If we're looking at Iran, the president of the United States we would like to think, may have some influence -- certainly the president in Iran has some influence -- but we make a mistake if we just pay attention to the person at the top of the power ladder because that person doesn't know much about Iran, or about energy policy, or about health care, or about any particular policy. That person surrounds himself or herself with advisers. If we're talking about national security problems, maybe it's the Secretary of State, maybe it's the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, maybe the ambassador to the United Nations, or somebody else who they think is going to know more about the particular problem. But let's face it, the Secretary of State doesn't know much about Iran. The secretary of defense doesn't know much about Iran. Each of those people in turn has advisers who advise them, so they can advise the president. There are lots of people shaping decisions and so if we want to predict correctly we have to pay attention to everybody who is trying to shape the outcome, not just the people at the pinnacle of the decision-making pyramid. Unfortunately, a lot of times we don't do that. There's a good reason that we don't do that, and there's a good reason that using game theory and computers, we can overcome the limitation of just looking at a few people. Imagine a problem with just five decision-makers. Imagine for example that Sally over here, wants to know what Harry, and Jane, and George and Frank are thinking, and sends messages to those people. Sally's giving her opinion to them, and they're giving their opinion to Sally. But Sally also wants to know what Harry is saying to these three, and what they're saying to Harry. And Harry wants to know what each of those people are saying to each other, and so on, and Sally would like to know what Harry thinks those people are saying. That's a complicated problem; that's a lot to know. With five decision-makers there are a lot of linkages -- 120, as a matter of fact, if you remember your factorials. Five factorial is 120. Now you may be surprised to know that smart people can keep 120 things straight in their head. Suppose we double the number of influencers from five to 10. Does that mean we've doubled the number of pieces of information we need to know, from 120 to 240? No. How about 10 times? To 1,200? No. We've increased it to 3.6 million. Nobody can keep that straight in their head. But computers, they can. They don't need coffee breaks, they don't need vacations, they don't need to go to sleep at night, they don't ask for raises either. They can keep this information straight and that means that we can process the information. So I'm going to talk to you about how to process it, and I'm going to give you some examples out of Iran, and you're going to be wondering, "Why should we listen to this guy? Why should we believe what he's saying?" So I'm going to show you a factoid. This is an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency of the percentage of time that the model I'm talking about is right in predicting things whose outcome is not yet known, when the experts who provided the data inputs got it wrong. That's not my claim, that's a CIA claim -- you can read it, it was declassified a while ago. You can read it in a volume edited by H. Bradford Westerfield, Yale University Press. So, what do we need to know in order to predict? You may be surprised to find out we don't need to know very much. We do need to know who has a stake in trying to shape the outcome of a decision. We need to know what they say they want, not what they want in their heart of hearts, not what they think they can get, but what they say they want, because that is a strategically chosen position, and we can work backwards from that to draw inferences about important features of their decision-making. We need to know how focused they are on the problem at hand. That is, how willing are they to drop what they're doing when the issue comes up, and attend to it instead of something else that's on their plate -- how big a deal is it to them? And how much clout could they bring to bear if they chose to engage on the issue? If we know those things we can predict their behavior by assuming that everybody cares about two things on any decision. They care about the outcome. They'd like an outcome as close to what they are interested in as possible. They're careerists, they also care about getting credit -- there's ego involvement, they want to be seen as important in shaping the outcome, or as important, if it's their druthers, to block an outcome. And so we have to figure out how they balance those two things. Different people trade off between standing by their outcome, faithfully holding to it, going down in a blaze of glory, or giving it up, putting their finger in the wind, and doing whatever they think is going to be a winning position. Most people fall in between, and if we can work out where they fall we can work out how to negotiate with them to change their behavior. So with just that little bit of input we can work out what the choices are that people have, what the chances are that they're willing to take, what they're after, what they value, what they want, and what they believe about other people. You might notice what we don't need to know: there's no history in here. How they got to where they are may be important in shaping the input information, but once we know where they are we're worried about where they're going to be headed in the future. How they got there turns out not to be terribly critical in predicting. I remind you of that 90 percent accuracy rate. So where are we going to get this information? We can get this information from the Internet, from The Economist, The Financial Times, The New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, lots of sources like that, or we can get it from asking experts who spend their lives studying places and problems, because those experts know this information. If they don't know, who are the people trying to influence the decision, how much clout do they have, how much they care about this issue, and what do they say they want, are they experts? That's what it means to be an expert, that's the basic stuff an expert needs to know. Alright, lets turn to Iran. Let me make three important predictions -- you can check this out, time will tell. What is Iran going to do about its nuclear weapons program? How secure is the theocratic regime in Iran? What's its future? And everybody's best friend, Ahmadinejad. How are things going for him? How are things going to be working out for him in the next year or two? You take a look at this, this is not based on statistics. I want to be very clear here. I'm not projecting some past data into the future. I've taken inputs on positions and so forth, run it through a computer model that had simulated the dynamics of interaction, and these are the simulated dynamics, the predictions about the path of policy. So you can see here on the vertical axis, I haven't shown it all the way down to zero, there are lots of other options, but here I'm just showing you the prediction, so I've narrowed the scale. Up at the top of the axis, "Build the Bomb." At 130, we start somewhere above 130, between building a bomb, and making enough weapons-grade fuel so that you could build a bomb. That's where, according to my analyses, the Iranians were at the beginning of this year. And then the model makes predictions down the road. At 115 they would only produce enough weapons grade fuel to show that they know how, but they wouldn't build a weapon: they would build a research quantity. It would achieve some national pride, but not go ahead and build a weapon. And down at 100 they would build civilian nuclear energy, which is what they say is their objective. The yellow line shows us the most likely path. The yellow line includes an analysis of 87 decision makers in Iran, and a vast number of outside influencers trying to pressure Iran into changing its behavior, various players in the United States, and Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Russia, European Union, Japan, so on and so forth. The white line reproduces the analysis if the international environment just left Iran to make its own internal decisions, under its own domestic political pressures. That's not going to be happening, but you can see that the line comes down faster if they're not put under international pressure, if they're allowed to pursue their own devices. But in any event, by the end of this year, beginning of next year, we get to a stable equilibrium outcome. And that equilibrium is not what the United States would like, but it's probably an equilibrium that the United States can live with, and that a lot of others can live with. And that is that Iran will achieve that nationalist pride by making enough weapons-grade fuel, through research, so that they could show that they know how to make weapons-grade fuel, but not enough to actually build a bomb. How is this happening? Over here you can see this is the distribution of power in favor of civilian nuclear energy today, this is what that power block is predicted to be like by the late parts of 2010, early parts of 2011. Just about nobody supports research on weapons-grade fuel today, but by 2011 that gets to be a big block, and you put these two together, that's the controlling influence in Iran. Out here today, there are a bunch of people -- Ahmadinejad for example -- who would like not only to build a bomb, but test a bomb. That power disappears completely; nobody supports that by 2011. These guys are all shrinking, the power is all drifting out here, so the outcome is going to be the weapons-grade fuel. Who are the winners and who are the losers in Iran? Take a look at these guys, they're growing in power, and by the way, this was done a while ago before the current economic crisis, and that's probably going to get steeper. These folks are the moneyed interests in Iran, the bankers, the oil people, the bazaaries. They are growing in political clout, as the mullahs are isolating themselves -- with the exception of one group of mullahs, who are not well known to Americans. That's this line here, growing in power, these are what the Iranians call the quietists. These are the Ayatollahs, mostly based in Qom, who have great clout in the religious community, have been quiet on politics and are going to be getting louder, because they see Iran going in an unhealthy direction, a direction contrary to what Khomeini had in mind. Here is Mr. Ahmadinejad. Two things to notice: he's getting weaker, and while he gets a lot of attention in the United States, he is not a major player in Iran. He is on the way down. OK, so I'd like you to take a little away from this. Everything is not predictable: the stock market is, at least for me, not predictable, but most complicated negotiations are predictable. Again, whether we're talking health policy, education, environment, energy, litigation, mergers, all of these are complicated problems that are predictable, that this sort of technology can be applied to. And the reason that being able to predict those things is important, is not just because you might run a hedge fund and make money off of it, but because if you can predict what people will do, you can engineer what they will do. And if you engineer what they do you can change the world, you can get a better result. I would like to leave you with one thought, which is for me, the dominant theme of this gathering, and is the dominant theme of this way of thinking about the world. When people say to you, "That's impossible," you say back to them, "When you say 'That's impossible,' you're confused with, 'I don't know how to do it.'" Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: One question for you. That was fascinating. I love that you put it out there. I got very nervous halfway through the talk though, just panicking whether you'd included in your model, the possibility that putting this prediction out there might change the result. We've got 800 people in Tehran who watch TEDTalks. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita: I've thought about that, and since I've done a lot of work for the intelligence community, they've also pondered that. It would be a good thing if people paid more attention, took seriously, and engaged in the same sorts of calculations, because it would change things. But it would change things in two beneficial ways. It would hasten how quickly people arrive at an agreement, and so it would save everybody a lot of grief and time. And, it would arrive at an agreement that everybody was happy with, without having to manipulate them so much -- which is basically what I do, I manipulate them. So it would be a good thing. CA: So you're kind of trying to say, "People of Iran, this is your destiny, lets go there." BBM: Well, people of Iran, this is what many of you are going to evolve to want, and we could get there a lot sooner, and you would suffer a lot less trouble from economic sanctions, and we would suffer a lot less fear of the use of military force on our end, and the world would be a better place. CA: Here's hoping they hear it that way. Thank you very much Bruce. BBM: Thank you. (Applause)

I want to start my story in Germany, in 1877, with a mathematician named Georg Cantor. And Cantor decided he was going to take a line and erase the middle third of the line, and then take those two resulting lines and bring them back into the same process, a recursive process. So he starts out with one line, and then two, and then four, and then 16, and so on. And if he does this an infinite number of times, which you can do in mathematics, he ends up with an infinite number of lines, each of which has an infinite number of points in it. So he realized he had a set whose number of elements was larger than infinity. And this blew his mind. Literally. He checked into a sanitarium. (Laughter) And when he came out of the sanitarium, he was convinced that he had been put on earth to found transfinite set theory because the largest set of infinity would be God Himself. He was a very religious man. He was a mathematician on a mission. And other mathematicians did the same sort of thing. A Swedish mathematician, von Koch, decided that instead of subtracting lines, he would add them. And so he came up with this beautiful curve. And there's no particular reason why we have to start with this seed shape; we can use any seed shape we like. And I'll rearrange this and I'll stick this somewhere -- down there, OK -- and now upon iteration, that seed shape sort of unfolds into a very different looking structure. So these all have the property of self-similarity: the part looks like the whole. It's the same pattern at many different scales. Now, mathematicians thought this was very strange because as you shrink a ruler down, you measure a longer and longer length. And since they went through the iterations an infinite number of times, as the ruler shrinks down to infinity, the length goes to infinity. This made no sense at all, so they consigned these curves to the back of the math books. They said these are pathological curves, and we don't have to discuss them. (Laughter) And that worked for a hundred years. And then in 1977, Benoit Mandelbrot, a French mathematician, realized that if you do computer graphics and used these shapes he called fractals, you get the shapes of nature. You get the human lungs, you get acacia trees, you get ferns, you get these beautiful natural forms. If you take your thumb and your index finger and look right where they meet -- go ahead and do that now -- -- and relax your hand, you'll see a crinkle, and then a wrinkle within the crinkle, and a crinkle within the wrinkle. Right? Your body is covered with fractals. The mathematicians who were saying these were pathologically useless shapes? They were breathing those words with fractal lungs. It's very ironic. And I'll show you a little natural recursion here. Again, we just take these lines and recursively replace them with the whole shape. So here's the second iteration, and the third, fourth and so on. So nature has this self-similar structure. Nature uses self-organizing systems. Now in the 1980s, I happened to notice that if you look at an aerial photograph of an African village, you see fractals. And I thought, "This is fabulous! I wonder why?" And of course I had to go to Africa and ask folks why. So I got a Fulbright scholarship to just travel around Africa for a year asking people why they were building fractals, which is a great job if you can get it. (Laughter) And so I finally got to this city, and I'd done a little fractal model for the city just to see how it would sort of unfold -- but when I got there, I got to the palace of the chief, and my French is not very good; I said something like, "I am a mathematician and I would like to stand on your roof." But he was really cool about it, and he took me up there, and we talked about fractals. And he said, "Oh yeah, yeah! We knew about a rectangle within a rectangle, we know all about that." And it turns out the royal insignia has a rectangle within a rectangle within a rectangle, and the path through that palace is actually this spiral here. And as you go through the path, you have to get more and more polite. So they're mapping the social scaling onto the geometric scaling; it's a conscious pattern. It is not unconscious like a termite mound fractal. This is a village in southern Zambia. The Ba-ila built this village about 400 meters in diameter. You have a huge ring. The rings that represent the family enclosures get larger and larger as you go towards the back, and then you have the chief's ring here towards the back and then the chief's immediate family in that ring. So here's a little fractal model for it. Here's one house with the sacred altar, here's the house of houses, the family enclosure, with the humans here where the sacred altar would be, and then here's the village as a whole -- a ring of ring of rings with the chief's extended family here, the chief's immediate family here, and here there's a tiny village only this big. Now you might wonder, how can people fit in a tiny village only this big? That's because they're spirit people. It's the ancestors. And of course the spirit people have a little miniature village in their village, right? So it's just like Georg Cantor said, the recursion continues forever. This is in the Mandara mountains, near the Nigerian border in Cameroon, Mokoulek. I saw this diagram drawn by a French architect, and I thought, "Wow! What a beautiful fractal!" So I tried to come up with a seed shape, which, upon iteration, would unfold into this thing. I came up with this structure here. Let's see, first iteration, second, third, fourth. Now, after I did the simulation, I realized the whole village kind of spirals around, just like this, and here's that replicating line -- a self-replicating line that unfolds into the fractal. Well, I noticed that line is about where the only square building in the village is at. So, when I got to the village, I said, "Can you take me to the square building? I think something's going on there." And they said, "Well, we can take you there, but you can't go inside because that's the sacred altar, where we do sacrifices every year to keep up those annual cycles of fertility for the fields." And I started to realize that the cycles of fertility were just like the recursive cycles in the geometric algorithm that builds this. And the recursion in some of these villages continues down into very tiny scales. So here's a Nankani village in Mali. And you can see, you go inside the family enclosure -- you go inside and here's pots in the fireplace, stacked recursively. Here's calabashes that Issa was just showing us, and they're stacked recursively. Now, the tiniest calabash in here keeps the woman's soul. And when she dies, they have a ceremony where they break this stack called the zalanga and her soul goes off to eternity. Once again, infinity is important. Now, you might ask yourself three questions at this point. Aren't these scaling patterns just universal to all indigenous architecture? And that was actually my original hypothesis. When I first saw those African fractals, I thought, "Wow, so any indigenous group that doesn't have a state society, that sort of hierarchy, must have a kind of bottom-up architecture." But that turns out not to be true. I started collecting aerial photographs of Native American and South Pacific architecture; only the African ones were fractal. And if you think about it, all these different societies have different geometric design themes that they use. So Native Americans use a combination of circular symmetry and fourfold symmetry. You can see on the pottery and the baskets. Here's an aerial photograph of one of the Anasazi ruins; you can see it's circular at the largest scale, but it's rectangular at the smaller scale, right? It is not the same pattern at two different scales. Second, you might ask, "Well, Dr. Eglash, aren't you ignoring the diversity of African cultures?" And three times, the answer is no. First of all, I agree with Mudimbe's wonderful book, "The Invention of Africa," that Africa is an artificial invention of first colonialism, and then oppositional movements. No, because a widely shared design practice doesn't necessarily give you a unity of culture -- and it definitely is not "in the DNA." And finally, the fractals have self-similarity -- so they're similar to themselves, but they're not necessarily similar to each other -- you see very different uses for fractals. It's a shared technology in Africa. And finally, well, isn't this just intuition? It's not really mathematical knowledge. Africans can't possibly really be using fractal geometry, right? It wasn't invented until the 1970s. Well, it's true that some African fractals are, as far as I'm concerned, just pure intuition. So some of these things, I'd wander around the streets of Dakar asking people, "What's the algorithm? What's the rule for making this?" and they'd say, "Well, we just make it that way because it looks pretty, stupid." (Laughter) But sometimes, that's not the case. In some cases, there would actually be algorithms, and very sophisticated algorithms. So in Manghetu sculpture, you'd see this recursive geometry. In Ethiopian crosses, you see this wonderful unfolding of the shape. In Angola, the Chokwe people draw lines in the sand, and it's what the German mathematician Euler called a graph; we now call it an Eulerian path -- you can never lift your stylus from the surface and you can never go over the same line twice. But they do it recursively, and they do it with an age-grade system, so the little kids learn this one, and then the older kids learn this one, then the next age-grade initiation, you learn this one. And with each iteration of that algorithm, you learn the iterations of the myth. You learn the next level of knowledge. And finally, all over Africa, you see this board game. It's called Owari in Ghana, where I studied it; it's called Mancala here on the East Coast, Bao in Kenya, Sogo elsewhere. Well, you see self-organizing patterns that spontaneously occur in this board game. And the folks in Ghana knew about these self-organizing patterns and would use them strategically. So this is very conscious knowledge. Here's a wonderful fractal. Anywhere you go in the Sahel, you'll see this windscreen. And of course fences around the world are all Cartesian, all strictly linear. But here in Africa, you've got these nonlinear scaling fences. So I tracked down one of the folks who makes these things, this guy in Mali just outside of Bamako, and I asked him, "How come you're making fractal fences? Because nobody else is." And his answer was very interesting. He said, "Well, if I lived in the jungle, I would only use the long rows of straw because they're very quick and they're very cheap. It doesn't take much time, doesn't take much straw." He said, "but wind and dust goes through pretty easily. Now, the tight rows up at the very top, they really hold out the wind and dust. But it takes a lot of time, and it takes a lot of straw because they're really tight." "Now," he said, "we know from experience that the farther up from the ground you go, the stronger the wind blows." Right? It's just like a cost-benefit analysis. And I measured out the lengths of straw, put it on a log-log plot, got the scaling exponent, and it almost exactly matches the scaling exponent for the relationship between wind speed and height in the wind engineering handbook. So these guys are right on target for a practical use of scaling technology. The most complex example of an algorithmic approach to fractals that I found was actually not in geometry, it was in a symbolic code, and this was Bamana sand divination. And the same divination system is found all over Africa. You can find it on the East Coast as well as the West Coast, and often the symbols are very well preserved, so each of these symbols has four bits -- it's a four-bit binary word -- you draw these lines in the sand randomly, and then you count off, and if it's an odd number, you put down one stroke, and if it's an even number, you put down two strokes. And they did this very rapidly, and I couldn't understand where they were getting -- they only did the randomness four times -- I couldn't understand where they were getting the other 12 symbols. And they wouldn't tell me. They said, "No, no, I can't tell you about this." And I said, "Well look, I'll pay you, you can be my teacher, and I'll come each day and pay you." They said, "It's not a matter of money. This is a religious matter." And finally, out of desperation, I said, "Well, let me explain Georg Cantor in 1877." And I started explaining why I was there in Africa, and they got very excited when they saw the Cantor set. And one of them said, "Come here. I think I can help you out here." And so he took me through the initiation ritual for a Bamana priest. And of course, I was only interested in the math, so the whole time, he kept shaking his head going, "You know, I didn't learn it this way." But I had to sleep with a kola nut next to my bed, buried in sand, and give seven coins to seven lepers and so on. And finally, he revealed the truth of the matter. And it turns out it's a pseudo-random number generator using deterministic chaos. When you have a four-bit symbol, you then put it together with another one sideways. So even plus odd gives you odd. Odd plus even gives you odd. Even plus even gives you even. Odd plus odd gives you even. It's addition modulo 2, just like in the parity bit check on your computer. And then you take this symbol, and you put it back in so it's a self-generating diversity of symbols. They're truly using a kind of deterministic chaos in doing this. Now, because it's a binary code, you can actually implement this in hardware -- what a fantastic teaching tool that should be in African engineering schools. And the most interesting thing I found out about it was historical. In the 12th century, Hugo of Santalla brought it from Islamic mystics into Spain. And there it entered into the alchemy community as geomancy: divination through the earth. This is a geomantic chart drawn for King Richard II in 1390. Leibniz, the German mathematician, talked about geomancy in his dissertation called "De Combinatoria." And he said, "Well, instead of using one stroke and two strokes, let's use a one and a zero, and we can count by powers of two." Right? Ones and zeros, the binary code. George Boole took Leibniz's binary code and created Boolean algebra, and John von Neumann took Boolean algebra and created the digital computer. So all these little PDAs and laptops -- every digital circuit in the world -- started in Africa. And I know Brian Eno says there's not enough Africa in computers, but you know, I don't think there's enough African history in Brian Eno. (Laughter) (Applause) So let me end with just a few words about applications that we've found for this. And you can go to our website, the applets are all free; they just run in the browser. Anybody in the world can use them. The National Science Foundation's Broadening Participation in Computing program recently awarded us a grant to make a programmable version of these design tools, so hopefully in three years, anybody'll be able to go on the Web and create their own simulations and their own artifacts. We've focused in the U.S. on African-American students as well as Native American and Latino. We've found statistically significant improvement with children using this software in a mathematics class in comparison with a control group that did not have the software. So it's really very successful teaching children that they have a heritage that's about mathematics, that it's not just about singing and dancing. We've started a pilot program in Ghana. We got a small seed grant, just to see if folks would be willing to work with us on this; we're very excited about the future possibilities for that. We've also been working in design. I didn't put his name up here -- my colleague, Kerry, in Kenya, has come up with this great idea for using fractal structure for postal address in villages that have fractal structure, because if you try to impose a grid structure postal system on a fractal village, it doesn't quite fit. Bernard Tschumi at Columbia University has finished using this in a design for a museum of African art. David Hughes at Ohio State University has written a primer on Afrocentric architecture in which he's used some of these fractal structures. And finally, I just wanted to point out that this idea of self-organization, as we heard earlier, it's in the brain. It's in the -- it's in Google's search engine. Actually, the reason that Google was such a success is because they were the first ones to take advantage of the self-organizing properties of the web. It's in ecological sustainability. It's in the developmental power of entrepreneurship, the ethical power of democracy. It's also in some bad things. Self-organization is why the AIDS virus is spreading so fast. And if you don't think that capitalism, which is self-organizing, can have destructive effects, you haven't opened your eyes enough. So we need to think about, as was spoken earlier, the traditional African methods for doing self-organization. These are robust algorithms. These are ways of doing self-organization -- of doing entrepreneurship -- that are gentle, that are egalitarian. So if we want to find a better way of doing that kind of work, we need look only no farther than Africa to find these robust self-organizing algorithms. Thank you.

So, I'll start with this: a couple years ago, an event planner called me because I was going to do a speaking event. And she called, and she said, "I'm really struggling with how to write about you on the little flier." And I thought, "Well, what's the struggle?" And she said, "Well, I saw you speak, and I'm going to call you a researcher, I think, but I'm afraid if I call you a researcher, no one will come, because they'll think you're boring and irrelevant." (Laughter) And I was like, "Okay." And she said, "But the thing I liked about your talk is you're a storyteller. So I think what I'll do is just call you a storyteller." And of course, the academic, insecure part of me was like, "You're going to call me a what?" And she said, "I'm going to call you a storyteller." And I was like, "Why not magic pixie?" (Laughter) I was like, "Let me think about this for a second." I tried to call deep on my courage. And I thought, you know, I am a storyteller. I'm a qualitative researcher. I collect stories; that's what I do. And maybe stories are just data with a soul. And maybe I'm just a storyteller. And so I said, "You know what? Why don't you just say I'm a researcher-storyteller." And she went, "Haha. There's no such thing." (Laughter) So I'm a researcher-storyteller, and I'm going to talk to you today -- we're talking about expanding perception -- and so I want to talk to you and tell some stories about a piece of my research that fundamentally expanded my perception and really actually changed the way that I live and love and work and parent. And this is where my story starts. When I was a young researcher, doctoral student, my first year I had a research professor who said to us, "Here's the thing, if you cannot measure it, it does not exist." And I thought he was just sweet-talking me. I was like, "Really?" and he was like, "Absolutely." And so you have to understand that I have a bachelor's in social work, a master's in social work, and I was getting my Ph.D. in social work, so my entire academic career was surrounded by people who kind of believed in the "life's messy, love it." And I'm more of the, "life's messy, clean it up, organize it and put it into a bento box." (Laughter) And so to think that I had found my way, to found a career that takes me -- really, one of the big sayings in social work is, "Lean into the discomfort of the work." And I'm like, knock discomfort upside the head and move it over and get all A's. That was my mantra. So I was very excited about this. And so I thought, you know what, this is the career for me, because I am interested in some messy topics. But I want to be able to make them not messy. I want to understand them. I want to hack into these things I know are important and lay the code out for everyone to see. So where I started was with connection. Because, by the time you're a social worker for 10 years, what you realize is that connection is why we're here. It's what gives purpose and meaning to our lives. This is what it's all about. It doesn't matter whether you talk to people who work in social justice and mental health and abuse and neglect, what we know is that connection, the ability to feel connected, is -- neurobiologically that's how we're wired -- it's why we're here. So I thought, you know what, I'm going to start with connection. Well, you know that situation where you get an evaluation from your boss, and she tells you 37 things you do really awesome, and one thing -- an "opportunity for growth?" (Laughter) And all you can think about is that opportunity for growth, right? Well, apparently this is the way my work went as well, because, when you ask people about love, they tell you about heartbreak. When you ask people about belonging, they'll tell you their most excruciating experiences of being excluded. And when you ask people about connection, the stories they told me were about disconnection. So very quickly -- really about six weeks into this research -- I ran into this unnamed thing that absolutely unraveled connection in a way that I didn't understand or had never seen. And so I pulled back out of the research and thought, I need to figure out what this is. And it turned out to be shame. And shame is really easily understood as the fear of disconnection: Is there something about me that, if other people know it or see it, that I won't be worthy of connection? The things I can tell you about it: it's universal; we all have it. The only people who don't experience shame have no capacity for human empathy or connection. No one wants to talk about it, and the less you talk about it the more you have it. What underpinned this shame, this "I'm not good enough," -- which we all know that feeling: "I'm not blank enough. I'm not thin enough, rich enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, promoted enough." The thing that underpinned this was excruciating vulnerability, this idea of, in order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen. And you know how I feel about vulnerability. I hate vulnerability. And so I thought, this is my chance to beat it back with my measuring stick. I'm going in, I'm going to figure this stuff out, I'm going to spend a year, I'm going to totally deconstruct shame, I'm going to understand how vulnerability works, and I'm going to outsmart it. So I was ready, and I was really excited. As you know, it's not going to turn out well. (Laughter) You know this. So, I could tell you a lot about shame, but I'd have to borrow everyone else's time. But here's what I can tell you that it boils down to -- and this may be one of the most important things that I've ever learned in the decade of doing this research. My one year turned into six years: thousands of stories, hundreds of long interviews, focus groups. At one point, people were sending me journal pages and sending me their stories -- thousands of pieces of data in six years. And I kind of got a handle on it. I kind of understood, this is what shame is, this is how it works. I wrote a book, I published a theory, but something was not okay -- and what it was is that, if I roughly took the people I interviewed and divided them into people who really have a sense of worthiness -- that's what this comes down to, a sense of worthiness -- they have a strong sense of love and belonging -- and folks who struggle for it, and folks who are always wondering if they're good enough. There was only one variable that separated the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging and the people who really struggle for it. And that was, the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging believe they're worthy of love and belonging. That's it. They believe they're worthy. And to me, the hard part of the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we're not worthy of connection, was something that, personally and professionally, I felt like I needed to understand better. So what I did is I took all of the interviews where I saw worthiness, where I saw people living that way, and just looked at those. What do these people have in common? I have a slight office supply addiction, but that's another talk. So I had a manila folder, and I had a Sharpie, and I was like, what am I going to call this research? And the first words that came to my mind were whole-hearted. These are whole-hearted people, living from this deep sense of worthiness. So I wrote at the top of the manila folder, and I started looking at the data. In fact, I did it first in a four-day very intensive data analysis, where I went back, pulled these interviews, pulled the stories, pulled the incidents. What's the theme? What's the pattern? My husband left town with the kids because I always go into this Jackson Pollock crazy thing, where I'm just like writing and in my researcher mode. And so here's what I found. What they had in common was a sense of courage. And I want to separate courage and bravery for you for a minute. Courage, the original definition of courage, when it first came into the English language -- it's from the Latin word cor, meaning heart -- and the original definition was to tell the story of who you are with your whole heart. And so these folks had, very simply, the courage to be imperfect. They had the compassion to be kind to themselves first and then to others, because, as it turns out, we can't practice compassion with other people if we can't treat ourselves kindly. And the last was they had connection, and -- this was the hard part -- as a result of authenticity, they were willing to let go of who they thought they should be in order to be who they were, which you have to absolutely do that for connection. The other thing that they had in common was this: They fully embraced vulnerability. They believed that what made them vulnerable made them beautiful. They didn't talk about vulnerability being comfortable, nor did they really talk about it being excruciating -- as I had heard it earlier in the shame interviewing. They just talked about it being necessary. They talked about the willingness to say, "I love you" first, the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees, the willingness to breathe through waiting for the doctor to call after your mammogram. They're willing to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. They thought this was fundamental. I personally thought it was betrayal. I could not believe I had pledged allegiance to research, where our job -- you know, the definition of research is to control and predict, to study phenomena, for the explicit reason to control and predict. And now my mission to control and predict had turned up the answer that the way to live is with vulnerability and to stop controlling and predicting. This led to a little breakdown -- (Laughter) -- which actually looked more like this. (Laughter) And it did. I call it a breakdown; my therapist calls it a spiritual awakening. A spiritual awakening sounds better than breakdown, but I assure you it was a breakdown. And I had to put my data away and go find a therapist. Let me tell you something: you know who you are when you call your friends and say, "I think I need to see somebody. Do you have any recommendations?" Because about five of my friends were like, "Wooo. I wouldn't want to be your therapist." (Laughter) I was like, "What does that mean?" And they're like, "I'm just saying, you know. Don't bring your measuring stick." I was like, "Okay." So I found a therapist. My first meeting with her, Diana -- I brought in my list of the way the whole-hearted live, and I sat down. And she said, "How are you?" And I said, "I'm great. I'm okay." She said, "What's going on?" And this is a therapist who sees therapists, because we have to go to those, because their B.S. meters are good. (Laughter) And so I said, "Here's the thing, I'm struggling." And she said, "What's the struggle?" And I said, "Well, I have a vulnerability issue. And I know that vulnerability is the core of shame and fear and our struggle for worthiness, but it appears that it's also the birthplace of joy, of creativity, of belonging, of love. And I think I have a problem, and I need some help." And I said, "But here's the thing: no family stuff, no childhood shit." (Laughter) "I just need some strategies." (Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. So she goes like this. (Laughter) And then I said, "It's bad, right?" And she said, "It's neither good nor bad." (Laughter) "It just is what it is." And I said, "Oh my God, this is going to suck." (Laughter) And it did, and it didn't. And it took about a year. And you know how there are people that, when they realize that vulnerability and tenderness are important, that they surrender and walk into it. A: that's not me, and B: I don't even hang out with people like that. (Laughter) For me, it was a yearlong street fight. It was a slugfest. Vulnerability pushed, I pushed back. I lost the fight, but probably won my life back. And so then I went back into the research and spent the next couple of years really trying to understand what they, the whole-hearted, what choices they were making, and what are we doing with vulnerability. Why do we struggle with it so much? Am I alone in struggling with vulnerability? No. So this is what I learned. We numb vulnerability -- when we're waiting for the call. It was funny, I sent something out on Twitter and on Facebook that says, "How would you define vulnerability? What makes you feel vulnerable?" And within an hour and a half, I had 150 responses. Because I wanted to know what's out there. Having to ask my husband for help because I'm sick, and we're newly married; initiating sex with my husband; initiating sex with my wife; being turned down; asking someone out; waiting for the doctor to call back; getting laid off; laying off people -- this is the world we live in. We live in a vulnerable world. And one of the ways we deal with it is we numb vulnerability. And I think there's evidence -- and it's not the only reason this evidence exists, but I think it's a huge cause -- we are the most in-debt, obese, addicted and medicated adult cohort in U.S. history. The problem is -- and I learned this from the research -- that you cannot selectively numb emotion. You can't say, here's the bad stuff. Here's vulnerability, here's grief, here's shame, here's fear, here's disappointment. I don't want to feel these. I'm going to have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. (Laughter) I don't want to feel these. And I know that's knowing laughter. I hack into your lives for a living. God. (Laughter) You can't numb those hard feelings without numbing the other affects, our emotions. You cannot selectively numb. So when we numb those, we numb joy, we numb gratitude, we numb happiness. And then we are miserable, and we are looking for purpose and meaning, and then we feel vulnerable, so then we have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. And it becomes this dangerous cycle. One of the things that I think we need to think about is why and how we numb. And it doesn't just have to be addiction. The other thing we do is we make everything that's uncertain certain. Religion has gone from a belief in faith and mystery to certainty. I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up. That's it. Just certain. The more afraid we are, the more vulnerable we are, the more afraid we are. This is what politics looks like today. There's no discourse anymore. There's no conversation. There's just blame. You know how blame is described in the research? A way to discharge pain and discomfort. We perfect. If there's anyone who wants their life to look like this, it would be me, but it doesn't work. Because what we do is we take fat from our butts and put it in our cheeks. (Laughter) Which just, I hope in 100 years, people will look back and go, "Wow." (Laughter) And we perfect, most dangerously, our children. Let me tell you what we think about children. They're hardwired for struggle when they get here. And when you hold those perfect little babies in your hand, our job is not to say, "Look at her, she's perfect. My job is just to keep her perfect -- make sure she makes the tennis team by fifth grade and Yale by seventh grade." That's not our job. Our job is to look and say, "You know what? You're imperfect, and you're wired for struggle, but you are worthy of love and belonging." That's our job. Show me a generation of kids raised like that, and we'll end the problems I think that we see today. We pretend that what we do doesn't have an effect on people. We do that in our personal lives. We do that corporate -- whether it's a bailout, an oil spill, a recall -- we pretend like what we're doing doesn't have a huge impact on other people. I would say to companies, this is not our first rodeo, people. We just need you to be authentic and real and say, "We're sorry. We'll fix it." But there's another way, and I'll leave you with this. This is what I have found: to let ourselves be seen, deeply seen, vulnerably seen; to love with our whole hearts, even though there's no guarantee -- and that's really hard, and I can tell you as a parent, that's excruciatingly difficult -- to practice gratitude and joy in those moments of terror, when we're wondering, "Can I love you this much? Can I believe in this this passionately? Can I be this fierce about this?" just to be able to stop and, instead of catastrophizing what might happen, to say, "I'm just so grateful, because to feel this vulnerable means I'm alive." And the last, which I think is probably the most important, is to believe that we're enough. Because when we work from a place, I believe, that says, "I'm enough," then we stop screaming and start listening, we're kinder and gentler to the people around us, and we're kinder and gentler to ourselves. That's all I have. Thank you. (Applause)

So, I'll start with this: a couple years ago, an event planner called me because I was going to do a speaking event. And she called, and she said, "I'm really struggling with how to write about you on the little flyer." And I thought, "Well, what's the struggle?" And she said, "Well, I saw you speak, and I'm going to call you a researcher, I think, but I'm afraid if I call you a researcher, no one will come, because they'll think you're boring and irrelevant." (Laughter) And I was like, "Okay." And she said, "But the thing I liked about your talk is you're a storyteller. So I think what I'll do is just call you a storyteller." And of course, the academic, insecure part of me was like, "You're going to call me a what?" And she said, "I'm going to call you a storyteller." And I was like, "Why not magic pixie?" (Laughter) I was like, "Let me think about this for a second." I tried to call deep on my courage. And I thought, you know, I am a storyteller. I'm a qualitative researcher. I collect stories; that's what I do. And maybe stories are just data with a soul. And maybe I'm just a storyteller. And so I said, "You know what? Why don't you just say I'm a researcher-storyteller." And she went, "Haha. There's no such thing." (Laughter) So I'm a researcher-storyteller, and I'm going to talk to you today -- we're talking about expanding perception -- and so I want to talk to you and tell some stories about a piece of my research that fundamentally expanded my perception and really actually changed the way that I live and love and work and parent. And this is where my story starts. When I was a young researcher, doctoral student, my first year I had a research professor who said to us, "Here's the thing, if you cannot measure it, it does not exist." And I thought he was just sweet-talking me. I was like, "Really?" and he was like, "Absolutely." And so you have to understand that I have a bachelor's in social work, a master's in social work, and I was getting my Ph.D. in social work, so my entire academic career was surrounded by people who kind of believed in the "life's messy, love it." And I'm more of the, "life's messy, clean it up, organize it and put it into a bento box." (Laughter) And so to think that I had found my way, to found a career that takes me -- really, one of the big sayings in social work is, "Lean into the discomfort of the work." And I'm like, knock discomfort upside the head and move it over and get all A's. That was my mantra. So I was very excited about this. And so I thought, you know what, this is the career for me, because I am interested in some messy topics. But I want to be able to make them not messy. I want to understand them. I want to hack into these things I know are important and lay the code out for everyone to see. So where I started was with connection. Because, by the time you're a social worker for 10 years, what you realize is that connection is why we're here. It's what gives purpose and meaning to our lives. This is what it's all about. It doesn't matter whether you talk to people who work in social justice and mental health and abuse and neglect, what we know is that connection, the ability to feel connected, is -- neurobiologically that's how we're wired -- it's why we're here. So I thought, you know what, I'm going to start with connection. Well, you know that situation where you get an evaluation from your boss, and she tells you 37 things you do really awesome, and one thing -- an "opportunity for growth?" (Laughter) And all you can think about is that opportunity for growth, right? Well, apparently this is the way my work went as well, because, when you ask people about love, they tell you about heartbreak. When you ask people about belonging, they'll tell you their most excruciating experiences of being excluded. And when you ask people about connection, the stories they told me were about disconnection. So very quickly -- really about six weeks into this research -- I ran into this unnamed thing that absolutely unraveled connection in a way that I didn't understand or had never seen. And so I pulled back out of the research and thought, I need to figure out what this is. And it turned out to be shame. And shame is really easily understood as the fear of disconnection: Is there something about me that, if other people know it or see it, that I won't be worthy of connection? The things I can tell you about it: it's universal; we all have it. The only people who don't experience shame have no capacity for human empathy or connection. No one wants to talk about it, and the less you talk about it the more you have it. What underpinned this shame, this "I'm not good enough," -- which we all know that feeling: "I'm not blank enough. I'm not thin enough, rich enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, promoted enough." The thing that underpinned this was excruciating vulnerability, this idea of, in order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen. And you know how I feel about vulnerability. I hate vulnerability. And so I thought, this is my chance to beat it back with my measuring stick. I'm going in, I'm going to figure this stuff out, I'm going to spend a year, I'm going to totally deconstruct shame, I'm going to understand how vulnerability works, and I'm going to outsmart it. So I was ready, and I was really excited. As you know, it's not going to turn out well. (Laughter) You know this. So, I could tell you a lot about shame, but I'd have to borrow everyone else's time. But here's what I can tell you that it boils down to -- and this may be one of the most important things that I've ever learned in the decade of doing this research. My one year turned into six years: thousands of stories, hundreds of long interviews, focus groups. At one point, people were sending me journal pages and sending me their stories -- thousands of pieces of data in six years. And I kind of got a handle on it. I kind of understood, this is what shame is, this is how it works. I wrote a book, I published a theory, but something was not okay -- and what it was is that, if I roughly took the people I interviewed and divided them into people who really have a sense of worthiness -- that's what this comes down to, a sense of worthiness -- they have a strong sense of love and belonging -- and folks who struggle for it, and folks who are always wondering if they're good enough. There was only one variable that separated the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging and the people who really struggle for it. And that was, the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging believe they're worthy of love and belonging. That's it. They believe they're worthy. And to me, the hard part of the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we're not worthy of connection, was something that, personally and professionally, I felt like I needed to understand better. So what I did is I took all of the interviews where I saw worthiness, where I saw people living that way, and just looked at those. What do these people have in common? I have a slight office supply addiction, but that's another talk. So I had a manila folder, and I had a Sharpie, and I was like, what am I going to call this research? And the first words that came to my mind were whole-hearted. These are whole-hearted people, living from this deep sense of worthiness. So I wrote at the top of the manila folder, and I started looking at the data. In fact, I did it first in a four-day very intensive data analysis, where I went back, pulled these interviews, pulled the stories, pulled the incidents. What's the theme? What's the pattern? My husband left town with the kids because I always go into this Jackson Pollock crazy thing, where I'm just like writing and in my researcher mode. And so here's what I found. What they had in common was a sense of courage. And I want to separate courage and bravery for you for a minute. Courage, the original definition of courage, when it first came into the English language -- it's from the Latin word cor, meaning heart -- and the original definition was to tell the story of who you are with your whole heart. And so these folks had, very simply, the courage to be imperfect. They had the compassion to be kind to themselves first and then to others, because, as it turns out, we can't practice compassion with other people if we can't treat ourselves kindly. And the last was they had connection, and -- this was the hard part -- as a result of authenticity, they were willing to let go of who they thought they should be in order to be who they were, which you have to absolutely do that for connection. The other thing that they had in common was this: They fully embraced vulnerability. They believed that what made them vulnerable made them beautiful. They didn't talk about vulnerability being comfortable, nor did they really talk about it being excruciating -- as I had heard it earlier in the shame interviewing. They just talked about it being necessary. They talked about the willingness to say, "I love you" first, the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees, the willingness to breathe through waiting for the doctor to call after your mammogram. They're willing to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. They thought this was fundamental. I personally thought it was betrayal. I could not believe I had pledged allegiance to research, where our job -- you know, the definition of research is to control and predict, to study phenomena, for the explicit reason to control and predict. And now my mission to control and predict had turned up the answer that the way to live is with vulnerability and to stop controlling and predicting. This led to a little breakdown -- (Laughter) -- which actually looked more like this. (Laughter) And it did. I call it a breakdown; my therapist calls it a spiritual awakening. A spiritual awakening sounds better than breakdown, but I assure you it was a breakdown. And I had to put my data away and go find a therapist. Let me tell you something: you know who you are when you call your friends and say, "I think I need to see somebody. Do you have any recommendations?" Because about five of my friends were like, "Wooo. I wouldn't want to be your therapist." (Laughter) I was like, "What does that mean?" And they're like, "I'm just saying, you know. Don't bring your measuring stick." I was like, "Okay." So I found a therapist. My first meeting with her, Diana -- I brought in my list of the way the whole-hearted live, and I sat down. And she said, "How are you?" And I said, "I'm great. I'm okay." She said, "What's going on?" And this is a therapist who sees therapists, because we have to go to those, because their B.S. meters are good. (Laughter) And so I said, "Here's the thing, I'm struggling." And she said, "What's the struggle?" And I said, "Well, I have a vulnerability issue. And I know that vulnerability is the core of shame and fear and our struggle for worthiness, but it appears that it's also the birthplace of joy, of creativity, of belonging, of love. And I think I have a problem, and I need some help." And I said, "But here's the thing: no family stuff, no childhood shit." (Laughter) "I just need some strategies." (Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. So she goes like this. (Laughter) And then I said, "It's bad, right?" And she said, "It's neither good nor bad." (Laughter) "It just is what it is." And I said, "Oh my God, this is going to suck." (Laughter) And it did, and it didn't. And it took about a year. And you know how there are people that, when they realize that vulnerability and tenderness are important, that they surrender and walk into it. A: that's not me, and B: I don't even hang out with people like that. (Laughter) For me, it was a yearlong street fight. It was a slugfest. Vulnerability pushed, I pushed back. I lost the fight, but probably won my life back. And so then I went back into the research and spent the next couple of years really trying to understand what they, the whole-hearted, what choices they were making, and what are we doing with vulnerability. Why do we struggle with it so much? Am I alone in struggling with vulnerability? No. So this is what I learned. We numb vulnerability -- when we're waiting for the call. It was funny, I sent something out on Twitter and on Facebook that says, "How would you define vulnerability? What makes you feel vulnerable?" And within an hour and a half, I had 150 responses. Because I wanted to know what's out there. Having to ask my husband for help because I'm sick, and we're newly married; initiating sex with my husband; initiating sex with my wife; being turned down; asking someone out; waiting for the doctor to call back; getting laid off; laying off people -- this is the world we live in. We live in a vulnerable world. And one of the ways we deal with it is we numb vulnerability. And I think there's evidence -- and it's not the only reason this evidence exists, but I think it's a huge cause -- we are the most in-debt, obese, addicted and medicated adult cohort in U.S. history. The problem is -- and I learned this from the research -- that you cannot selectively numb emotion. You can't say, here's the bad stuff. Here's vulnerability, here's grief, here's shame, here's fear, here's disappointment. I don't want to feel these. I'm going to have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. (Laughter) I don't want to feel these. And I know that's knowing laughter. I hack into your lives for a living. God. (Laughter) You can't numb those hard feelings without numbing the other affects, our emotions. You cannot selectively numb. So when we numb those, we numb joy, we numb gratitude, we numb happiness. And then we are miserable, and we are looking for purpose and meaning, and then we feel vulnerable, so then we have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. And it becomes this dangerous cycle. One of the things that I think we need to think about is why and how we numb. And it doesn't just have to be addiction. The other thing we do is we make everything that's uncertain certain. Religion has gone from a belief in faith and mystery to certainty. I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up. That's it. Just certain. The more afraid we are, the more vulnerable we are, the more afraid we are. This is what politics looks like today. There's no discourse anymore. There's no conversation. There's just blame. You know how blame is described in the research? A way to discharge pain and discomfort. We perfect. If there's anyone who wants their life to look like this, it would be me, but it doesn't work. Because what we do is we take fat from our butts and put it in our cheeks. (Laughter) Which just, I hope in 100 years, people will look back and go, "Wow." (Laughter) And we perfect, most dangerously, our children. Let me tell you what we think about children. They're hardwired for struggle when they get here. And when you hold those perfect little babies in your hand, our job is not to say, "Look at her, she's perfect. My job is just to keep her perfect -- make sure she makes the tennis team by fifth grade and Yale by seventh grade." That's not our job. Our job is to look and say, "You know what? You're imperfect, and you're wired for struggle, but you are worthy of love and belonging." That's our job. Show me a generation of kids raised like that, and we'll end the problems I think that we see today. We pretend that what we do doesn't have an effect on people. We do that in our personal lives. We do that corporate -- whether it's a bailout, an oil spill, a recall -- we pretend like what we're doing doesn't have a huge impact on other people. I would say to companies, this is not our first rodeo, people. We just need you to be authentic and real and say, "We're sorry. We'll fix it." But there's another way, and I'll leave you with this. This is what I have found: to let ourselves be seen, deeply seen, vulnerably seen; to love with our whole hearts, even though there's no guarantee -- and that's really hard, and I can tell you as a parent, that's excruciatingly difficult -- to practice gratitude and joy in those moments of terror, when we're wondering, "Can I love you this much? Can I believe in this this passionately? Can I be this fierce about this?" just to be able to stop and, instead of catastrophizing what might happen, to say, "I'm just so grateful, because to feel this vulnerable means I'm alive." And the last, which I think is probably the most important, is to believe that we're enough. Because when we work from a place, I believe, that says, "I'm enough," then we stop screaming and start listening, we're kinder and gentler to the people around us, and we're kinder and gentler to ourselves. That's all I have. Thank you. (Applause)

So, I'll start with this: a couple years ago, an event planner called me because I was going to do a speaking event. And she called, and she said, "I'm really struggling with how to write about you on the little flyer." And I thought, "Well, what's the struggle?" And she said, "Well, I saw you speak, and I'm going to call you a researcher, I think, but I'm afraid if I call you a researcher, no one will come, because they'll think you're boring and irrelevant." (Laughter) And I was like, "Okay." And she said, "But the thing I liked about your talk is you're a storyteller. So I think what I'll do is just call you a storyteller." And of course, the academic, insecure part of me was like, "You're going to call me a what?" And she said, "I'm going to call you a storyteller." And I was like, "Why not 'magic pixie'?" (Laughter) I was like, "Let me think about this for a second." I tried to call deep on my courage. And I thought, you know, I am a storyteller. I'm a qualitative researcher. I collect stories; that's what I do. And maybe stories are just data with a soul. And maybe I'm just a storyteller. And so I said, "You know what? Why don't you just say I'm a researcher-storyteller." And she went, "Ha ha. There's no such thing." (Laughter) So I'm a researcher-storyteller, and I'm going to talk to you today -- we're talking about expanding perception -- and so I want to talk to you and tell some stories about a piece of my research that fundamentally expanded my perception and really actually changed the way that I live and love and work and parent. And this is where my story starts. When I was a young researcher, doctoral student, my first year, I had a research professor who said to us, "Here's the thing, if you cannot measure it, it does not exist." And I thought he was just sweet-talking me. I was like, "Really?" and he was like, "Absolutely." And so you have to understand that I have a bachelor's and a master's in social work, and I was getting my Ph.D. in social work, so my entire academic career was surrounded by people who kind of believed in the "life's messy, love it." And I'm more of the, "life's messy, clean it up, organize it and put it into a bento box." (Laughter) And so to think that I had found my way, to found a career that takes me -- really, one of the big sayings in social work is, "Lean into the discomfort of the work." And I'm like, knock discomfort upside the head and move it over and get all A's. That was my mantra. So I was very excited about this. And so I thought, you know what, this is the career for me, because I am interested in some messy topics. But I want to be able to make them not messy. I want to understand them. I want to hack into these things that I know are important and lay the code out for everyone to see. So where I started was with connection. Because, by the time you're a social worker for 10 years, what you realize is that connection is why we're here. It's what gives purpose and meaning to our lives. This is what it's all about. It doesn't matter whether you talk to people who work in social justice, mental health and abuse and neglect, what we know is that connection, the ability to feel connected, is -- neurobiologically that's how we're wired -- it's why we're here. So I thought, you know what, I'm going to start with connection. Well, you know that situation where you get an evaluation from your boss, and she tells you 37 things that you do really awesome, and one "opportunity for growth?" (Laughter) And all you can think about is that opportunity for growth, right? Well, apparently this is the way my work went as well, because, when you ask people about love, they tell you about heartbreak. When you ask people about belonging, they'll tell you their most excruciating experiences of being excluded. And when you ask people about connection, the stories they told me were about disconnection. So very quickly -- really about six weeks into this research -- I ran into this unnamed thing that absolutely unraveled connection in a way that I didn't understand or had never seen. And so I pulled back out of the research and thought, I need to figure out what this is. And it turned out to be shame. And shame is really easily understood as the fear of disconnection: Is there something about me that, if other people know it or see it, that I won't be worthy of connection? The things I can tell you about it: It's universal; we all have it. The only people who don't experience shame have no capacity for human empathy or connection. No one wants to talk about it, and the less you talk about it, the more you have it. What underpinned this shame, this "I'm not good enough," -- which, we all know that feeling: "I'm not blank enough. I'm not thin enough, rich enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, promoted enough." The thing that underpinned this was excruciating vulnerability. This idea of, in order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen. And you know how I feel about vulnerability. I hate vulnerability. And so I thought, this is my chance to beat it back with my measuring stick. I'm going in, I'm going to figure this stuff out, I'm going to spend a year, I'm going to totally deconstruct shame, I'm going to understand how vulnerability works, and I'm going to outsmart it. So I was ready, and I was really excited. As you know, it's not going to turn out well. (Laughter) You know this. So, I could tell you a lot about shame, but I'd have to borrow everyone else's time. But here's what I can tell you that it boils down to -- and this may be one of the most important things that I've ever learned in the decade of doing this research. My one year turned into six years: Thousands of stories, hundreds of long interviews, focus groups. At one point, people were sending me journal pages and sending me their stories -- thousands of pieces of data in six years. And I kind of got a handle on it. I kind of understood, this is what shame is, this is how it works. I wrote a book, I published a theory, but something was not okay -- and what it was is that, if I roughly took the people I interviewed and divided them into people who really have a sense of worthiness -- that's what this comes down to, a sense of worthiness -- they have a strong sense of love and belonging -- and folks who struggle for it, and folks who are always wondering if they're good enough. There was only one variable that separated the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging and the people who really struggle for it. And that was, the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging believe they're worthy of love and belonging. That's it. They believe they're worthy. And to me, the hard part of the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we're not worthy of connection, was something that, personally and professionally, I felt like I needed to understand better. So what I did is I took all of the interviews where I saw worthiness, where I saw people living that way, and just looked at those. What do these people have in common? I have a slight office supply addiction, but that's another talk. So I had a manila folder, and I had a Sharpie, and I was like, what am I going to call this research? And the first words that came to my mind were "whole-hearted." These are whole-hearted people, living from this deep sense of worthiness. So I wrote at the top of the manila folder, and I started looking at the data. In fact, I did it first in a four-day, very intensive data analysis, where I went back, pulled the interviews, the stories, pulled the incidents. What's the theme? What's the pattern? My husband left town with the kids because I always go into this Jackson Pollock crazy thing, where I'm just writing and in my researcher mode. And so here's what I found. What they had in common was a sense of courage. And I want to separate courage and bravery for you for a minute. Courage, the original definition of courage, when it first came into the English language -- it's from the Latin word "cor," meaning "heart" -- and the original definition was to tell the story of who you are with your whole heart. And so these folks had, very simply, the courage to be imperfect. They had the compassion to be kind to themselves first and then to others, because, as it turns out, we can't practice compassion with other people if we can't treat ourselves kindly. And the last was they had connection, and -- this was the hard part -- as a result of authenticity, they were willing to let go of who they thought they should be in order to be who they were, which you have to absolutely do that for connection. The other thing that they had in common was this: They fully embraced vulnerability. They believed that what made them vulnerable made them beautiful. They didn't talk about vulnerability being comfortable, nor did they really talk about it being excruciating -- as I had heard it earlier in the shame interviewing. They just talked about it being necessary. They talked about the willingness to say, "I love you" first ... the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees ... the willingness to breathe through waiting for the doctor to call after your mammogram. They're willing to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. They thought this was fundamental. I personally thought it was betrayal. I could not believe I had pledged allegiance to research, where our job -- you know, the definition of research is to control and predict, to study phenomena for the explicit reason to control and predict. And now my mission to control and predict had turned up the answer that the way to live is with vulnerability and to stop controlling and predicting. This led to a little breakdown -- (Laughter) -- which actually looked more like this. (Laughter) And it did. I call it a breakdown; my therapist calls it a spiritual awakening. (Laughter) A spiritual awakening sounds better than breakdown, but I assure you, it was a breakdown. And I had to put my data away and go find a therapist. Let me tell you something: you know who you are when you call your friends and say, "I think I need to see somebody. Do you have any recommendations?" Because about five of my friends were like, "Wooo, I wouldn't want to be your therapist." (Laughter) I was like, "What does that mean?" And they're like, "I'm just saying, you know. Don't bring your measuring stick." (Laughter) I was like, "Okay." So I found a therapist. My first meeting with her, Diana -- I brought in my list of the way the whole-hearted live, and I sat down. And she said, "How are you?" And I said, "I'm great. I'm okay." She said, "What's going on?" And this is a therapist who sees therapists, because we have to go to those, because their B.S. meters are good. (Laughter) And so I said, "Here's the thing, I'm struggling." And she said, "What's the struggle?" And I said, "Well, I have a vulnerability issue. And I know that vulnerability is the core of shame and fear and our struggle for worthiness, but it appears that it's also the birthplace of joy, of creativity, of belonging, of love. And I think I have a problem, and I need some help." And I said, "But here's the thing: no family stuff, no childhood shit." (Laughter) "I just need some strategies." (Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. So she goes like this. (Laughter) And then I said, "It's bad, right?" And she said, "It's neither good nor bad." (Laughter) "It just is what it is." And I said, "Oh my God, this is going to suck." (Laughter) And it did, and it didn't. And it took about a year. And you know how there are people that, when they realize that vulnerability and tenderness are important, that they surrender and walk into it. A: that's not me, and B: I don't even hang out with people like that. (Laughter) For me, it was a yearlong street fight. It was a slugfest. Vulnerability pushed, I pushed back. I lost the fight, but probably won my life back. And so then I went back into the research and spent the next couple of years really trying to understand what they, the whole-hearted, what choices they were making, and what we are doing with vulnerability. Why do we struggle with it so much? Am I alone in struggling with vulnerability? No. So this is what I learned. We numb vulnerability -- when we're waiting for the call. It was funny, I sent something out on Twitter and on Facebook that says, "How would you define vulnerability? What makes you feel vulnerable?" And within an hour and a half, I had 150 responses. Because I wanted to know what's out there. Having to ask my husband for help because I'm sick, and we're newly married; initiating sex with my husband; initiating sex with my wife; being turned down; asking someone out; waiting for the doctor to call back; getting laid off; laying off people. This is the world we live in. We live in a vulnerable world. And one of the ways we deal with it is we numb vulnerability. And I think there's evidence -- and it's not the only reason this evidence exists, but I think it's a huge cause -- We are the most in-debt ... obese ... addicted and medicated adult cohort in U.S. history. The problem is -- and I learned this from the research -- that you cannot selectively numb emotion. You can't say, here's the bad stuff. Here's vulnerability, here's grief, here's shame, here's fear, here's disappointment. I don't want to feel these. I'm going to have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. (Laughter) I don't want to feel these. And I know that's knowing laughter. I hack into your lives for a living. God. (Laughter) You can't numb those hard feelings without numbing the other affects, our emotions. You cannot selectively numb. So when we numb those, we numb joy, we numb gratitude, we numb happiness. And then, we are miserable, and we are looking for purpose and meaning, and then we feel vulnerable, so then we have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. And it becomes this dangerous cycle. One of the things that I think we need to think about is why and how we numb. And it doesn't just have to be addiction. The other thing we do is we make everything that's uncertain certain. Religion has gone from a belief in faith and mystery to certainty. "I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up." That's it. Just certain. The more afraid we are, the more vulnerable we are, the more afraid we are. This is what politics looks like today. There's no discourse anymore. There's no conversation. There's just blame. You know how blame is described in the research? A way to discharge pain and discomfort. We perfect. If there's anyone who wants their life to look like this, it would be me, but it doesn't work. Because what we do is we take fat from our butts and put it in our cheeks. (Laughter) Which just, I hope in 100 years, people will look back and go, "Wow." (Laughter) And we perfect, most dangerously, our children. Let me tell you what we think about children. They're hardwired for struggle when they get here. And when you hold those perfect little babies in your hand, our job is not to say, "Look at her, she's perfect. My job is just to keep her perfect -- make sure she makes the tennis team by fifth grade and Yale by seventh." That's not our job. Our job is to look and say, "You know what? You're imperfect, and you're wired for struggle, but you are worthy of love and belonging." That's our job. Show me a generation of kids raised like that, and we'll end the problems, I think, that we see today. We pretend that what we do doesn't have an effect on people. We do that in our personal lives. We do that corporate -- whether it's a bailout, an oil spill ... a recall. We pretend like what we're doing doesn't have a huge impact on other people. I would say to companies, this is not our first rodeo, people. We just need you to be authentic and real and say ... "We're sorry. We'll fix it." But there's another way, and I'll leave you with this. This is what I have found: To let ourselves be seen, deeply seen, vulnerably seen ... to love with our whole hearts, even though there's no guarantee -- and that's really hard, and I can tell you as a parent, that's excruciatingly difficult -- to practice gratitude and joy in those moments of terror, when we're wondering, "Can I love you this much? Can I believe in this this passionately? Can I be this fierce about this?" just to be able to stop and, instead of catastrophizing what might happen, to say, "I'm just so grateful, because to feel this vulnerable means I'm alive." And the last, which I think is probably the most important, is to believe that we're enough. Because when we work from a place, I believe, that says, "I'm enough" ... then we stop screaming and start listening, we're kinder and gentler to the people around us, and we're kinder and gentler to ourselves. That's all I have. Thank you. (Applause)

Once upon a time, the world was a big, dysfunctional family. It was run by the great and powerful parents, and the people were helpless and hopeless naughty children. If any of the more rowdier children questioned the authority of the parents, they were scolded. If they went exploring into the parents' rooms, or even into the secret filing cabinets, they were punished, and told that for their own good they must never go in there again. Then one day, a man came to town with boxes and boxes of secret documents stolen from the parents' rooms. "Look what they've been hiding from you," he said. The children looked and were amazed. There were maps and minutes from meetings where the parents were slagging each other off. They behaved just like the children. And they made mistakes, too, just like the children. The only difference was, their mistakes were in the secret filing cabinets. Well, there was a girl in the town, and she didn't think they should be in the secret filing cabinets, or if they were, there ought to be a law to allow the children access. And so she set about to make it so. Well, I'm the girl in that story, and the secret documents that I was interested in were located in this building, the British Parliament, and the data that I wanted to get my hands on were the expense receipts of members of Parliament. I thought this was a basic question to ask in a democracy. (Applause) It wasn't like I was asking for the code to a nuclear bunker, or anything like that, but the amount of resistance I got from this Freedom of Information request, you would have thought I'd asked something like this. So I fought for about five years doing this, and it was one of many hundreds of requests that I made, not -- I didn't -- Hey, look, I didn't set out, honestly, to revolutionize the British Parliament. That was not my intention. I was just making these requests as part of research for my first book. But it ended up in this very long, protracted legal battle and there I was after five years fighting against Parliament in front of three of Britain's most eminent High Court judges waiting for their ruling about whether or not Parliament had to release this data. And I've got to tell you, I wasn't that hopeful, because I'd seen the establishment. I thought, it always sticks together. I am out of luck. Well, guess what? I won. Hooray. (Applause) Well, that's not exactly the story, because the problem was that Parliament delayed and delayed releasing that data, and then they tried to retrospectively change the law so that it would no longer apply to them. The transparency law they'd passed earlier that applied to everybody else, they tried to keep it so it didn't apply to them. What they hadn't counted on was digitization, because that meant that all those paper receipts had been scanned in electronically, and it was very easy for somebody to just copy that entire database, put it on a disk, and then just saunter outside of Parliament, which they did, and then they shopped that disk to the highest bidder, which was the Daily Telegraph, and then, you all remember, there was weeks and weeks of revelations, everything from porn movies and bath plugs and new kitchens and mortgages that had never been paid off. The end result was six ministers resigned, the first speaker of the house in 300 years was forced to resign, a new government was elected on a mandate of transparency, 120 MPs stepped down at that election, and so far, four MPs and two lords have done jail time for fraud. So, thank you. (Applause) Well, I tell you that story because it wasn't unique to Britain. It was an example of a culture clash that's happening all over the world between bewigged and bestockinged officials who think that they can rule over us without very much prying from the public, and then suddenly confronted with a public who is no longer content with that arrangement, and not only not content with it, now, more often, armed with official data itself. So we are moving to this democratization of information, and I've been in this field for quite a while. Slightly embarrassing admission: Even when I was a kid, I used to have these little spy books, and I would, like, see what everybody was doing in my neighborhood and log it down. I think that was a pretty good indication about my future career as an investigative journalist, and what I've seen from being in this access to information field for so long is that it used to be quite a niche interest, and it's gone mainstream. Everybody, increasingly, around the world, wants to know about what people in power are doing. They want a say in decisions that are made in their name and with their money. It's this democratization of information that I think is an information enlightenment, and it has many of the same principles of the first Enlightenment. It's about searching for the truth, not because somebody says it's true, "because I say so." No, it's about trying to find the truth based on what you can see and what can be tested. That, in the first Enlightenment, led to questions about the right of kings, the divine right of kings to rule over people, or that women should be subordinate to men, or that the Church was the official word of God. Obviously the Church weren't very happy about this, and they tried to suppress it, but what they hadn't counted on was technology, and then they had the printing press, which suddenly enabled these ideas to spread cheaply, far and fast, and people would come together in coffee houses, discuss the ideas, plot revolution. In our day, we have digitization. That strips all the physical mass out of information, so now it's almost zero cost to copy and share information. Our printing press is the Internet. Our coffee houses are social networks. We're moving to what I would think of as a fully connected system, and we have global decisions to make in this system, decisions about climate, about finance systems, about resources. And think about it -- if we want to make an important decision about buying a house, we don't just go off. I mean, I don't know about you, but I want to see a lot of houses before I put that much money into it. And if we're thinking about a finance system, we need a lot of information to take in. It's just not possible for one person to take in the amount, the volume of information, and analyze it to make good decisions. So that's why we're seeing increasingly this demand for access to information. That's why we're starting to see more disclosure laws come out, so for example, on the environment, there's the Aarhus Convention, which is a European directive that gives people a very strong right to know, so if your water company is dumping water into your river, sewage water into your river, you have a right to know about it. In the finance industry, you now have more of a right to know about what's going on, so we have different anti-bribery laws, money regulations, increased corporate disclosure, so you can now track assets across borders. And it's getting harder to hide assets, tax avoidance, pay inequality. So that's great. We're starting to find out more and more about these systems. And they're all moving to this central system, this fully connected system, all of them except one. Can you guess which one? It's the system which underpins all these other systems. It's the system by which we organize and exercise power, and there I'm talking about politics, because in politics, we're back to this system, this top-down hierarchy. And how is it possible that the volume of information can be processed that needs to in this system? Well, it just can't. That's it. And I think this is largely what's behind the crisis of legitimacy in our different governments right now. So I've told you a bit about what I did to try and drag Parliament, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, and I'm just going to give you a couple of examples of what a few other people I know are doing. So this is a guy called Seb Bacon. He's a computer programmer, and he built a site called Alaveteli, and what it is, it's a Freedom of Information platform. It's open-source, with documentation, and it allows you to make a Freedom of Information request, to ask your public body a question, so it takes all the hassle out of it, and I can tell you that there is a lot of hassle making these requests, so it takes all of that hassle out, and you just type in your question, for example, how many police officers have a criminal record? It zooms it off to the appropriate person, it tells you when the time limit is coming to an end, it keeps track of all the correspondence, it posts it up there, and it becomes an archive of public knowledge. So that's open-source and it can be used in any country where there is some kind of Freedom of Information law. So there's a list there of the different countries that have it, and then there's a few more coming on board. So if any of you out there like the sound of that and have a law like that in your country, I know that Seb would love to hear from you about collaborating and getting that into your country. This is Birgitta Jónsdóttir. She's an Icelandic MP. And quite an unusual MP. In Iceland, she was one of the protesters who was outside of Parliament when the country's economy collapsed, and then she was elected on a reform mandate, and she's now spearheading this project. It's the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, and they've just got funding to make it an international modern media project, and this is taking all of the best laws around the world about freedom of expression, protection of whistleblowers, protection from libel, source protection, and trying to make Iceland a publishing haven. It's a place where your data can be free, so when we think about, increasingly, how governments want to access user data, what they're trying to do in Iceland is make this safe haven where it can happen. In my own field of investigative journalism, we're also having to start thinking globally, so this is a site called Investigative Dashboard. And if you're trying to track a dictator's assets, for example, Hosni Mubarak, you know, he's just funneling out cash from his country when he knows he's in trouble, and what you want to do to investigate that is, you need to have access to all of the world's, as many as you can, companies' house registrations databases. So this is a website that tries to agglomerate all of those databases into one place so you can start searching for, you know, his relatives, his friends, the head of his security services. You can try and find out how he's moving out assets from that country. But again, when it comes to the decisions which are impacting us the most, perhaps, the most important decisions that are being made about war and so forth, again we can't just make a Freedom of Information request. It's really difficult. So we're still having to rely on illegitimate ways of getting information, through leaks. So when the Guardian did this investigation about the Afghan War, you know, they can't walk into the Department of Defense and ask for all the information. You know, they're just not going to get it. So this came from leaks of tens of thousands of dispatches that were written by American soldiers about the Afghan War, and leaked, and then they're able to do this investigation. Another rather large investigation is around world diplomacy. Again, this is all based around leaks, 251,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, and I was involved in this investigation because I got this leak through a leak from a disgruntled WikiLeaker and ended up going to work at the Guardian. So I can tell you firsthand what it was like to have access to this leak. It was amazing. I mean, it was amazing. It reminded me of that scene in "The Wizard of Oz." Do you know the one I mean? Where the little dog Toto runs across to where the wizard [is], and he pulls back, the dog's pulling back the curtain, and -- "Don't look behind the screen. Don't look at the man behind the screen." It was just like that, because what you started to see is that all of these grand statesmen, these very pompous politicians, they were just like us. They all bitched about each other. I mean, quite gossipy, those cables. Okay, but I thought it was a very important point for all of us to grasp, these are human beings just like us. They don't have special powers. They're not magic. They are not our parents. Beyond that, what I found most fascinating was the level of endemic corruption that I saw across all different countries, and particularly centered around the heart of power, around public officials who were embezzling the public's money for their own personal enrichment, and allowed to do that because of official secrecy. So I've mentioned WikiLeaks, because surely what could be more open than publishing all the material? Because that is what Julian Assange did. He wasn't content with the way the newspapers published it to be safe and legal. He threw it all out there. That did end up with vulnerable people in Afghanistan being exposed. It also meant that the Belarussian dictator was given a handy list of all the pro-democracy campaigners in that country who had spoken to the U.S. government. Is that radical openness? I say it's not, because for me, what it means, it doesn't mean abdicating power, responsibility, accountability, it's actually being a partner with power. It's about sharing responsibility, sharing accountability. Also, the fact that he threatened to sue me because I got a leak of his leaks, I thought that showed a remarkable sort of inconsistency in ideology, to be honest, as well. (Laughs) The other thing is that power is incredibly seductive, and you must have two real qualities, I think, when you come to the table, when you're dealing with power, talking about power, because of its seductive capacity. You've got to have skepticism and humility. Skepticism, because you must always be challenging. I want to see why do you -- you just say so? That's not good enough. I want to see the evidence behind why that's so. And humility because we are all human. We all make mistakes. And if you don't have skepticism and humility, then it's a really short journey to go from reformer to autocrat, and I think you only have to read "Animal Farm" to get that message about how power corrupts people. So what is the solution? It is, I believe, to embody within the rule of law rights to information. At the moment our rights are incredibly weak. In a lot of countries, we have Official Secrets Acts, including in Britain here. We have an Official Secrets Act with no public interest test. So that means it's a crime, people are punished, quite severely in a lot of cases, for publishing or giving away official information. Now wouldn't it be amazing, and really, this is what I want all of you to think about, if we had an Official Disclosure Act where officials were punished if they were found to have suppressed or hidden information that was in the public interest? So that -- yes. Yes! My power pose. (Applause) (Laughs) I would like us to work towards that. So it's not all bad news. I mean, there definitely is progress on the line, but I think what we find is that the closer that we get right into the heart of power, the more opaque, closed it becomes. So it was only just the other week that I heard London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner talking about why the police need access to all of our communications, spying on us without any judicial oversight, and he said it was a matter of life and death. He actually said that, it was a matter of life and death. There was no evidence. He presented no evidence of that. It was just, "Because I say so. You have to trust me. Take it on faith." Well, I'm sorry, people, but we are back to the pre-Enlightenment Church, and we need to fight against that. So he was talking about the law in Britain which is the Communications Data Bill, an absolutely outrageous piece of legislation. In America, you have the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. You've got drones now being considered for domestic surveillance. You have the National Security Agency building the world's giantest spy center. It's just this colossal -- it's five times bigger than the U.S. Capitol, in which they're going to intercept and analyze communications, traffic and personal data to try and figure out who's the troublemaker in society. Well, to go back to our original story, the parents have panicked. They've locked all the doors. They've kidded out the house with CCTV cameras. They're watching all of us. They've dug a basement, and they've built a spy center to try and run algorithms and figure out which ones of us are troublesome, and if any of us complain about that, we're arrested for terrorism. Well, is that a fairy tale or a living nightmare? Some fairy tales have happy endings. Some don't. I think we've all read the Grimms' fairy tales, which are, indeed, very grim. But the world isn't a fairy tale, and it could be more brutal than we want to acknowledge. Equally, it could be better than we've been led to believe, but either way, we have to start seeing it exactly as it is, with all of its problems, because it's only by seeing it with all of its problems that we'll be able to fix them and live in a world in which we can all be happily ever after. (Laughs) Thank you very much. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause)

What I want to do this afternoon is something a little different than what's scheduled. Foreign policy, you can figure that out by watching, I don't know, Rachel Maddow or somebody, but — (Laughter) — I want to talk about young people and structure, young people and structure. This was last Wednesday afternoon at a school in Brooklyn, New York, at Cristo Rey High School, run by the Jesuits. And I was talking to this group of students, and take a look at them. They were around me in three directions. You'll noticed that almost all of them are minority. You'll notice that the building is rather austere. It's an old New York school building, nothing fancy. They still have old blackboards and whatnot. And there are about 300 kids in this school, and the school's been going now for four years, and they're about to graduate their first class. Twenty-two people are graduating, and all 22 are going to college. They all come from homes where there is, for the most part, just one person in the home, usually the mother or the grandmother, and that's it, and they come here for their education and for their structure. Now I had this picture taken, and it was put up on my Facebook page last week, and somebody wrote in, "Huh, why does he have him standing at attention like that?" And then they said, "But he looks good." (Laughter) He does look good, because kids need structure, and the trick I play in all of my school appearances is that when I get through with my little homily to the kids, I then invite them to ask questions, and when they raise their hands, I say, "Come up," and I make them come up and stand in front of me. I make them stand at attention like a soldier. Put your arms straight down at your side, look up, open your eyes, stare straight ahead, and speak out your question loudly so everybody can hear. No slouching, no pants hanging down, none of that stuff. (Laughter) And this young man, his name is -- his last name Cruz -- he loved it. That's all over his Facebook page and it's gone viral. (Laughter) So people think I'm being unkind to this kid. No, we're having a little fun. And the thing about it, I've done this for years, the younger they are, the more fun it is. When I get six- and seven-year-olds in a group, I have to figure out how to keep them quiet. You know that they'll always start yakking. And so I play a little game with them before I make them stand at attention. I say, "Now listen. In the army, when we want you to pay attention, we have a command. It's called 'at ease.' It means everybody be quiet and pay attention. Listen up. Do you understand?" "Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.""Let's practice. Everybody start chatting." And I let them go for about 10 seconds, then I go, "At ease!" "Huh!" (Laughter) "Yes, General. Yes, General." Try it with your kids. See if it works. (Laughter) I don't think so. But anyway, it's a game I play, and it comes obviously from my military experience. Because for the majority of my adult life, I worked with young kids, teenagers with guns, I call them. And we would bring them into the army, and the first thing we would do is to put them in an environment of structure, put them in ranks, make them all wear the same clothes, cut all their hair off so they look alike, make sure that they are standing in ranks. We teach them how to go right face, left face, so they can obey instructions and know the consequences of not obeying instructions. It gives them structure. And then we introduce them to somebody who they come to hate immediately, the drill sergeant. And they hate him. And the drill sergeant starts screaming at them, and telling them to do all kinds of awful things. But then the most amazing thing happens over time. Once that structure is developed, once they understand the reason for something, once they understand, "Mama ain't here, son. I'm your worst nightmare. I'm your daddy and your mommy. And that's just the way it is. You got that, son? Yeah, and then when I ask you a question, there are only three possible answers: yes, sir; no, sir; and no excuse, sir. Don't start telling me why you didn't do something. It's yes, sir; no, sir; no excuse, sir." "You didn't shave.""But sir —" "No, don't tell me how often you scraped your face this morning. I'm telling you you didn't shave." "No excuse, sir.""Attaboy, you're learning fast." But you'd be amazed at what you can do with them once you put them in that structure. In 18 weeks, they have a skill. They are mature. And you know what, they come to admire the drill sergeant and they never forget the drill sergeant. They come to respect him. And so we need more of this kind of structure and respect in the lives of our children. I spend a lot of time with youth groups, and I say to people, "When does the education process begin?" We're always talking about, "Let's fix the schools. Let's do more for our teachers. Let's put more computers in our schools. Let's get it all online." That isn't the whole answer. It's part of the answer. But the real answer begins with bringing a child to the school with structure in that child's heart and soul to begin with. When does the learning process begin? Does it begin in first grade? No, no, it begins the first time a child in a mother's arms looks up at the mother and says, "Oh, this must be my mother. She's the one who feeds me. Oh yeah, when I don't feel so good down there, she takes care of me. It's her language I will learn." And at that moment they shut out all the other languages that they could be learning at that age, but by three months, that's her. And if the person doing it, whether it's the mother or grandmother, whoever's doing it, that is when the education process begins. That's when language begins. That's when love begins. That's when structure begins. That's when you start to imprint on the child that "you are special, you are different from every other child in the world. And we're going to read to you." A child who has not been read to is in danger when that child gets to school. A child who doesn't know his or her colors or doesn't know how to tell time, doesn't know how to tie shoes, doesn't know how to do those things, and doesn't know how to do something that goes by a word that was drilled into me as a kid: mind. Mind your manners! Mind your adults! Mind what you're saying! This is the way children are raised properly. And I watched my own young grandchildren now come along and they're, much to the distress of my children, they are acting just like we did. You know? You imprint them. And that's what you have to do to prepare children for education and for school. And I'm working at all the energy I have to sort of communicate this message that we need preschool, we need Head Start, we need prenatal care. The education process begins even before the child is born, and if you don't do that, you're going to have difficulty. And we are having difficulties in so many of our communities and so many of our schools where kids are coming to first grade and their eyes are blazing, they've got their little knapsack on and they're ready to go, and then they realize they're not like the other first graders who know books, have been read to, can do their alphabet. And by the third grade, the kids who didn't have that structure and minding in the beginning start to realize they're behind, and what do they do? They act it out. They act it out, and they're on their way to jail or they're on their way to being dropouts. It's predictable. If you're not at the right reading level at third grade, you are a candidate for jail at age 18, and we have the highest incarceration rate because we're not getting our kids the proper start in life. The last chapter in my book is called "The Gift of a Good Start." The gift of a good start. Every child ought to have a good start in life. I was privileged to have that kind of good start. I was not a great student. I was a public school kid in New York City, and I didn't do well at all. I have my entire New York City Board of Education transcript from kindergarten through college. I wanted it when I was writing my first book. I wanted to see if my memory was correct, and, my God, it was. (Laughter) Straight C everywhere. And I finally bounced through high school, got into the City College of New York with a 78.3 average, which I shouldn't have been allowed in with, and then I started out in engineering, and that only lasted six months. (Laughter) And then I went into geology, "rocks for jocks." This is easy. And then I found ROTC. I found something that I did well and something that I loved doing, and I found a group of youngsters like me who felt the same way. And so my whole life then was dedicated to ROTC and the military. And I say to young kids everywhere, as you're growing up and as this structure is being developed inside of you, always be looking for that which you do well and that which you love doing, and when you find those two things together, man, you got it. That's what's going on. And that's what I found. Now the authorities at CCNY were getting tired of me being there. I'd been there four and a half going on five years, and my grades were not doing particularly well, and I was in occasional difficulties with the administration. And so they said, "But he does so well in ROTC. Look, he gets straight A's in that but not in anything else." And so they said, "Look, let's take his ROTC grades and roll them into his overall GPA and see what happens." And they did, and it brought me up to 2.0. (Laughter) Yep. (Laughter) (Applause) They said, "It's good enough for government work. Give him to the army. We'll never see him again. We'll never see him again." So they shipped me off to the army, and lo and behold, many years later, I'm considered one of the greatest sons the City College of New York has ever had. (Laughter) So, I tell young people everywhere, it ain't where you start in life, it's what you do with life that determines where you end up in life, and you are blessed to be living in a country that, no matter where you start, you have opportunities so long as you believe in yourself, you believe in the society and the country, and you believe that you can self-improve and educate yourself as you go along. And that's the key to success. But it begins with the gift of a good start. If we don't give that gift to each and every one of our kids, if we don't invest at the earliest age, we're going to be running into difficulties. It's why we have a dropout rate of roughly 25 percent overall and almost 50 percent of our minority population living in low-income areas, because they're not getting the gift of a good start. My gift of a good start was not only being in a nice family, a good family, but having a family that said to me, "Now listen, we came to this country in banana boats in 1920 and 1924. We worked like dogs down in the garment industry every single day. We're not doing it so that you can stick something up your nose or get in trouble. And don't even think about dropping out." If I had ever gone home and told those immigrant people that, "You know, I'm tired of school and I'm dropping out," they'd said, "We're dropping you out. We'll get another kid." (Laughter) They had expectations for all of the cousins and the extended family of immigrants that lived in the South Bronx, but they had more than just expectations for us. They stuck into our hearts like a dagger a sense of shame: "Don't you shame this family." Sometimes I would get in trouble, and my parents were coming home, and I was in my room waiting for what's going to happen, and I would sit there saying to myself, "Okay, look, take the belt and hit me, but, God, don't give me that 'shame the family' bit again." It devastated me when my mother did that to me. And I also had this extended network. Children need a network. Children need to be part of a tribe, a family, a community. In my case it was aunts who lived in all of these tenement buildings. I don't know how many of you are New Yorkers, but there were these tenement buildings, and these women were always hanging out one of the windows, leaning on a pillow. They never left. (Laughter) I, so help me God, I grew up walking those streets, and they were always there. They never went to the bathroom. They never cooked. (Laughter) They never did anything. But what they did was keep us in play. They kept us in play. And they didn't care whether you became a doctor or a lawyer or a general, and they never expected any generals in the family, as long as you got an education and then you got a job. "Don't give us any of that self-actualization stuff. You get a job and get out of the house. We don't have time to waste for that. And then you can support us. That's the role of you guys." And so, it's so essential that we kind of put this culture back into our families, all families. And it is so important that all of you here today who are successful people, and I'm sure have wonderful families and children and grandchildren, it's not enough. You've got to reach out and back and find kids like Mr. Cruz who can make it if you give them the structure, if you reach back and help, if you mentor, if you invest in boys and girls clubs, if you work with your school system, make sure it's the best school system, and not just your kid's school, but the school uptown in Harlem, not just downtown Montessori on the West Side. All of us have to have a commitment to do that. And we're not just investing in the kids. We're investing in our future. We're going to be a minority-majority country in one more generation. Those that we call minorities now are going to be the majority. And we have to make sure that they are ready to be the majority. We have to make sure they're ready to be the leaders of this great country of ours, a country that is like no other, a country that amazes me every single day, a country that's fractious. We're always arguing with each other. That's how the system's supposed to work. It's a country of such contrasts, but it's a nation of nations. We touch every nation. Every nation touches us. We are a nation of immigrants. That's why we need sound immigration policy. It's ridiculous not to have a sound immigration policy to welcome those who want to come here and be part of this great nation, or we can send back home with an education to help their people rise up out of poverty. One of the great stories I love to tell is about my love of going to my hometown of New York and walking up Park Avenue on a beautiful day and admiring everything and seeing all the people go by from all over the world. But what I always have to do is stop at one of the corners and get a hot dog from the immigrant pushcart peddler. Gotta have a dirty water dog. (Laughter) And no matter where I am or what I'm doing, I've got to do that. I even did it when I was Secretary of State. I'd come out of my suite at the Waldorf Astoria — (Laughter) — be walking up the street, and I would hit around 55th Street looking for the immigrant pushcart peddler. In those days, I had five bodyguards around me and three New York City police cars would roll alongside to make sure nobody whacked me while I was going up Park Avenue. (Laughter) And I would order the hot dog from the guy, and he'd start to fix it, and then he'd look around at the bodyguards and the police cars -- "I've got a green card! I've got a green card!" (Laughter) "It's okay, it's okay." But now I'm alone. I'm alone. I've got no bodyguards, I've got no police cars. I've got nothing. But I gotta have my hot dog. I did it just last week. It was on a Tuesday evening down by Columbus Circle. And the scene repeats itself so often. I'll go up and ask for my hot dog, and the guy will fix it, and as he's finishing, he'll say, "I know you. I see you on television. You're, well, you're General Powell." "Yes, yes.""Oh ... " I hand him the money. "No, General. You can't pay me. I've been paid. America has paid me. I never forget where I came from. But now I'm an American. Sir, thank you." I accept the generosity, continue up the street, and it washes over me, my God, it's the same country that greeted my parents this way 90 years ago. So we are still that magnificent country, but we are fueled by young people coming up from every land in the world, and it is our obligation as contributing citizens to this wonderful country of ours to make sure that no child gets left behind. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I'm going to give you four specific examples -- and I'm going to cover at the end -- about how a company called Silk tripled their sales by doing one thing, how an artist named Jeff Koons went from being a nobody to making a whole bunch of money and having a lot of impact, to how Frank Gehry redefined what it meant to be an architect. And one of my biggest failures as a marketer in the last few years, a record label I started that had a CD called "Sauce." Before I can do that I've got to tell you about sliced bread, and a guy named Otto Rohwedder. Now, before sliced bread was invented in the 1910s I wonder what they said? Like the greatest invention since ... the telegraph or something. But this guy named Otto Rohwedder invented sliced bread, and he focused, like most inventors did, on the patent part and the making part. And the thing about the invention of sliced bread is this -- that for the first 15 years after sliced bread was available no one bought it; no one knew about it; it was a complete and total failure. And the reason is that until Wonder came along and figured out how to spread the idea of sliced bread, no one wanted it. That the success of sliced bread, like the success of almost everything we've been talking about at this conference, is not always about what the patent is like, or what the factory is like -- it's about can you get your idea to spread, or not. And I think that the way you're going to get what you want, or cause the change that you want to change, to happen, is that you've got to figure out a way to get your ideas to spread. And it doesn't matter to me whether you're running a coffee shop or you're an intellectual, or you're in business, or you're flying hot air balloons. I think that all this stuff applies to everybody regardless of what we do. That what we are living in is a century of idea diffusion. That people who can spread ideas, regardless of what those ideas are, win. And when I talk about it I usually pick business because they make the best pictures that you can put in your presentation, and because it's the easiest sort of way to keep score. But I want you to forgive me when I use these examples because I'm talking about anything that you decide to spend your time to do. At the heart of spreading ideas is TV and stuff like TV. TV and mass media made it really easy to spread ideas in a certain way. I call it the "TV-industrial complex." The way the TV-industrial complex works, is you buy some ads -- interrupt some people -- that gets you distribution. You use the distribution you get to sell more products. You take the profit from that to buy more ads. And it goes around and around and around, the same way that military-industrial complex worked a long time ago. And that model of, and we heard it yesterday, if we could only get onto the homepage of Google, if we could only figure out how to get promoted there, if we could only figure out how to grab that person by the throat, and tell them about what we want to do. If we do that then everyone would pay attention, and we would win. Well, this TV-industrial complex informed my entire childhood and probably yours. I mean, all of these products succeeded because someone figured out how to touch people in a way they weren't expecting, in a way they didn't necessarily want, with an ad, over and over and over again until they bought it. And the thing that's happened is, they canceled the TV-industrial complex. That just over the last few years, what anybody who markets anything has discovered is that it's not working the way that it used to. This picture is really fuzzy, I apologize; I had a bad cold when I took it. But the product in the blue box in the center is my poster child. Right. I go to the deli; I'm sick; I need to buy some medicine. The brand manager for that blue product spent 100 million dollars trying to interrupt me in one year. 100 million dollars interrupting me with TV commercials and magazine ads and spam and coupons and shelving allowances and spiff -- all so I could ignore every single message. And I ignored every message because I don't have a pain reliever problem. I buy the stuff in the yellow box because I always have. And I'm not going to invest a minute of my time to solve her problem, because I don't care. Here's a magazine called "Hydrate." It's 180 pages about water. (Laughter) Right. Articles about water, ads about water. Imagine what the world was like 40 years ago when it was just the Saturday Evening Post and Time and Newsweek. Now there are magazines about water. New products from Coke Japan -- water salad. (Laughter) OK. Coke Japan comes out with a new product every three weeks, because they have no idea what's going to work and what's not. I couldn't have written this better myself. It came out four days ago -- I circled the important parts so you can see them here. They've come out ... Arby's is going to spend 85 million dollars promoting an oven mitt with the voice of Tom Arnold, hoping that that will get people to go to Arby's and buy a roast beef sandwich. (Laughter) Now, I had tried to imagine what could possibly be in an animated TV commercial featuring Tom Arnold, that would get you to get in your car, drive across town and buy a roast beef sandwich. (Laughter) Now, this is Copernicus, and he was right, when he was talking to anyone who needs to hear your idea. The world revolves around me. Me, me, me, me, me. My favorite person -- me. I don't want to get email from anybody; I want to get "memail." (Laughter) So consumers, and I don't just mean people who buy stuff at the Safeway; I mean people at the Defense Department who might buy something, or people at, you know, the New Yorker who might print your article. Consumers don't care about you at all; they just don't care. Part of the reason is -- they've got way more choices than they used to, and way less time. And in a world where we have too many choices and too little time, the obvious thing to do is just ignore stuff. And my parable here is you're driving down the road and you see a cow, and you keep driving because you've seen cows before. Cows are invisible. Cows are boring. Who's going to stop and pull over and say -- oh, look, a cow. Nobody. (Laughter) But if the cow was purple -- isn't that a great special effect? I could do that again if you want it. If the cow was purple, you'd notice it for a while. I mean, if all cows were purple you'd get bored with those, too. The thing that's going to decide what gets talked about, what gets done, what gets changed, what gets purchased, what gets built, is: is it remarkable? And "remarkable" is a really cool word because we think it just means neat, but it also means -- worth making a remark about. And that is the essence of where idea diffusion is going. That two of the hottest cars in the United States is a 55,000-dollar giant car, big enough to hold a mini in its trunk. People are paying full price for both, and the only thing they have in common is that they don't have anything in common. (Laughter) Every week the number one best-selling DVD in America changes. It's never "The Godfather;" it's never "Citizen Kane;" it's always some third rate movie with some second rate star. But the reason it's number one is because that's the week it came out. Because it's new, because it's fresh. Because people saw it and said -- I didn't know that was there -- and they noticed it. Two of the big success stories of the last 20 years in retail -- one sells things that are super-expensive in a blue box, and one sells things that are as cheap as they can make them. The only thing they have in common is that they're different. We're now in the fashion business, no matter what we do for a living, we're in the fashion business. And the thing is, people in the fashion business know what it's like to be in the fashion business -- they're used to it. The rest of us have to figure out how to think that way. How to understand that it's not about interrupting people with big full-page ads, or insisting on meetings with people. But it's a totally different sort of process that determines which ideas spread, and which ones don't. This chair -- they sold a billion dollars' worth of Aeron chairs by reinventing what it meant to sell a chair. They turned a chair from something the purchasing department bought, to something that was a status symbol about where you sat at work. This guy, Lionel Poilane, the most famous baker in the world -- he died two and a half months ago, and he was a hero of mine and a dear friend. He lived in Paris. Last year he sold 10 million dollars' worth of French bread. Every loaf baked in a bakery he owned, by one baker at a time, in a wood-fired oven. And when Lionel started his bakery the French pooh-pooh-ed it. They didn't want to buy his bread. It didn't look like "French bread." It wasn't what they expected. It was neat; it was remarkable; and slowly it spread from one person to another person until finally, it became the official bread of three-star restaurants in Paris. Now he's in London, and he ships by FedEx all around the world. What marketers used to do is make average products for average people. That's what mass marketing is. Smooth out the edges; go for the center; that's the big market. They would ignore the geeks, and God forbid, the laggards. It was all about going for the center. But in a world where the TV-industrial complex is broken, I don't think that's a strategy we want to use any more. I think the strategy we want to use is to not market to these people because they're really good at ignoring you. But market to these people because they care. These are the people who are obsessed with something. And when you talk to them they'll listen because they like listening -- it's about them. And if you're lucky, they'll tell their friends on the rest of the curve, and it'll spread. It'll spread to the entire curve. They have something I call "otaku" -- it's a great Japanese word. It describes the desire of someone who's obsessed to say, drive across Tokyo to try a new ramen noodle place, because that's what they do: they get obsessed with it. To make a product, to market an idea, to come up with any problem you want to solve that doesn't have a constituency with an otaku, is almost impossible. Instead, you have to find a group that really, desperately cares about what it is you have to say. Talk to them and make it easy for them to tell their friends. There's a hot sauce otaku, but there's no mustard otaku. That's why there's lots and lots and lots of kinds of hot sauces, and not so many kinds of mustard. Not because it's hard to make interesting mustard -- you can make interesting mustard -- but people don't because no one's obsessed with it, and thus no one tells their friends. Krispy Kreme has figured this whole thing out. Krispy Kreme has a strategy, and what they do is, they enter a city, they talk to the people with otaku, and then they spread through the city to the people who've just crossed the street. This yoyo right here cost 112 dollars, but it sleeps for 12 minutes. Not everybody wants it but they don't care. They want to talk to the people who do, and maybe it'll spread. These guys make the loudest car stereo in the world. (Laughter) It's as loud as a 747 jet. You can't get in the car; it's got bulletproof glass on the windows because they'll blow out the windshield otherwise. But the fact remains that when someone wants to put a couple of speakers in their car, if they've got the otaku or they've heard from someone who does, they go ahead and they pick this. It's really simple -- you sell to the people who are listening, and maybe, just maybe those people tell their friends. So when Steve Jobs talks to 50,000 people at his keynote, right, who are all tuned in from 130 countries watching his two-hour commercial -- that's the only thing keeping his company in business -- is that those 50,000 people care desperately enough to watch a two-hour commercial, and then tell their friends. Pearl Jam, 96 albums released in the last two years. Every one made a profit. How? They only sell them on their website. Those people who buy them on the website have the otaku, and then they tell their friends, and it spreads and it spreads. This hospital crib cost 10,000 dollars, 10 times the standard. But hospitals are buying it faster than any other model. Hard Candy nail polish, doesn't appeal to everybody, but to the people who love it, they talk about it like crazy. This paint can right here saved the Dutch Boy paint company, making them a fortune. It costs 35 percent more than regular paint because Dutch Boy made a can that people talk about, because it's remarkable. They didn't just slap a new ad on the product; they changed what it meant to build a paint product. AmIhotornot.com -- everyday 250,000 people go to this site, run by two volunteers, and I can tell you they are hard graders, and (Laughter) they didn't get this way by advertising a lot. They got this way by being remarkable, sometimes a little too remarkable. And this picture frame has a cord going out the back, and you plug it into the wall. My father has this on his desk, and he sees his grandchildren everyday, changing constantly. And every single person who walks into his office hears the whole story of how this thing ended up on his desk. And one person at a time, the idea spreads. These are not diamonds, not really. They're made from "cremains." After you're cremated you can have yourself made into a gem. (Laughter) Oh, you like my ring? It's my grandmother. (Laughter) Fastest-growing business in the whole mortuary industry. But you don't have to be Ozzie Osborne -- you don't have to be super-outrageous to do this. What you have to do is figure out what people really want and give it to them. A couple of quick rules to wrap up. The first one is: Design is free when you get to scale. And the people who come up with stuff that's remarkable more often than not figure out how to put design to work for them. Number two: The riskiest thing you can do now is be safe. Proctor and Gamble knows this, right? The whole model of being Proctor and Gamble is always about average products for average people. That's risky. The safe thing to do now is to be at the fringes, be remarkable. And being very good is one of the worst things you can possibly do. Very good is boring. Very good is average. It doesn't matter whether you're making a record album, or you're an architect, or you have a tract on sociology. If it's very good, it's not going to work, because no one's going to notice it. So my three stories. Silk. Put a product that does not need to be in the refrigerated section next to the milk in the refrigerated section. Sales tripled. Why? Milk, milk, milk, milk, milk -- not milk. For the people who were there and looking at that section, it was remarkable. They didn't triple their sales with advertising; they tripled it by doing something remarkable. That is a remarkable piece of art. You don't have to like it, but a 40-foot tall dog made out of bushes in the middle of New York City is remarkable. Frank Gehry didn't just change a museum; he changed an entire city's economy by designing one building that people from all over the world went to see. Now, at countless meetings at, you know, the Portland City Council, or who knows where, they said, we need an architect -- can we get Frank Gehry? Because he did something that was at the fringes. And my big failure? I came out with an entire (Music) record album and hopefully a whole bunch of record albums in SACD format -- this remarkable new format -- and I marketed it straight to people with 20,000-dollar stereos. People with 20,000-dollar stereos don't like new music. (Laughter) So what you need to do is figure out who does care. Who is going to raise their hand and say, "I want to hear what you're doing next," and sell something to them. The last example I want to give you. This is a map of Soap Lake, Washington. As you can see, if that's nowhere, it's in the middle of it. (Laughter) But they do have a lake. And people used to come from miles around to swim in the lake. They don't anymore. So the founding fathers said, "We've got some money to spend. What can we build here?" And like most committees, they were going to build something pretty safe. And then an artist came to them -- this is a true artist's rendering -- he wants to build a 55-foot tall lava lamp in the center of town. That's a purple cow; that's something worth noticing. I don't know about you but if they build it, that's where I'm going to go. Thank you very much for your attention.

So my name is Amy Webb, and a few years ago I found myself at the end of yet another fantastic relationship that came burning down in a spectacular fashion. And I thought, you know, what's wrong with me? I don't understand why this keeps happening. So I asked everybody in my life what they thought. I turned to my grandmother, who always had plenty of advice, and she said, "Stop being so picky. You've got to date around. And most importantly, true love will find you when you least expect it." Now as it turns out, I'm somebody who thinks a lot about data, as you'll soon find. I am constantly swimming in numbers and formulas and charts. I also have a very tight-knit family, and I'm very, very close with my sister, and as a result, I wanted to have the same type of family when I grew up. So I'm at the end of this bad breakup, I'm 30 years old, I figure I'm probably going to have to date somebody for about six months before I'm ready to get monogamous and before we can sort of cohabitate, and we have to have that happen for a while before we can get engaged. And if I want to start having children by the time I'm 35, that meant that I would have had to have been on my way to marriage five years ago. So that wasn't going to work. If my strategy was to least-expect my way into true love, then the variable that I had to deal with was serendipity. In short, I was trying to figure out, well, what's the probability of my finding Mr. Right? Well, at the time I was living in the city of Philadelphia, and it's a big city, and I figured, in this entire place, there are lots of possibilities. So again, I started doing some math. Population of Philadelphia: It has 1.5 million people. I figure about half of that are men, so that takes the number down to 750,000. I'm looking for a guy between the ages of 30 and 36, which was only four percent of the population, so now I'm dealing with the possibility of 30,000 men. I was looking for somebody who was Jewish, because that's what I am and that was important to me. That's only 2.3 percent of the population. I figure I'm attracted to maybe one out of 10 of those men, and there was no way I was going to deal with somebody who was an avid golfer. So that basically meant there were 35 men for me that I could possibly date in the entire city of Philadelphia. In the meantime, my very large Jewish family was already all married and well on their way to having lots and lots of children, and I felt like I was under tremendous peer pressure to get my life going already. So if I have two possible strategies at this point I'm sort of figuring out. One, I can take my grandmother's advice and sort of least-expect my way into maybe bumping into the one out of 35 possible men in the entire 1.5 million-person city of Philadelphia, or I could try online dating. Now, I like the idea of online dating, because it's predicated on an algorithm, and that's really just a simple way of saying I've got a problem, I'm going to use some data, run it through a system and get to a solution. So online dating is the second most popular way that people now meet each other, but as it turns out, algorithms have been around for thousands of years in almost every culture. In fact, in Judaism, there were matchmakers a long time ago, and though they didn't have an explicit algorithm per se, they definitely were running through formulas in their heads, like, is the girl going to like the boy? Are the families going to get along? What's the rabbi going to say? Are they going to start having children right away? And the matchmaker would sort of think through all of this, put two people together, and that would be the end of it. So in my case, I thought, well, will data and an algorithm lead me to my Prince Charming? So I decided to sign on. Now, there was one small catch. As I'm signing on to the various dating websites, as it happens, I was really, really busy. But that actually wasn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that I hate filling out questionnaires of any kind, and I certainly don't like questionnaires that are like Cosmo quizzes. So I just copied and pasted from my résumé. (Laughter) So in the descriptive part up top, I said that I was an award-winning journalist and a future thinker. When I was asked about fun activities and my ideal date, I said monetization and fluency in Japanese. I talked a lot about JavaScript. So obviously this was not the best way to put my most sexy foot forward. But the real failure was that there were plenty of men for me to date. These algorithms had a sea full of men that wanted to take me out on lots of dates -- what turned out to be truly awful dates. There was this guy Steve, the I.T. guy. The algorithm matched us up because we share a love of gadgets, we share a love of math and data and '80s music, and so I agreed to go out with him. So Steve the I.T. guy invited me out to one of Philadelphia's white-table-cloth, extremely expensive restaurants. And we went in, and right off the bat, our conversation really wasn't taking flight, but he was ordering a lot of food. In fact, he didn't even bother looking at the menu. He was ordering multiple appetizers, multiple entrées, for me as well, and suddenly there are piles and piles of food on our table, also lots and lots of bottles of wine. So we're nearing the end of our conversation and the end of dinner, and I've decided Steve the I.T. guy and I are really just not meant for each other, but we'll part ways as friends, when he gets up to go to the bathroom, and in the meantime the bill comes to our table. And listen, I'm a modern woman. I am totally down with splitting the bill. But then Steve the I.T. guy didn't come back. (Gasping) And that was my entire month's rent. So needless to say, I was not having a good night. So I run home, I call my mother, I call my sister, and as I do, at the end of each one of these terrible, terrible dates, I regale them with the details. And they say to me, "Stop complaining." (Laughter) "You're just being too picky." So I said, fine, from here on out I'm only going on dates where I know that there's wi-fi, and I'm bringing my laptop. I'm going to shove it into my bag, and I'm going to have this email template, and I'm going to fill it out and collect information on all these different data points during the date to prove to everybody that empirically, these dates really are terrible. (Laughter) So I started tracking things like really stupid, awkward, sexual remarks; bad vocabulary; the number of times a man forced me to high-five him. (Laughter) So I started to crunch some numbers, and that allowed me to make some correlations. So as it turns out, for some reason, men who drink Scotch reference kinky sex immediately. (Laughter) Well, it turns out that these probably weren't bad guys. There were just bad for me. And as it happens, the algorithms that were setting us up, they weren't bad either. These algorithms were doing exactly what they were designed to do, which was to take our user-generated information, in my case, my résumé, and match it up with other people's information. See, the real problem here is that, while the algorithms work just fine, you and I don't, when confronted with blank windows where we're supposed to input our information online. Very few of us have the ability to be totally and brutally honest with ourselves. The other problem is that these websites are asking us questions like, are you a dog person or a cat person? Do you like horror films or romance films? I'm not looking for a pen pal. I'm looking for a husband. Right? So there's a certain amount of superficiality in that data. So I said fine, I've got a new plan. I'm going to keep using these online dating sites, but I'm going to treat them as databases, and rather than waiting for an algorithm to set me up, I think I'm going to try reverse-engineering this entire system. So knowing that there was superficial data that was being used to match me up with other people, I decided instead to ask my own questions. What was every single possible thing that I could think of that I was looking for in a mate? So I started writing and writing and writing, and at the end, I had amassed 72 different data points. I wanted somebody was Jew...ish, so I was looking for somebody who had the same background and thoughts on our culture, but wasn't going to force me to go to shul every Friday and Saturday. I wanted somebody who worked hard, because work for me is extremely important, but not too hard. For me, the hobbies that I have are really just new work projects that I've launched. I also wanted somebody who not only wanted two children, but was going to have the same attitude toward parenting that I do, so somebody who was going to be totally okay with forcing our child to start taking piano lessons at age three, and also maybe computer science classes if we could wrangle it. So things like that, but I also wanted somebody who would go to far-flung, exotic places, like Petra, Jordan. I also wanted somebody who would weigh 20 pounds more than me at all times, regardless of what I weighed. (Laughter) So I now have these 72 different data points, which, to be fair, is a lot. So what I did was, I went through and I prioritized that list. I broke it into a top tier and a second tier of points, and I ranked everything starting at 100 and going all the way down to 91, and listing things like I was looking for somebody who was really smart, who would challenge and stimulate me, and balancing that with a second tier and a second set of points. These things were also important to me but not necessarily deal-breakers. So once I had all this done, I then built a scoring system, because what I wanted to do was to sort of mathematically calculate whether or not I thought the guy that I found online would be a match with me. I figured there would be a minimum of 700 points before I would agree to email somebody or respond to an email message. For 900 points, I'd agree to go out on a date, and I wouldn't even consider any kind of relationship before somebody had crossed the 1,500 point threshold. Well, as it turns out, this worked pretty well. So I go back online now. I found Jewishdoc57 who's incredibly good-looking, incredibly well-spoken, he had hiked Mt. Fuji, he had walked along the Great Wall. He likes to travel as long as it doesn't involve a cruise ship. And I thought, I've done it! I've cracked the code. I have just found the Jewish Prince Charming of my family's dreams. There was only one problem: He didn't like me back. And I guess the one variable that I haven't considered is the competition. Who are all of the other women on these dating sites? I found SmileyGirl1978. She said she was a "fun girl who is Happy and Outgoing." She listed her job as teacher. She said she is "silly, nice and friendly." She likes to make people laugh "alot." At this moment I knew, clicking after profile after profile after profile that looked like this, that I needed to do some market research. So I created 10 fake male profiles. Now, before I lose all of you -- (Laughter) -- understand that I did this strictly to gather data about everybody else in the system. I didn't carry on crazy Catfish-style relationships with anybody. I really was just scraping their data. But I didn't want everybody's data. I only wanted data on the women who were going to be attracted to the type of man that I really, really wanted to marry. (Laughter) When I released these men into the wild, I did follow some rules. So I didn't reach out to any woman first. I just waited to see who these profiles were going to attract, and mainly what I was looking at was two different data sets. So I was looking at qualitative data, so what was the humor, the tone, the voice, the communication style that these women shared in common? And also quantitative data, so what was the average length of their profile, how much time was spent between messages? What I was trying to get at here was that I figured in person, I would be just as competitive as a SmileyGirl1978. I wanted to figure out how to maximize my own profile online. Well, one month later, I had a lot of data, and I was able to do another analysis. And as it turns out, content matters a lot. So smart people tend to write a lot -- 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 words about themselves, which may all be very, very interesting. The challenge here, though, is that the popular men and women are sticking to 97 words on average that are written very, very well, even though it may not seem like it all the time. The other sort of hallmark of the people who do this well is that they're using non-specific language. So in my case, you know, "The English Patient" is my most favorite movie ever, but it doesn't work to use that in a profile, because that's a superficial data point, and somebody may disagree with me and decide they don't want to go out with me because they didn't like sitting through the three-hour movie. Also, optimistic language matters a lot. So this is a word cloud highlighting the most popular words that were used by the most popular women, words like "fun" and "girl" and "love." And what I realized was not that I had to dumb down my own profile. Remember, I'm somebody who said that I speak fluent Japanese and I know JavaScript and I was okay with that. The difference is that it's about being more approachable and helping people understand the best way to reach out to you. And as it turns out, timing is also really, really important. Just because you have access to somebody's mobile phone number or their instant message account and it's 2 o'clock in the morning and you happen to be awake, doesn't mean that that's a good time to communicate with those people. The popular women on these online sites spend an average of 23 hours in between each communication. And that's what we would normally do in the usual process of courtship. And finally, there were the photos. All of the women who were popular showed some skin. They all looked really great, which turned out to be in sharp contrast to what I had uploaded. Once I had all of this information, I was able to create a super profile, so it was still me, but it was me optimized now for this ecosystem. And as it turns out, I did a really good job. I was the most popular person online. (Laughter) (Applause) And as it turns out, lots and lots of men wanted to date me. So I call my mom, I call my sister, I call my grandmother. I'm telling them about this fabulous news, and they say, "This is wonderful! How soon are you going out?" And I said, "Well, actually, I'm not going to go out with anybody." Because remember, in my scoring system, they have to reach a minimum threshold of 700 points, and none of them have done that. They said, "What? You're still being too damn picky." Well, not too long after that, I found this guy, Thevenin, and he said that he was culturally Jewish, he said that his job was an arctic baby seal hunter, which I thought was very clever. He talked in detail about travel. He made a lot of really interesting cultural references. He looked and talked exactly like what I wanted, and immediately, he scored 850 points. It was enough for a date. Three weeks later, we met up in person for what turned out to be a 14-hour-long conversation that went from coffee shop to restaurant to another coffee shop to another restaurant, and when he dropped me back off at my house that night I re-scored him -- [1,050 points!] -- thought, you know what, this entire time I haven't been picky enough. Well, a year and a half after that, we were non-cruise ship traveling through Petra, Jordan, when he got down on his knee and proposed. A year after that, we were married, and about a year and a half after that, our daughter, Petra, was born. (Applause) Obviously, I'm having a fabulous life, so -- (Laughter) -- the question is, what does all of this mean for you? Well, as it turns out, there is an algorithm for love. It's just not the ones that we're being presented with online. In fact, it's something that you write yourself. So whether you're looking for a husband or a wife or you're trying to find your passion or you're trying to start a business, all you have to really do is figure out your own framework and play by your own rules, and feel free to be as picky as you want. Well, on my wedding day, I had a conversation again with my grandmother, and she said, "All right, maybe I was wrong. It looks like you did come up with a really, really great system. Now, your matzoh balls. They should be fluffy, not hard." And I'll take her advice on that. (Applause)

So here's the good news about families. The last 50 years have seen a revolution in what it means to be a family. We have blended families, adopted families, we have nuclear families living in separate houses and divorced families living in the same house. But through it all, the family has grown stronger. Eight in 10 say the family they have today is as strong or stronger than the family they grew up in. Now, here's the bad news. Nearly everyone is completely overwhelmed by the chaos of family life. Every parent I know, myself included, feels like we're constantly playing defense. Just when our kids stop teething, they start having tantrums. Just when they stop needing our help taking a bath, they need our help dealing with cyberstalking or bullying. And here's the worst news of all. Our children sense we're out of control. Ellen Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute asked 1,000 children, "If you were granted one wish about your parents, what would it be?" The parents predicted the kids would say, spending more time with them. They were wrong. The kids' number one wish? That their parents be less tired and less stressed. So how can we change this dynamic? Are there concrete things we can do to reduce stress, draw our family closer, and generally prepare our children to enter the world? I spent the last few years trying to answer that question, traveling around, meeting families, talking to scholars, experts ranging from elite peace negotiators to Warren Buffett's bankers to the Green Berets. I was trying to figure out, what do happy families do right and what can I learn from them to make my family happier? I want to tell you about one family that I met, and why I think they offer clues. At 7 p.m. on a Sunday in Hidden Springs, Idaho, where the six members of the Starr family are sitting down to the highlight of their week: the family meeting. The Starrs are a regular American family with their share of regular American family problems. David is a software engineer. Eleanor takes care of their four children, ages 10 to 15. One of those kids tutors math on the far side of town. One has lacrosse on the near side of town. One has Asperger syndrome. One has ADHD. "We were living in complete chaos," Eleanor said. What the Starrs did next, though, was surprising. Instead of turning to friends or relatives, they looked to David's workplace. They turned to a cutting-edge program called agile development that was just spreading from manufacturers in Japan to startups in Silicon Valley. In agile, workers are organized into small groups and do things in very short spans of time. So instead of having executives issue grand proclamations, the team in effect manages itself. You have constant feedback. You have daily update sessions. You have weekly reviews. You're constantly changing. David said when they brought this system into their home, the family meetings in particular increased communication, decreased stress, and made everybody happier to be part of the family team. When my wife and I adopted these family meetings and other techniques into the lives of our then-five-year-old twin daughters, it was the biggest single change we made since our daughters were born. And these meetings had this effect while taking under 20 minutes. So what is Agile, and why can it help with something that seems so different, like families? In 1983, Jeff Sutherland was a technologist at a financial firm in New England. He was very frustrated with how software got designed. Companies followed the waterfall method, right, in which executives issued orders that slowly trickled down to programmers below, and no one had ever consulted the programmers. Eighty-three percent of projects failed. They were too bloated or too out of date by the time they were done. Sutherland wanted to create a system where ideas didn't just percolate down but could percolate up from the bottom and be adjusted in real time. He read 30 years of Harvard Business Review before stumbling upon an article in 1986 called "The New New Product Development Game." It said that the pace of business was quickening -- and by the way, this was in 1986 -- and the most successful companies were flexible. It highlighted Toyota and Canon and likened their adaptable, tight-knit teams to rugby scrums. As Sutherland told me, we got to that article, and said, "That's it." In Sutherland's system, companies don't use large, massive projects that take two years. They do things in small chunks. Nothing takes longer than two weeks. So instead of saying, "You guys go off into that bunker and come back with a cell phone or a social network," you say, "You go off and come up with one element, then bring it back. Let's talk about it. Let's adapt." You succeed or fail quickly. Today, agile is used in a hundred countries, and it's sweeping into management suites. Inevitably, people began taking some of these techniques and applying it to their families. You had blogs pop up, and some manuals were written. Even the Sutherlands told me that they had an Agile Thanksgiving, where you had one group of people working on the food, one setting the table, and one greeting visitors at the door. Sutherland said it was the best Thanksgiving ever. So let's take one problem that families face, crazy mornings, and talk about how agile can help. A key plank is accountability, so teams use information radiators, these large boards in which everybody is accountable. So the Starrs, in adapting this to their home, created a morning checklist in which each child is expected to tick off chores. So on the morning I visited, Eleanor came downstairs, poured herself a cup of coffee, sat in a reclining chair, and she sat there, kind of amiably talking to each of her children as one after the other they came downstairs, checked the list, made themselves breakfast, checked the list again, put the dishes in the dishwasher, rechecked the list, fed the pets or whatever chores they had, checked the list once more, gathered their belongings, and made their way to the bus. It was one of the most astonishing family dynamics I have ever seen. And when I strenuously objected this would never work in our house, our kids needed way too much monitoring, Eleanor looked at me. "That's what I thought," she said. "I told David, 'keep your work out of my kitchen.' But I was wrong." So I turned to David: "So why does it work?" He said, "You can't underestimate the power of doing this." And he made a checkmark. He said, "In the workplace, adults love it. With kids, it's heaven." The week we introduced a morning checklist into our house, it cut parental screaming in half. (Laughter) But the real change didn't come until we had these family meetings. So following the agile model, we ask three questions: What worked well in our family this week, what didn't work well, and what will we agree to work on in the week ahead? Everyone throws out suggestions and then we pick two to focus on. And suddenly the most amazing things started coming out of our daughters' mouths. What worked well this week? Getting over our fear of riding bikes. Making our beds. What didn't work well? Our math sheets, or greeting visitors at the door. Like a lot of parents, our kids are something like Bermuda Triangles. Like, thoughts and ideas go in, but none ever comes out, I mean at least not that are revealing. This gave us access suddenly to their innermost thoughts. But the most surprising part was when we turned to, what are we going to work on in the week ahead? You know, the key idea of agile is that teams essentially manage themselves, and it works in software and it turns out that it works with kids. Our kids love this process. So they would come up with all these ideas. You know, greet five visitors at the door this week, get an extra 10 minutes of reading before bed. Kick someone, lose desserts for a month. It turns out, by the way, our girls are little Stalins. We constantly have to kind of dial them back. Now look, naturally there's a gap between their kind of conduct in these meetings and their behavior the rest of the week, but the truth is it didn't really bother us. It felt like we were kind of laying these underground cables that wouldn't light up their world for many years to come. Three years later -- our girls are almost eight now -- We're still holding these meetings. My wife counts them among her most treasured moments as a mom. So what did we learn? The word "agile" entered the lexicon in 2001 when Jeff Sutherland and a group of designers met in Utah and wrote a 12-point Agile Manifesto. I think the time is right for an Agile Family Manifesto. I've taken some ideas from the Starrs and from many other families I met. I'm proposing three planks. Plank number one: Adapt all the time. When I became a parent, I figured, you know what? We'll set a few rules and we'll stick to them. That assumes, as parents, we can anticipate every problem that's going to arise. We can't. What's great about the agile system is you build in a system of change so that you can react to what's happening to you in real time. It's like they say in the Internet world: if you're doing the same thing today you were doing six months ago, you're doing the wrong thing. Parents can learn a lot from that. But to me, "adapt all the time" means something deeper, too. We have to break parents out of this straitjacket that the only ideas we can try at home are ones that come from shrinks or self-help gurus or other family experts. The truth is, their ideas are stale, whereas in all these other worlds there are these new ideas to make groups and teams work effectively. Let's just take a few examples. Let's take the biggest issue of all: family dinner. Everybody knows that having family dinner with your children is good for the kids. But for so many of us, it doesn't work in our lives. I met a celebrity chef in New Orleans who said, "No problem, I'll just time-shift family dinner. I'm not home, can't make family dinner? We'll have family breakfast. We'll meet for a bedtime snack. We'll make Sunday meals more important." And the truth is, recent research backs him up. It turns out there's only 10 minutes of productive time in any family meal. The rest of it's taken up with "take your elbows off the table" and "pass the ketchup." You can take that 10 minutes and move it to any part of the day and have the same benefit. So time-shift family dinner. That's adaptability. An environmental psychologist told me, "If you're sitting in a hard chair on a rigid surface, you'll be more rigid. If you're sitting on a cushioned chair, you'll be more open." She told me, "When you're discipling your children, sit in an upright chair with a cushioned surface. The conversation will go better." My wife and I actually moved where we sit for difficult conversations because I was sitting above in the power position. So move where you sit. That's adaptability. The point is there are all these new ideas out there. We've got to hook them up with parents. So plank number one: Adapt all the time. Be flexible, be open-minded, let the best ideas win. Plank number two: Empower your children. Our instinct as parents is to order our kids around. It's easier, and frankly, we're usually right. There's a reason that few systems have been more waterfall over time than the family. But the single biggest lesson we learned is to reverse the waterfall as much as possible. Enlist the children in their own upbringing. Just yesterday, we were having our family meeting, and we had voted to work on overreacting. So we said, "Okay, give us a reward and give us a punishment. Okay?" So one of my daughters threw out, you get five minutes of overreacting time all week. So we kind of liked that. But then her sister started working the system. She said, "Do I get one five-minute overreaction or can I get 10 30-second overreactions?" I loved that. Spend the time however you want. Now give us a punishment. Okay. If we get 15 minutes of overreaction time, that's the limit. Every minute above that, we have to do one pushup. So you see, this is working. Now look, this system isn't lax. There's plenty of parental authority going on. But we're giving them practice becoming independent, which of course is our ultimate goal. Just as I was leaving to come here tonight, one of my daughters started screaming. The other one said, "Overreaction! Overreaction!" and started counting, and within 10 seconds it had ended. To me that is a certified agile miracle. (Laughter) (Applause) And by the way, research backs this up too. Children who plan their own goals, set weekly schedules, evaluate their own work build up their frontal cortex and take more control over their lives. The point is, we have to let our children succeed on their own terms, and yes, on occasion, fail on their own terms. I was talking to Warren Buffett's banker, and he was chiding me for not letting my children make mistakes with their allowance. And I said, "But what if they drive into a ditch?" He said, "It's much better to drive into a ditch with a $6 allowance than a $60,000-a-year salary or a $6 million inheritance." So the bottom line is, empower your children. Plank number three: Tell your story. Adaptability is fine, but we also need bedrock. Jim Collins, the author of "Good To Great," told me that successful human organizations of any kind have two things in common: they preserve the core, they stimulate progress. So agile is great for stimulating progress, but I kept hearing time and again, you need to preserve the core. So how do you do that? Collins coached us on doing something that businesses do, which is define your mission and identify your core values. So he led us through the process of creating a family mission statement. We did the family equivalent of a corporate retreat. We had a pajama party. I made popcorn. Actually, I burned one, so I made two. My wife bought a flip chart. And we had this great conversation, like, what's important to us? What values do we most uphold? And we ended up with 10 statements. We are travelers, not tourists. We don't like dilemmas. We like solutions. Again, research shows that parents should spend less time worrying about what they do wrong and more time focusing on what they do right, worry less about the bad times and build up the good times. This family mission statement is a great way to identify what it is that you do right. A few weeks later, we got a call from the school. One of our daughters had gotten into a spat. And suddenly we were worried, like, do we have a mean girl on our hands? And we didn't really know what to do, so we called her into my office. The family mission statement was on the wall, and my wife said, "So, anything up there seem to apply?" And she kind of looked down the list, and she said, "Bring people together?" Suddenly we had a way into the conversation. Another great way to tell your story is to tell your children where they came from. Researchers at Emory gave children a simple "what do you know" test. Do you know where your grandparents were born? Do you know where your parents went to high school? Do you know anybody in your family who had a difficult situation, an illness, and they overcame it? The children who scored highest on this "do you know" scale had the highest self-esteem and a greater sense they could control their lives. The "do you know" test was the single biggest predictor of emotional health and happiness. As the author of the study told me, children who have a sense of -- they're part of a larger narrative have greater self-confidence. So my final plank is, tell your story. Spend time retelling the story of your family's positive moments and how you overcame the negative ones. If you give children this happy narrative, you give them the tools to make themselves happier. I was a teenager when I first read "Anna Karenina" and its famous opening sentence, "All happy families are alike. Each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." When I first read that, I thought, "That sentence is inane. Of course all happy families aren't alike." But as I began working on this project, I began changing my mind. Recent scholarship has allowed us, for the first time, to identify the building blocks that successful families have. I've mentioned just three here today: Adapt all the time, empower the children, tell your story. Is it possible, all these years later, to say Tolstoy was right? The answer, I believe, is yes. When Leo Tolstoy was five years old, his brother Nikolay came to him and said he had engraved the secret to universal happiness on a little green stick, which he had hidden in a ravine on the family's estate in Russia. If the stick were ever found, all humankind would be happy. Tolstoy became consumed with that stick, but he never found it. In fact, he asked to be buried in that ravine where he thought it was hidden. He still lies there today, covered in a layer of green grass. That story perfectly captures for me the final lesson that I learned: Happiness is not something we find, it's something we make. Almost anybody who's looked at well-run organizations has come to pretty much the same conclusion. Greatness is not a matter of circumstance. It's a matter of choice. You don't need some grand plan. You don't need a waterfall. You just need to take small steps, accumulate small wins, keep reaching for that green stick. In the end, this may be the greatest lesson of all. What's the secret to a happy family? Try. (Applause)

Most people don't know that when I went to high school in this country -- I applied for university at a time when I was convinced I was going to be an artist and be a sculptor. And I came from a very privileged background. I was very lucky. My family was wealthy, and my father believed in one thing, and that was to give us all as much education as we wanted. And I announced I wanted to be a sculptor in Paris. And he was a clever man. He sort of said, "Well, that's OK, but you've done very well in your math SATs." In fact, I'd got an 800. And he thought I did very well -- and I did, too -- in the arts: this was my passion. And he said "If you go to MIT," to which I had been given early admission, "I will pay for every year you're at MIT, in graduate or undergraduate -- as much as you want -- I will pay for an equal number of years for you to live in Paris." And I thought that was the best deal in town, so I accepted it immediately. And I decided that if I was good in art, and I was good in mathematics, I'd study architecture, which was the blending of the two. I went and told my headmaster that, at prep school. And I said to him what I was doing, that I was going to go study architecture because it was art and mathematics put together. He said to me something that just went completely over my head. He said, "You know, I like grey suits, and I like pin-striped suits, but I don't like grey pin-striped suits." And I thought, "What a turkey this guy is," and I went off to MIT. I studied architecture, then did a second degree in architecture, and then actually quickly realized that it wasn't architecture. That really, the mixing of art and science was computers, and that that really was the place to bring both, and enjoyed a career doing that. And probably, if I were to fill out Jim Citrin's scale, I'd put 100 percent on the side of the equation where you spend time making it possible for others to be creative. And after doing this for a long time, and the Media Lab passing the baton on, I thought, "Well, maybe it's time for me to do a project. Something that would be important, but also something that would take advantage of all of these privileges that one had." And in the case of the Media Lab, knowing a lot of people, knowing people who were either executives or wealthy, and also not having, in my own case, a career to worry about anymore. My career, I mean, I'd done my career. Didn't have to worry about earning money. Didn't have to worry about what people thought about me. And I said, "Boy, let's really do something that takes advantage of all these features," and thought that if we could address education, by leveraging the children, and bringing to the world the access of the computers, that that was really the thing we should do. Never shown this picture before, and probably going to be sued for it. It's taken at three o'clock in the morning, without the permission of the company. It's about two weeks old. There they are, folks. (Applause) If you look at the picture, you'll see they're stacked up. Those are conveyor belts that go around. This is one of the conveyor belts with the thing going by, but then you'll see the ones up above. What happens is, they burn into flash memory the software, and then test them for a few hours. But you've got to have the thing moving on the assembly line, because it's constant. So they go around in this loop, which is why you see them up there. So this was great for us because it was a real turning point. But it goes back. This picture was taken in 1982, just before the IBM PC was even announced. Seymour Papert and I were bringing computers to schools and developing nations at a time when it was way ahead of itself. But one thing we learned was that these kids can absolutely jump into it just the same way as our kids do here. And when people tell me, "Who's going to teach the teachers to teach the kids?" I say to myself, "What planet do you come from?" Okay, there's not a person in this room -- I don't care how techie you are -- there's not a person in this room that doesn't give their laptop or cell phone to a kid to help them debug it. OK? We all need help, even those of us who are very seasoned. This picture of Seymour -- 25 years ago. Seymour made a very simple observation in 1968, and then basically presented it in 1970 -- April 11 to be precise -- called "Teaching Children Thinking." What he observed was that kids who write computer programs understand things differently, and when they debug the programs, they come the closest to learning about learning. That was very important, and in some sense, we've lost that. Kids don't program enough and boy, if there's anything I hope this brings back, it's programming to kids. It's really important. Using applications is OK, but programming is absolutely fundamental. This is being launched with three languages in it: Squeak, Logo, and a third, that I've never even seen before. The point being, this is going to be very, very intensive on the programming side. This photograph is very important because it's much later. This is in the early 2000s. My son, Dimitri -- who's here, many of you know Dimitri -- went to Cambodia, set up this school that we had built, just as the school connected it to the Internet. And these kids had their laptops. But it was really what spirited this, plus the influence of Joe and others. We started One Laptop per Child. This is the same village in Cambodia, just a couple of months ago. These kids are real pros. There were just 7,000 machines out there being tested by kids. Being a nonprofit is absolutely fundamental. Everybody advised me not to be a nonprofit, but they were all wrong. And the reason being a nonprofit is important is actually twofold. There are many reasons, but the two that merit the little bit of time is: one, the clarity of purpose is there. The moral purpose is clear. I can see any head of state, any executive I want, at any time, because I'm not selling laptops. OK? I have no shareholders. Whether we sell, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. The clarity of purpose is absolutely critical. And the second is very counterintuitive -- you can get the best people in the world. If you look at our professional services, including search firms, including communications, including legal services, including banking, they're all pro bono. And it's not to save money. We've got money in the bank. It's because you get the best people. You get the people who are doing it because they believe in the mission, and they're the best people. We couldn't afford to hire a CFO. We put out a job description for a CFO at zero salary, and we had a queue of people. It allows you to team up with people. The U.N.'s not going to be our partner if we're profit making. So announcing this with Kofi Annan was very important, and the U.N. allowed us to basically reach all the countries. And this was the machine we were showing before I met Yves Behar. And while this machine in some sense is silly, in retrospect, it actually served a very important purpose. That pencil-yellow crank was remembered by everybody. Everybody remembered the pencil-yellow crank. It's different. It was getting its power in a different way. It's kind of childlike. Even though this wasn't the direction we went because the crank -- it really is stupid to have it on board, by the way. In spite of what some people in the press don't get it, didn't understand it, we didn't take it off because we didn't want to do -- having it on the laptop itself is really not what you want. You want a separate thing, like the AC adaptor. I didn't bring one with me, but they really work much better off-board. And then, I could tell you lots about the laptop, but I decided on just four things. Just keep in mind -- because there are other people, including Bill Gates, who said, "Gee, you've got a real computer." That computer is unlike anything you've had, and does things -- there are four of them -- that you don't come close to. And it's very important to be low power, and I hope that's picked up more by the industry. That the reason that you want to be below two watts is that's roughly what you can generate with your upper body. Dual-mode display -- that sunlight display's fantastic. We were using it at lunch today in the sunlight, and the more sunlight the better. And that was really critical. The mesh network, it'll become commonplace. And of course, "rugged" goes without saying. And the reason I think design matters isn't because I wanted to go to art school. And by the way, when I graduated from MIT, I thought the worst and silliest thing to do would be to go to Paris for six years. (Laughter) So, I didn't do that. But design matters for a number of reasons. The most important being that it is the best way to make an inexpensive product. Most people make inexpensive products by taking cheap design, cheap labor, cheap components, and making a cheap laptop. And, in English, the word "cheap" has a double meaning, which is really appropriate, because it's cheap, in the pejorative sense, as well as inexpensive. But if you take a different approach, and you think of very large-scale integration, very advanced materials, very advanced manufacturing -- so you're pouring chemicals in one end, iPods are spewing out the other -- and really cool design, that's what we wanted to do. And I can race through these and save a lot of time because Yves and I obviously didn't compare notes. These are his slides, and so I don't have to talk about them. But it was really, to us, very important as a strategy. It wasn't just to kind of make it cute, because somebody -- you know, good design is very important. Yves showed one of the power-generating devices. The mesh network, the reason I -- and I won't go into it in great detail -- but when we deliver laptops to kids in the remotest and poorest parts of the world, they're connected. There's not just laptops. And so, we have to drop in satellite dishes. We put in generators. It's a lot of stuff that goes behind these. These can talk to each other. If you're in a desert, they can talk to each other about two kilometers apart. If you're in the jungle, it's about 500 meters. So if a kid bicycles home, or walks a few miles, they're going to be off the grid, so to speak. They're not going to be near another laptop, so you have to nail these onto a tree, and sort of, get it. You don't call Verizon or Sprint. You build your own network. And that's very important, the user interface. We are launching with 18 keyboards. English is by far the minority. Latin is relatively rare, too. You just look at some of the languages. I'm willing to suspect some of you hadn't even heard of them before. Is there anybody in the room, one person, unless you work with OLPC, is there anybody in the room that can tell me what language the keyboard is that's on the screen? There's only one hand -- so you get it. Yes, you're right. He's right. It's Amharic, it's Ethiopian. In Ethiopia, there's never been a keyboard. There is no keyboard standard because there's no market. And this is the big difference. Again, when you're a nonprofit, you look at children as a mission, not as a market. So we went to Ethiopia, and we helped them make a keyboard. And this will become the standard Ethiopian keyboard. So what I want to end with is sort of what we're doing to roll it out. And we changed strategy completely. I decided at the beginning -- it was a pretty good thing to decide in the beginning, it's not what we're doing now -- is to go to six countries. Big countries, one of them is not so big, but it's rich. Here's the six. We went to the six, and in each case the head of state said he would do it, he'd do a million. In the case of Gaddafi, he'd do 1.2 million, and that they would launch it. We thought, this is exactly the right strategy, get it out, and then the little countries could sort of piggyback on these big countries. And so I went to each of those countries at least six times, met with the head of state probably two or three times. In each case, got the ministers, went through a lot of the stuff. This was a period in my life where I was traveling 330 days per year. Not something you'd envy or want to do. In the case of Libya, it was a lot of fun meeting Gaddafi in his tent. The camel smells were unbelievable. And it was 45 degrees C. I mean, this was not what you'd call a cool experience. And former countries -- I say former, because none of them really came through this summer -- there was a big difference between getting a head of state to have a photo opportunity, make a press release. So we went to smaller ones. Uruguay, bless their hearts. Small country, not so rich. President said he'd do it, and guess what? He did do it. The tender had nothing in it that related to us, nothing specific about sunlight-readable, mesh-network, low-power, but just a vanilla laptop proposal. And guess what? We won it hands down. When it was announced that they were going to do every child in Uruguay, the first 100,000, boom, went to OLPC. The next day -- the next day, not even 24 hours had passed -- in Peru, the president of Peru said, "We'll do 250." And boom, a little domino effect. The president of Rwanda stepped in and said he would do it. The president of Ethiopia said he would do it. And boom, boom, boom. The president of Mongolia. And so what happens is, these things start to happen with these countries -- still not enough. Add up all those countries, it didn't quite get to thing, so we said, "Let's start a program in the United States." So, end of August, early September, we decide to do this. We announced it near the middle, end -- just when the Clinton Initiative was taking place. We thought that was a good time to announce it. Launched it on the 12 of November. We said it would be just for a short period until the 26. We've extended it until the 31. And the "Give One, Get One" program is really important because it got a lot of people absolutely interested. The first day it was just wild. And then we said, "Well, let's get people to give many. Not just one, and get one, but maybe give 100, give 1,000." And that's where you come in. And that's where I think it's very important. I don't want you all to go out and buy 400 dollars worth of laptops. Okay? Do it, but that's not going to help. Okay? If everybody in this room goes out tonight and orders one of these things for 400 dollars, whatever it is, 300 people in the room doing it -- yeah, great. I want you do something else. And it's not to go out and buy 100 or 1,000, though, I invite you to do that, and 10,000 would be even better. Tell people about it! It's got to become viral, OK? Use your mailing lists. People in this room have extraordinary mailing lists. Get your friends to give one, get one. And if each one of you sends it to 300 or 400 people, that would be fantastic. I won't dwell on the pricing at all. Just to say that when you do the "Give One, Get One," a lot of press is a bit about, "They didn't make it, it's 188 dollars, it's not 100." It will be 100 in two years. It will go below 100. We've pledged not to add features, but to bring that price down. But it was the countries that wanted it to go up, and we let them push it up for all sorts of reasons. So what you can do -- I've just said it. Don't just give one, get one. I just want to end with one last one. This one is not even 24-hours old, or maybe it's 24-hours. The first kids got their laptops. They got them by ship, and I'm talking now about 7,000, 8,000 at a time went out this week. They went to Uruguay, Peru, Mexico. And it's been slow coming, and we're only making about 5,000 a week, but we hope, we hope, sometime in next year, maybe by the middle of the year, to hit a million a month. Now put that number, and a million isn't so much. It's not a big number. We're selling a billion cell phones worldwide this year. But a million a month in laptop-land is a big number. And the world production today, everybody combined, making laptops, is five million a month. So I'm standing here telling you that sometime next year, we're going to make 20 percent of the world production. And if we do that, there are going to be a lot of lucky kids out there. And we hope if you have EG two years from now, or whenever you have it again, I won't have bad breath, and I will be invited back, and will have, hopefully by then, maybe 100 million out there to children. Thank you. (Applause)

We are now going through an amazing and unprecedented moment where the power dynamics between men and women are shifting very rapidly, and in many of the places where it counts the most, women are, in fact, taking control of everything. In my mother's day, she didn't go to college. Not a lot of women did. And now, for every two men who get a college degree, three women will do the same. Women, for the first time this year, became the majority of the American workforce. And they're starting to dominate lots of professions -- doctors, lawyers, bankers, accountants. Over 50 percent of managers are women these days, and in the 15 professions projected to grow the most in the next decade, all but two of them are dominated by women. So the global economy is becoming a place where women are more successful than men, believe it or not, and these economic changes are starting to rapidly affect our culture -- what our romantic comedies look like, what our marriages look like, what our dating lives look like, and our new set of superheroes. For a long time, this is the image of American manhood that dominated -- tough, rugged, in control of his own environment. A few years ago, the Marlboro Man was retired and replaced by this much less impressive specimen, who is a parody of American manhood, and that's what we have in our commercials today. The phrase "first-born son" is so deeply ingrained in our consciousness that this statistic alone shocked me. In American fertility clinics, 75 percent of couples are requesting girls and not boys. And in places where you wouldn't think, such as South Korea, India and China, the very strict patriarchal societies are starting to break down a little, and families are no longer strongly preferring first-born sons. If you think about this, if you just open your eyes to this possibility and start to connect the dots, you can see the evidence everywhere. You can see it in college graduation patterns, in job projections, in our marriage statistics, you can see it in the Icelandic elections, which you'll hear about later, and you can see it on South Korean surveys on son preference, that something amazing and unprecedented is happening with women. Certainly this is not the first time that we've had great progress with women. The '20s and the '60s also come to mind. But the difference is that, back then, it was driven by a very passionate feminist movement that was trying to project its own desires, whereas this time, it's not about passion, and it's not about any kind of movement. This is really just about the facts of this economic moment that we live in. The 200,000-year period in which men have been top dog is truly coming to an end, believe it or not, and that's why I talk about the "end of men." Now all you men out there, this is not the moment where you tune out or throw some tomatoes, because the point is that this is happening to all of us. I myself have a husband and a father and two sons whom I dearly love. And this is why I like to talk about this, because if we don't acknowledge it, then the transition will be pretty painful. But if we do take account of it, then I think it will go much more smoothly. I first started thinking about this about a year and a half ago. I was reading headlines about the recession just like anyone else, and I started to notice a distinct pattern -- that the recession was affecting men much more deeply than it was affecting women. And I remembered back to about 10 years ago when I read a book by Susan Faludi called "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man," in which she described how hard the recession had hit men, and I started to think about whether it had gotten worse this time around in this recession. And I realized that two things were different this time around. The first was that these were no longer just temporary hits that the recession was giving men -- that this was reflecting a deeper underlying shift in our global economy. And second, that the story was no longer just about the crisis of men, but it was also about what was happening to women. And now look at this second set of slides. These are headlines about what's been going on with women in the next few years. These are things we never could have imagined a few years ago. Women, a majority of the workplace. And labor statistics: women take up most managerial jobs. This second set of headlines -- you can see that families and marriages are starting to shift. And look at that last headline -- young women earning more than young men. That particular headline comes to me from a market research firm. They were basically asked by one of their clients who was going to buy houses in that neighborhood in the future. And they expected that it would be young families, or young men, just like it had always been. But in fact, they found something very surprising. It was young, single women who were the major purchasers of houses in the neighborhood. And so they decided, because they were intrigued by this finding, to do a nationwide survey. So they spread out all the census data, and what they found, the guy described to me as a shocker, which is that in 1,997 out of 2,000 communities, women, young women, were making more money than young men. So here you have a generation of young women who grow up thinking of themselves as being more powerful earners than the young men around them. Now, I've just laid out the picture for you, but I still haven't explained to you why this is happening. And in a moment, I'm going to show you a graph, and what you'll see on this graph -- it begins in 1973, just before women start flooding the workforce, and it brings us up to our current day. And basically what you'll see is what economists talk about as the polarization of the economy. Now what does that mean? It means that the economy is dividing into high-skill, high-wage jobs and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- and that the middle, the middle-skill jobs, and the middle-earning jobs, are starting to drop out of the economy. This has been going on for 40 years now. But this process is affecting men very differently than it's affecting women. You'll see the women in red, and you'll see the men in blue. You'll watch them both drop out of the middle class, but see what happens to women and see what happens to men. There we go. So watch that. You see them both drop out of the middle class. Watch what happens to the women. Watch what happens to the men. The men sort of stagnate there, while the women zoom up in those high-skill jobs. So what's that about? It looks like women got some power boost on a video game, or like they snuck in some secret serum into their birth-control pills that lets them shoot up high. But of course, it's not about that. What it's about is that the economy has changed a lot. We used to have a manufacturing economy, which was about building goods and products, and now we have a service economy and an information and creative economy. Those two economies require very different skills, and as it happens, women have been much better at acquiring the new set of skills than men have been. It used to be that you were a guy who went to high school who didn't have a college degree, but you had a specific set of skills, and with the help of a union, you could make yourself a pretty good middle-class life. But that really isn't true anymore. This new economy is pretty indifferent to size and strength, which is what's helped men along all these years. What the economy requires now is a whole different set of skills. You basically need intelligence, you need an ability to sit still and focus, to communicate openly, to be able to listen to people and to operate in a workplace that is much more fluid than it used to be, and those are things that women do extremely well, as we're seeing. If you look at management theory these days, it used to be that our ideal leader sounded something like General Patton, right? You would be issuing orders from above. You would be very hierarchical. You would tell everyone below you what to do. But that's not what an ideal leader is like now. If you read management books now, a leader is somebody who can foster creativity, who can get his -- get the employees -- see, I still say "his" -- who can get the employees to talk to each other, who can basically build teams and get them to be creative. And those are all things that women do very well. And then on top of that, that's created a kind of cascading effect. Women enter the workplace at the top, and then at the working class, all the new jobs that are created are the kinds of jobs that wives used to do for free at home. So that's childcare, elder care and food preparation. So those are all the jobs that are growing, and those are jobs that women tend to do. Now one day it might be that mothers will hire an out-of-work, middle-aged, former steelworker guy to watch their children at home, and that would be good for the men, but that hasn't quite happened yet. To see what's going to happen, you can't just look at the workforce that is now, you have to look at our future workforce. And here the story is fairly simple. Women are getting college degrees at a faster rate than men. Why? This is a real mystery. People have asked men, why don't they just go back to college, to community college, say, and retool themselves, learn a new set of skills? Well it turns out that they're just very uncomfortable doing that. They're used to thinking of themselves as providers, and they can't seem to build the social networks that allow them to get through college. So for some reason men just don't end up going back to college. And what's even more disturbing is what's happening with younger boys. There's been about a decade of research about what people are calling the "boy crisis." Now the boy crisis is this idea that very young boys, for whatever reason, are doing worse in school than very young girls, and people have theories about that. Is it because we have an excessively verbal curriculum, and little girls are better at that than little boys? Or that we require kids to sit still too much, and so boys initially feel like failures? And some people say it's because, in 9th grade, boys start dropping out of school. Because I'm writing a book about all this, I'm still looking into it, so I don't have the answer. But in the mean time, I'm going to call on the worldwide education expert, who's my 10-year-old daughter, Noa, to talk to you about why the boys in her class do worse. (Video) Noa: The girls are obviously smarter. I mean they have much larger vocabulary. They learn much faster. They are more controlled. On the board today for losing recess tomorrow, only boys. Hanna Rosin: And why is that? Noa: Why? They were just not listening to the class while the girls sat there very nicely. HR: So there you go. This whole thesis really came home to me when I went to visit a college in Kansas City -- working-class college. Certainly, when I was in college, I had certain expectations about my life -- that my husband and I would both work, and that we would equally raise the children. But these college girls had a completely different view of their future. Basically, the way they said it to me is that they would be working 18 hours a day, that their husband would maybe have a job, but that mostly he would be at home taking care of the kiddies. And this was kind of a shocker to me. And then here's my favorite quote from one of the girls: "Men are the new ball and chain." (Laughter) Now you laugh, but that quote has kind of a sting to it, right? And I think the reason it has a sting is because thousands of years of history don't reverse themselves without a lot of pain, and that's why I talk about us all going through this together. The night after I talked to these college girls, I also went to a men's group in Kansas, and these were exactly the kind of victims of the manufacturing economy which I spoke to you about earlier. They were men who had been contractors, or they had been building houses and they had lost their jobs after the housing boom, and they were in this group because they were failing to pay their child support. And the instructor was up there in the class explaining to them all the ways in which they had lost their identity in this new age. He was telling them they no longer had any moral authority, that nobody needed them for emotional support anymore, and they were not really the providers. So who were they? And this was very disheartening for them. And what he did was he wrote down on the board "$85,000," and he said, "That's her salary," and then he wrote down "$12,000." "That's your salary. So who's the man now?" he asked them. "Who's the damn man? She's the man now." And that really sent a shudder through the room. And that's part of the reason I like to talk about this, because I think it can be pretty painful, and we really have to work through it. And the other reason it's kind of urgent is because it's not just happening in the U.S. It's happening all over the world. In India, poor women are learning English faster than their male counterparts in order to staff the new call centers that are growing in India. In China, a lot of the opening up of private entrepreneurship is happening because women are starting businesses, small businesses, faster than men. And here's my favorite example, which is in South Korea. Over several decades, South Korea built one of the most patriarchal societies we know about. They basically enshrined the second-class status of women in the civil code. And if women failed to birth male children, they were basically treated like domestic servants. And sometimes family would pray to the spirits to kill off a girl child so they could have a male child. But over the '70s and '80s, the South Korea government decided they wanted to rapidly industrialize, and so what they did was, they started to push women into the workforce. Now they've been asking a question since 1985: "How strongly do you prefer a first-born son?" And now look at the chart. That's from 1985 to 2003. How much do you prefer a first-born son? So you can see that these economic changes really do have a strong effect on our culture. Now because we haven't fully processed this information, it's kind of coming back to us in our pop culture in these kind of weird and exaggerated ways, where you can see that the stereotypes are changing. And so we have on the male side what one of my colleagues likes to call the "omega males" popping up, who are the males who are romantically challenged losers who can't find a job. And they come up in lots of different forms. So we have the perpetual adolescent. We have the charmless misanthrope. Then we have our Bud Light guy who's the happy couch potato. And then here's a shocker: even America's most sexiest man alive, the sexiest man alive gets romantically played these days in a movie. And then on the female side, you have the opposite, in which you have these crazy superhero women. You've got Lady Gaga. You've got our new James Bond, who's Angelina Jolie. And it's not just for the young, right? Even Helen Mirren can hold a gun these days. And so it feels like we have to move from this place where we've got these uber-exaggerated images into something that feels a little more normal. So for a long time in the economic sphere, we've lived with the term "glass ceiling." Now I've never really liked this term. For one thing, it puts men and women in a really antagonistic relationship with one another, because the men are these devious tricksters up there who've put up this glass ceiling. And we're always below the glass ceiling, the women. And we have a lot of skill and experience, but it's a trick, so how are you supposed to prepare to get through that glass ceiling? And also, "shattering the glass ceiling" is a terrible phrase. What crazy person would pop their head through a glass ceiling? So the image that I like to think of, instead of glass ceiling, is the high bridge. It's definitely terrifying to stand at the foot of a high bridge, but it's also pretty exhilarating, because it's beautiful up there, and you're looking out on a beautiful view. And the great thing is there's no trick like with the glass ceiling. There's no man or woman standing in the middle about to cut the cables. There's no hole in the middle that you're going to fall through. And the great thing is that you can take anyone along with you. You can bring your husband along. You can bring your friends, or your colleagues, or your babysitter to walk along with you. And husbands can drag their wives across, if their wives don't feel ready. But the point about the high bridge is that you have to have the confidence to know that you deserve to be on that bridge, that you have all the skills and experience you need in order to walk across the high bridge, but you just have to make the decision to take the first step and do it. Thanks very much. (Applause)

I'm Rich Baraniuk and what I'd like to talk a little bit about today are some ideas that I think have just tremendous resonance with all the things that have been talked about the last two days. So many different points of resonance that it's going to be difficult to bring them all up, but I'll try to do my best. Does anybody remember these? (Laughter) OK, so these are LP records and they've been replaced, right? They've been swept away over the last two decades by these types of world-flattening digitization technologies, right? And I think it was best witnessed when Thomas was playing the music as we came in the room today. What's happened in the music world is there's a culture, or an ecosystem that's been created that, if you take some words from Apple, the catchphrase -- that we create, rip, mix and burn. What I mean by that is that anyone in the world is free and allowed to create new music and musical ideas. Anyone in the world is allowed to rip or copy musical ideas, use them in innovative ways. Anyone is allowed to mix them in different types of ways, draw connections between musical ideas, and people can burn them or create final products and continue the circle. And what that's done is it's created, like I said, a vibrant community that's very inclusive, with people continually working to connect musical ideas, innovate them and keep things constantly up to date. Today's hit single is not last year's hit single. But I'm not here to talk about music today. I'm here to talk about books. In particular, textbooks and the kind of educational materials that we use every day in school. Has anyone here ever been to school? (Laughter) OK, does anybody realize there's a crisis in our schools, around the world? I'm not going to spend too much time on that, but what I want to talk about is some of the disconnects that appear when an author publishes a book. That in fact, the publishing process -- just because of the fact that it's complicated, it's heavy, books are expensive -- creates a sort of a wall between authors of books and the ultimate users of books, be they teachers, students or just general readers. And this is even more true if you happen to speak a language other than one of the world's major languages, and especially English. I'm going to call these people below the barrier "shutouts" because they're really shut out of the process of being able to share their knowledge with the world. And so what I want to talk about today is trying to take these ideas that we've seen in the musical culture and try to bring these towards reinventing the way we think about writing books, using them and teaching from them. So, that's what I'd like to talk about and, really, how we get from where we are now to where we need to go. The first thing I'd like you to do is a little thought experiment. Imagine taking all the world's books. OK, everybody imagine books and imagine just tearing out the pages. So, liberating these pages and imagine digitizing them and then storing them in a vast, interconnected, global repository. Think of it as a massive iTunes for book-type content. And then take that material and imagine making it all open, so that people can modify it, play with it, improve it. Imagine making it free, so that anyone in the world can have access to all of this knowledge, and imagine using information technology so that you can update this content, improve it, play with it, on a timescale that's more on the order of seconds instead of years. Instead of editions of a book coming out every two years, imagine them coming out every 25 seconds. So, imagine we could do that and imagine we could put people into this. So that we could truly build an ecosystem with not just authors, but all the people who could be or want to be authors in all the different languages of the world, and I think if you could do this, it would be called -- I'm just going to refer to it as a knowledge ecosystem. So, really, this is the dream, and in a sense what you can think of it is we're trying to enable anyone in the world, I mean anyone in the world -- (Laughter) to be their own educational DJ, creating educational materials, sharing them with the world, constantly innovating on them. So, this is the dream. In fact, this dream is actually being realized. Over the last six-and-a-half years, we've been working really hard at Rice University on a project called Connexions, and so what I'd like to do for the rest of the talk is just tell you a little bit about what people are doing with Connexions, which you can kind of think of as the counterpoint to Nicholas Negroponte's talk yesterday, where they're working on the hardware of bringing education to the world. We're working on the open-source tools and the content. So, that's sort of to put it in perspective here. So, create. What are some of the people that are using these kind of tools? Well, the first thing is, there's a community of engineering professors, from Cambridge to Kyoto, who are developing engineering content in electrical engineering to develop what you can think of as a massive, super textbook that covers the entire area of electrical engineering. And not only that -- it can be customized for use in each of their own individual institutions. If people like Kitty Jones, a shut-out -- a private music teacher and mom from Champagne, Illinois, who wanted to share her fantastic music content with the world, on how to teach kids how to play music -- Her material is now used over 600,000 times per month. Tremendous use. In fact, a lot of this use coming from United States K-12 schools, because anyone who's involved in a school scale back, the first thing that's cut is the music curriculum. And so this is just indicating the tremendous thirst for this kind of open, free content. A lot of teachers are using this stuff. What about ripping? What about copying, reusing? A team of volunteers at the University of Texas at El Paso -- graduate students translating this engineering super textbook ideas. And within about a week, having this be some of our most popular material in widespread use all over Latin America, and in particular in Mexico, because of the open, extensible nature of this. People, volunteers and even companies that are translating materials into Asian languages like Chinese, Japanese and Thai, to spread the knowledge even further. OK, what about people who are mixing? What does "mixing" mean? "Mixing" means building customized courses, means building customized books. Companies like National Instruments, who are embedding very powerful, interactive simulations into the materials, so that we can go way beyond our regular kind of textbook to an experience that all the teaching materials are things you can actually interact with and play around with and actually learn as you do. We've been working with Teachers Without Borders, who are very interested in mixing our materials. They're going to be using Connexions as their platform to develop and deliver teaching materials for teaching teachers how to teach in 84 countries around the world. TWB is currently in Iraq, training 20,000 teachers supported by USAID. And to them, this idea of being able to remix and customize to the local context is extraordinarily important, because just providing free content to people has actually been likened by people in the developing world to a kind of cultural imperialism -- that if you don't empower people with the ability to re-contextualize the material, translate it into their own language and take ownership of it, it's not good. OK, other organizations we've been working with, UC Merced -- people know about UC Merced. It's a new university in California, in the Central Valley, working very closely with community colleges. They're actually developing a lot of their science and engineering curriculum to spread widely around the world in our system. And they're also trying to develop all of their software tools completely open-source. We've been working with AMD, which has a project called 50x15, which is trying to bring Internet connectivity to 50 percent of the world's population by 2015. We're going to be providing content to them in a whole range of different languages. And we've also been working with a number of other organizations. In particular, a bunch of the projects that are funded by Hewlett Foundation, who have taken a real leadership role in this area of open content. OK, burn -- I think this is, sort of, quite interesting. "Burn" is the idea of trying to create the physical instantiation of one of these courses. And I think a lot of you received -- I think all of you received one of these music books in your gift pack. A little present for you. Just to tell you quickly about it: this is an engineering textbook. It's about 300 pages long, hardbound. This costs -- anybody guess? How much would it cost in a bookstore? (Audience) 65 dollars. Richard Baraniuk: OK. This costs 22 dollars to the student. Why does it cost 22 dollars? Because it's published on demand and it's developed from this repository of open materials. If this book were to be published by a regular publisher, it would cost at least 122 dollars. So what we're seeing is moving this burning or publication process from the regular, sort of single-authored book towards community-authored materials that are modular, that are customized to each individual class and published on demand very inexpensively, either pushed out through Amazon or published directly through an on-demand press, like QOOP. And I think that this is an extraordinarily interesting area because there is tremendous area under this long tail in publishing. We're not talking about the Harry Potter end, right at the left side. We're talking about books on hypergeometric partial differential equations. Books that might sell 100 copies a year, 1,000 copies a year. There is tremendous sustaining revenue under this long tail to sustain open projects like ours, but also to sustain this new emergence of on-demand publishers, like QOOP, who produced these two books. And I think one of the things that you should take away from this talk is that there's an impending cut-out-the-middle-man disintermediation, that's going to be happening in the publishing industry. And it's going to reach a crescendo over the next few years, and I think that it's for our benefit, really, and for the world's benefit. OK, so what are the enablers? What's really making all of this happen? There's tons of technology, and the only piece of technology that I really want to talk about is XML. How many people know about XML? Oh, great. So it's the future of the web, right? It's semantic representation of content. And what you can really think of XML in this case is it's the packaging that we're putting around these pages. Remember we took the book, tore the pages out? Well, what the XML is going to do is it's going to turn those pages into Lego blocks. XML are the nubs on the Lego that allow us to combine the content together in a myriad different ways, and it provides us a framework to share content. So, it lets you take this ecosystem in its primordial state of all this content, all the pages you've torn out of books, and create highly sophisticated learning machines: books, courses, course packs. It gives you the ability to personalize the learning experience to each individual student, so that every student can have a book or a course that's customized to their learning style, their context, their language and the things that excite them. It lets you reuse the same materials in multiple different ways, and surprising new ways. It lets you interconnect ideas, indicating how fields relate to each other. And I'll just give you my personal story. We came up with this six-and-a-half years ago because I teach the stuff in the red box. And my day job, as Chris said -- I'm an electrical engineering professor. I teach signal processing and my challenge was to show that this math -- Wow, about half of you have already fallen asleep just looking at the equation. (Laughter) But this seemingly dry math is actually the center of this tremendously powerful web that links technology -- that links really cool applications like music synthesizers to tremendous economic opportunities, but also governed by intellectual property. And the thing that I realized is there was no way that I, as an engineer, could write this book that would get all of this across. We needed a community to do it and we needed new tools to be able to interconnect these ideas. And I think that really, in a sense, what we're trying to do is make Minsky's dream come to a reality, where you can imagine all the books in a library actually starting to talk to each other. And people who are teachers out here -- whoever taught, you know this -- it's the interconnections between ideas that teaching is really all about. OK, back to math. Imagine -- this is possible: that every single equation that you click on in one of your new e-texts is something that you're going to be able to explore and experiment with. So imagine your kid's algebra textbook in seventh grade. You can click on every single equation and bring up a little tool to be able to experiment with it, tinker with it, understand it. Because we really don't understand until we do. The same type of mark-up, like MathML, for chemistry. Imagine chemistry textbooks that actually understand the structure of how molecules are formed. Imagine Music XML that actually lets you delve into the semantic structure of music, play with it, understand it. It's no wonder that everybody's getting into it, right? Even the three wise men. (Laughter) OK, the second big enabler, and this is where I told a big lie. The second big enabler is intellectual property. Because, in fact, I got up here and I talked about how great the music culture is. We can share and rip, mix and burn, but in fact, that's all illegal. And we would be accused of [piracy] for doing that, because this music has been propertized. It's now owned, much of it by big industries. So, really, the key thing here is we can't let this happen. We can't let this Napster thing happen here. So, what we have to do is get it right from the very beginning. And what we have to do is find an intellectual property framework that makes sharing safe and makes it easily understandable. And the inspiration here is taken from open-source software. Things like Linux and the GPL. The Creative Commons licenses. How many people have heard of creative commons? If you have not, you must learn about it. Creativecommons.org. At the bottom of every piece of material in Connexions and in lots of other projects, you can find their logo. Clicking on that logo takes you to an absolute no-nonsense, human-readable document, a deed, that tells you exactly what you can do with this content. In fact, you're free to share it, to do all of these things: to copy it, to change it, even to make commercial use of it, as long as you attribute the author. Because in academic publishing and much of educational publishing, it's really this idea of sharing knowledge and making impact. That's why people write, not necessarily making bucks. We're not talking about Harry Potter, right? We're at the long tail end here. Behind that is the legal code, very carefully constructed. And Creative Commons is taking off -- over 43 million things out there, licensed with a Creative Commons license. Not just text, but music, images, video. And there's actually a tremendous uptake of the number of people that are actually licensing music to make it free for people who do this whole idea of re-sampling, ripping, mixing, burning and sharing. OK, I'd like to conclude with just the last few points. So, we've built this idea of a commons. People are using it. We get over 500,000 unique visitors per month, just to our particular site. MIT OpenCourseWare, which is another large open-content site, gets a similar number of hits. But how do we protect this? How do we protect it into the future? And the first thing that people are probably thinking is quality control, right? Because we're saying that anybody can contribute things to this commons. Anybody can contribute anything. So that could be a problem. It didn't take long until people started contributing materials, for example, on lingerie, which is actually a pretty good module. The only problem is it's plagiarized from a major French feminist journal, and when you go to the supposed course website, it points to a lingerie-selling website. So this is a little bit of a problem. So we clearly need some kind of idea of quality control and this is really where the idea of review and peer review comes in. You come to TED. Why do you come to TED? Because Chris and his team have ensured that things are very, very high quality, right? And so we need to be able to do the same thing. And we need to be able to design structures, and what we're doing is designing social software to enable anyone to build their own peer review process, and we call these things "lenses." And basically what they allow is anyone out there can develop their own peer-review process, so that they can focus on the content in the repository that they think is really important. And you can think of TED as a potential lens. So I'd just like to end by saying: you can really view this as a call to action. Connexions and open content is all about sharing knowledge. All of you here are tremendously imbued with tremendous amounts of knowledge, and what I'd like to do is invite each and every one of you to contribute to this project and other projects of its type, because I think together we can truly change the landscape of education and educational publishing. So, thanks very much.

To be honest, by personality, I'm just not much of a crier. But I think in my career that's been a good thing. I'm a civil rights lawyer, and I've seen some horrible things in the world. I began my career working police abuse cases in the United States. And then in 1994, I was sent to Rwanda to be the director of the U.N.'s genocide investigation. It turns out that tears just aren't much help when you're trying to investigate a genocide. The things I had to see, and feel and touch were pretty unspeakable. What I can tell you is this: that the Rwandan genocide was one of the world's greatest failures of simple compassion. That word, compassion, actually comes from two Latin words: cum passio, which simply mean "to suffer with." And the things that I saw and experienced in Rwanda as I got up close to human suffering, it did, in moments, move me to tears. But I just wish that I, and the rest of the world, had been moved earlier. And not just to tears, but to actually stop the genocide. Now by contrast, I've also been involved with one of the world's greatest successes of compassion. And that's the fight against global poverty. It's a cause that probably has involved all of us here. I don't know if your first introduction might have been choruses of "We Are the World," or maybe the picture of a sponsored child on your refrigerator door, or maybe the birthday you donated for fresh water. I don't really remember what my first introduction to poverty was but I do remember the most jarring. It was when I met Venus -- she's a mom from Zambia. She's got three kids and she's a widow. When I met her, she had walked about 12 miles in the only garments she owned, to come to the capital city and to share her story. She sat down with me for hours, just ushered me in to the world of poverty. She described what it was like when the coals on the cooking fire finally just went completely cold. When that last drop of cooking oil finally ran out. When the last of the food, despite her best efforts, ran out. She had to watch her youngest son, Peter, suffer from malnutrition, as his legs just slowly bowed into uselessness. As his eyes grew cloudy and dim. And then as Peter finally grew cold. For over 50 years, stories like this have been moving us to compassion. We whose kids have plenty to eat. And we're moved not only to care about global poverty, but to actually try to do our part to stop the suffering. Now there's plenty of room for critique that we haven't done enough, and what it is that we've done hasn't been effective enough, but the truth is this: The fight against global poverty is probably the broadest, longest running manifestation of the human phenomenon of compassion in the history of our species. And so I'd like to share a pretty shattering insight that might forever change the way you think about that struggle. But first, let me begin with what you probably already know. Thirty-five years ago, when I would have been graduating from high school, they told us that 40,000 kids every day died because of poverty. That number, today, is now down to 17,000. Way too many, of course, but it does mean that every year, there's eight million kids who don't have to die from poverty. Moreover, the number of people in our world who are living in extreme poverty, which is defined as living off about a dollar and a quarter a day, that has fallen from 50 percent, to only 15 percent. This is massive progress, and this exceeds everybody's expectations about what is possible. And I think you and I, I think, honestly, that we can feel proud and encouraged to see the way that compassion actually has the power to succeed in stopping the suffering of millions. But here's the part that you might not hear very much about. If you move that poverty mark just up to two dollars a day, it turns out that virtually the same two billion people who were stuck in that harsh poverty when I was in high school, are still stuck there, 35 years later. So why, why are so many billions still stuck in such harsh poverty? Well, let's think about Venus for a moment. Now for decades, my wife and I have been moved by common compassion to sponsor kids, to fund microloans, to support generous levels of foreign aid. But until I had actually talked to Venus, I would have had no idea that none of those approaches actually addressed why she had to watch her son die. "We were doing fine," Venus told me, "until Brutus started to cause trouble." Now, Brutus is Venus' neighbor and "cause trouble" is what happened the day after Venus' husband died, when Brutus just came and threw Venus and the kids out of the house, stole all their land, and robbed their market stall. You see, Venus was thrown into destitution by violence. And then it occurred to me, of course, that none of my child sponsorships, none of the microloans, none of the traditional anti-poverty programs were going to stop Brutus, because they weren't meant to. This became even more clear to me when I met Griselda. She's a marvelous young girl living in a very poor community in Guatemala. And one of the things we've learned over the years is that perhaps the most powerful thing that Griselda and her family can do to get Griselda and her family out of poverty is to make sure that she goes to school. The experts call this the Girl Effect. But when we met Griselda, she wasn't going to school. In fact, she was rarely ever leaving her home. Days before we met her, while she was walking home from church with her family, in broad daylight, men from her community just snatched her off the street, and violently raped her. See, Griselda had every opportunity to go to school, it just wasn't safe for her to get there. And Griselda's not the only one. Around the world, poor women and girls between the ages of 15 and 44, they are -- when victims of the everyday violence of domestic abuse and sexual violence -- those two forms of violence account for more death and disability than malaria, than car accidents, than war combined. The truth is, the poor of our world are trapped in whole systems of violence. In South Asia, for instance, I could drive past this rice mill and see this man hoisting these 100-pound sacks of rice upon his thin back. But I would have no idea, until later, that he was actually a slave, held by violence in that rice mill since I was in high school. Decades of anti-poverty programs right in his community were never able to rescue him or any of the hundred other slaves from the beatings and the rapes and the torture of violence inside the rice mill. In fact, half a century of anti-poverty programs have left more poor people in slavery than in any other time in human history. Experts tell us that there's about 35 million people in slavery today. That's about the population of the entire nation of Canada, where we're sitting today. This is why, over time, I have come to call this epidemic of violence the Locust Effect. Because in the lives of the poor, it just descends like a plague and it destroys everything. In fact, now when you survey very, very poor communities, residents will tell you that their greatest fear is violence. But notice the violence that they fear is not the violence of genocide or the wars, it's everyday violence. So for me, as a lawyer, of course, my first reaction was to think, well, of course we've got to change all the laws. We've got to make all this violence against the poor illegal. But then I found out, it already is. The problem is not that the poor don't get laws, it's that they don't get law enforcement. In the developing world, basic law enforcement systems are so broken that recently the U.N. issued a report that found that "most poor people live outside the protection of the law." Now honestly, you and I have just about no idea of what that would mean because we have no first-hand experience of it. Functioning law enforcement for us is just a total assumption. In fact, nothing expresses that assumption more clearly than three simple numbers: 9-1-1, which, of course, is the number for the emergency police operator here in Canada and in the United States, where the average response time to a police 911 emergency call is about 10 minutes. So we take this just completely for granted. But what if there was no law enforcement to protect you? A woman in Oregon recently experienced what this would be like. She was home alone in her dark house on a Saturday night, when a man started to tear his way into her home. This was her worst nightmare, because this man had actually put her in the hospital from an assault just two weeks before. So terrified, she picks up that phone and does what any of us would do: She calls 911 -- but only to learn that because of budget cuts in her county, law enforcement wasn't available on the weekends. Listen. Dispatcher: I don't have anybody to send out there. Woman: OK Dispatcher: Um, obviously if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away? Or do you know if he is intoxicated or anything? Woman: I've already asked him. I've already told him I was calling you. He's broken in before, busted down my door, assaulted me. Dispatcher: Uh-huh. Woman: Um, yeah, so ... Dispatcher: Is there any way you could safely leave the residence? Woman: No, I can't, because he's blocking pretty much my only way out. Dispatcher: Well, the only thing I can do is give you some advice, and call the sheriff's office tomorrow. Obviously, if he comes in and unfortunately has a weapon or is trying to cause you physical harm, that's a different story. You know, the sheriff's office doesn't work up there. I don't have anybody to send." Gary Haugen: Tragically, the woman inside that house was violently assaulted, choked and raped because this is what it means to live outside the rule of law. And this is where billions of our poorest live. What does that look like? In Bolivia, for example, if a man sexually assaults a poor child, statistically, he's at greater risk of slipping in the shower and dying than he is of ever going to jail for that crime. In South Asia, if you enslave a poor person, you're at greater risk of being struck by lightning than ever being sent to jail for that crime. And so the epidemic of everyday violence, it just rages on. And it devastates our efforts to try to help billions of people out of their two-dollar-a-day hell. Because the data just doesn't lie. It turns out that you can give all manner of goods and services to the poor, but if you don't restrain the hands of the violent bullies from taking it all away, you're going to be very disappointed in the long-term impact of your efforts. So you would think that the disintegration of basic law enforcement in the developing world would be a huge priority for the global fight against poverty. But it's not. Auditors of international assistance recently couldn't find even one percent of aid going to protect the poor from the lawless chaos of everyday violence. And honestly, when we do talk about violence against the poor, sometimes it's in the weirdest of ways. A fresh water organization tells a heart-wrenching story of girls who are raped on the way to fetching water, and then celebrates the solution of a new well that drastically shortens their walk. End of story. But not a word about the rapists who are still right there in the community. If a young woman on one of our college campuses was raped on her walk to the library, we would never celebrate the solution of moving the library closer to the dorm. And yet, for some reason, this is okay for poor people. Now the truth is, the traditional experts in economic development and poverty alleviation, they don't know how to fix this problem. And so what happens? They don't talk about it. But the more fundamental reason that law enforcement for the poor in the developing world is so neglected, is because the people inside the developing world, with money, don't need it. I was at the World Economic Forum not long ago talking to corporate executives who have massive businesses in the developing world and I was just asking them, "How do you guys protect all your people and property from all the violence?" And they looked at each other, and they said, practically in unison, "We buy it." Indeed, private security forces in the developing world are now, four, five and seven times larger than the public police force. In Africa, the largest employer on the continent now is private security. But see, the rich can pay for safety and can keep getting richer, but the poor can't pay for it and they're left totally unprotected and they keep getting thrown to the ground. This is a massive and scandalous outrage. And it doesn't have to be this way. Broken law enforcement can be fixed. Violence can be stopped. Almost all criminal justice systems, they start out broken and corrupt, but they can be transformed by fierce effort and commitment. The path forward is really pretty clear. Number one: We have to start making stopping violence indispensable to the fight against poverty. In fact, any conversation about global poverty that doesn't include the problem of violence must be deemed not serious. And secondly, we have to begin to seriously invest resources and share expertise to support the developing world as they fashion new, public systems of justice, not private security, that give everybody a chance to be safe. These transformations are actually possible and they're happening today. Recently, the Gates Foundation funded a project in the second largest city of the Philippines, where local advocates and local law enforcement were able to transform corrupt police and broken courts so drastically, that in just four short years, they were able to measurably reduce the commercial sexual violence against poor kids by 79 percent. You know, from the hindsight of history, what's always most inexplicable and inexcusable are the simple failures of compassion. Because I think history convenes a tribunal of our grandchildren and they just ask us, "Grandma, Grandpa, where were you? Where were you, Grandpa, when the Jews were fleeing Nazi Germany and were being rejected from our shores? Where were you? And Grandma, where were you when they were marching our Japanese-American neighbors off to internment camps? And Grandpa, where were you when they were beating our African-American neighbors just because they were trying to register to vote?" Likewise, when our grandchildren ask us, "Grandma, Grandpa, where were you when two billion of the world's poorest were drowning in a lawless chaos of everyday violence?" I hope we can say that we had compassion, that we raised our voice, and as a generation, we were moved to make the violence stop. Thank you very much. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Really powerfully argued. Talk to us a bit about some of the things that have actually been happening to, for example, boost police training. How hard a process is that? GH: Well, one of the glorious things that's starting to happen now is that the collapse of these systems and the consequences are becoming obvious. There's actually, now, political will to do that. But it just requires now an investment of resources and transfer of expertise. There's a political will struggle that's going to take place as well, but those are winnable fights, because we've done some examples around the world at International Justice Mission that are very encouraging. CA: So just tell us in one country, how much it costs to make a material difference to police, for example -- I know that's only one piece of it. GH: In Guatemala, for instance, we've started a project there with the local police and court system, prosecutors, to retrain them so that they can actually effectively bring these cases. And we've seen prosecutions against perpetrators of sexual violence increase by more than 1,000 percent. This project has been very modestly funded at about a million dollars a year, and the kind of bang you can get for your buck in terms of leveraging a criminal justice system that could function if it were properly trained and motivated and led, and these countries, especially a middle class that is seeing that there's really no future with this total instability and total privatization of security I think there's an opportunity, a window for change. CA: But to make this happen, you have to look at each part in the chain -- the police, who else? GH: So that's the thing about law enforcement, it starts out with the police, they're the front end of the pipeline of justice, but they hand if off to the prosecutors, and the prosecutors hand it off to the courts, and the survivors of violence have to be supported by social services all the way through that. So you have to do an approach that pulls that all together. In the past, there's been a little bit of training of the courts, but they get crappy evidence from the police, or a little police intervention that has to do with narcotics or terrorism but nothing to do with treating the common poor person with excellent law enforcement, so it's about pulling that all together, and you can actually have people in very poor communities experience law enforcement like us, which is imperfect in our own experience, for sure, but boy, is it a great thing to sense that you can call 911 and maybe someone will protect you. CA: Gary, I think you've done a spectacular job of bringing this to the world's attention in your book and right here today. Thanks so much. Gary Haugen. (Applause)

Everybody talks about happiness these days. I had somebody count the number of books with "happiness" in the title published in the last five years and they gave up after about 40, and there were many more. There is a huge wave of interest in happiness, among researchers. There is a lot of happiness coaching. Everybody would like to make people happier. But in spite of all this flood of work, there are several cognitive traps that sort of make it almost impossible to think straight about happiness. And my talk today will be mostly about these cognitive traps. This applies to laypeople thinking about their own happiness, and it applies to scholars thinking about happiness, because it turns out we're just as messed up as anybody else is. The first of these traps is a reluctance to admit complexity. It turns out that the word "happiness" is just not a useful word anymore, because we apply it to too many different things. I think there is one particular meaning to which we might restrict it, but by and large, this is something that we'll have to give up and we'll have to adopt the more complicated view of what well-being is. The second trap is a confusion between experience and memory; basically, it's between being happy in your life, and being happy about your life or happy with your life. And those are two very different concepts, and they're both lumped in the notion of happiness. And the third is the focusing illusion, and it's the unfortunate fact that we can't think about any circumstance that affects well-being without distorting its importance. I mean, this is a real cognitive trap. There's just no way of getting it right. Now, I'd like to start with an example of somebody who had a question-and-answer session after one of my lectures reported a story, and that was a story -- He said he'd been listening to a symphony, and it was absolutely glorious music and at the very end of the recording, there was a dreadful screeching sound. And then he added, really quite emotionally, it ruined the whole experience. But it hadn't. What it had ruined were the memories of the experience. He had had the experience. He had had 20 minutes of glorious music. They counted for nothing because he was left with a memory; the memory was ruined, and the memory was all that he had gotten to keep. What this is telling us, really, is that we might be thinking of ourselves and of other people in terms of two selves. There is an experiencing self, who lives in the present and knows the present, is capable of re-living the past, but basically it has only the present. It's the experiencing self that the doctor approaches -- you know, when the doctor asks, "Does it hurt now when I touch you here?" And then there is a remembering self, and the remembering self is the one that keeps score, and maintains the story of our life, and it's the one that the doctor approaches in asking the question, "How have you been feeling lately?" or "How was your trip to Albania?" or something like that. Those are two very different entities, the experiencing self and the remembering self, and getting confused between them is part of the mess about the notion of happiness. Now, the remembering self is a storyteller. And that really starts with a basic response of our memories -- it starts immediately. We don't only tell stories when we set out to tell stories. Our memory tells us stories, that is, what we get to keep from our experiences is a story. And let me begin with one example. This is an old study. Those are actual patients undergoing a painful procedure. I won't go into detail. It's no longer painful these days, but it was painful when this study was run in the 1990s. They were asked to report on their pain every 60 seconds. Here are two patients, those are their recordings. And you are asked, "Who of them suffered more?" And it's a very easy question. Clearly, Patient B suffered more -- his colonoscopy was longer, and every minute of pain that Patient A had, Patient B had, and more. But now there is another question: "How much did these patients think they suffered?" And here is a surprise. The surprise is that Patient A had a much worse memory of the colonoscopy than Patient B. The stories of the colonoscopies were different, and because a very critical part of the story is how it ends. And neither of these stories is very inspiring or great -- but one of them is this distinct ... (Laughter) but one of them is distinctly worse than the other. And the one that is worse is the one where pain was at its peak at the very end; it's a bad story. How do we know that? Because we asked these people after their colonoscopy, and much later, too, "How bad was the whole thing, in total?" And it was much worse for A than for B, in memory. Now this is a direct conflict between the experiencing self and the remembering self. From the point of view of the experiencing self, clearly, B had a worse time. Now, what you could do with Patient A, and we actually ran clinical experiments, and it has been done, and it does work -- you could actually extend the colonoscopy of Patient A by just keeping the tube in without jiggling it too much. That will cause the patient to suffer, but just a little and much less than before. And if you do that for a couple of minutes, you have made the experiencing self of Patient A worse off, and you have the remembering self of Patient A a lot better off, because now you have endowed Patient A with a better story about his experience. What defines a story? And that is true of the stories that memory delivers for us, and it's also true of the stories that we make up. What defines a story are changes, significant moments and endings. Endings are very, very important and, in this case, the ending dominated. Now, the experiencing self lives its life continuously. It has moments of experience, one after the other. And you can ask: What happens to these moments? And the answer is really straightforward: They are lost forever. I mean, most of the moments of our life -- and I calculated, you know, the psychological present is said to be about three seconds long; that means that, you know, in a life there are about 600 million of them; in a month, there are about 600,000 -- most of them don't leave a trace. Most of them are completely ignored by the remembering self. And yet, somehow you get the sense that they should count, that what happens during these moments of experience is our life. It's the finite resource that we're spending while we're on this earth. And how to spend it would seem to be relevant, but that is not the story that the remembering self keeps for us. So we have the remembering self and the experiencing self, and they're really quite distinct. The biggest difference between them is in the handling of time. From the point of view of the experiencing self, if you have a vacation, and the second week is just as good as the first, then the two-week vacation is twice as good as the one-week vacation. That's not the way it works at all for the remembering self. For the remembering self, a two-week vacation is barely better than the one-week vacation because there are no new memories added. You have not changed the story. And in this way, time is actually the critical variable that distinguishes a remembering self from an experiencing self; time has very little impact on the story. Now, the remembering self does more than remember and tell stories. It is actually the one that makes decisions because, if you have a patient who has had, say, two colonoscopies with two different surgeons and is deciding which of them to choose, then the one that chooses is the one that has the memory that is less bad, and that's the surgeon that will be chosen. The experiencing self has no voice in this choice. We actually don't choose between experiences, we choose between memories of experiences. And even when we think about the future, we don't think of our future normally as experiences. We think of our future as anticipated memories. And basically you can look at this, you know, as a tyranny of the remembering self, and you can think of the remembering self sort of dragging the experiencing self through experiences that the experiencing self doesn't need. I have that sense that when we go on vacations this is very frequently the case; that is, we go on vacations, to a very large extent, in the service of our remembering self. And this is a bit hard to justify I think. I mean, how much do we consume our memories? That is one of the explanations that is given for the dominance of the remembering self. And when I think about that, I think about a vacation we had in Antarctica a few years ago, which was clearly the best vacation I've ever had, and I think of it relatively often, relative to how much I think of other vacations. And I probably have consumed my memories of that three-week trip, I would say, for about 25 minutes in the last four years. Now, if I had ever opened the folder with the 600 pictures in it, I would have spent another hour. Now, that is three weeks, and that is at most an hour and a half. There seems to be a discrepancy. Now, I may be a bit extreme, you know, in how little appetite I have for consuming memories, but even if you do more of this, there is a genuine question: Why do we put so much weight on memory relative to the weight that we put on experiences? So I want you to think about a thought experiment. Imagine that for your next vacation, you know that at the end of the vacation all your pictures will be destroyed, and you'll get an amnesic drug so that you won't remember anything. Now, would you choose the same vacation? (Laughter) And if you would choose a different vacation, there is a conflict between your two selves, and you need to think about how to adjudicate that conflict, and it's actually not at all obvious, because if you think in terms of time, then you get one answer, and if you think in terms of memories, you might get another answer. Why do we pick the vacations we do is a problem that confronts us with a choice between the two selves. Now, the two selves bring up two notions of happiness. There are really two concepts of happiness that we can apply, one per self. So you can ask: How happy is the experiencing self? And then you would ask: How happy are the moments in the experiencing self's life? And they're all -- happiness for moments is a fairly complicated process. What are the emotions that can be measured? And, by the way, now we are capable of getting a pretty good idea of the happiness of the experiencing self over time. If you ask for the happiness of the remembering self, it's a completely different thing. This is not about how happily a person lives. It is about how satisfied or pleased the person is when that person thinks about her life. Very different notion. Anyone who doesn't distinguish those notions is going to mess up the study of happiness, and I belong to a crowd of students of well-being, who've been messing up the study of happiness for a long time in precisely this way. The distinction between the happiness of the experiencing self and the satisfaction of the remembering self has been recognized in recent years, and there are now efforts to measure the two separately. The Gallup Organization has a world poll where more than half a million people have been asked questions about what they think of their life and about their experiences, and there have been other efforts along those lines. So in recent years, we have begun to learn about the happiness of the two selves. And the main lesson I think that we have learned is they are really different. You can know how satisfied somebody is with their life, and that really doesn't teach you much about how happily they're living their life, and vice versa. Just to give you a sense of the correlation, the correlation is about .5. What that means is if you met somebody, and you were told, "Oh his father is six feet tall," how much would you know about his height? Well, you would know something about his height, but there's a lot of uncertainty. You have that much uncertainty. If I tell you that somebody ranked their life eight on a scale of ten, you have a lot of uncertainty about how happy they are with their experiencing self. So the correlation is low. We know something about what controls satisfaction of the happiness self. We know that money is very important, goals are very important. We know that happiness is mainly being satisfied with people that we like, spending time with people that we like. There are other pleasures, but this is dominant. So if you want to maximize the happiness of the two selves, you are going to end up doing very different things. The bottom line of what I've said here is that we really should not think of happiness as a substitute for well-being. It is a completely different notion. Now, very quickly, another reason we cannot think straight about happiness is that we do not attend to the same things when we think about life, and we actually live. So, if you ask the simple question of how happy people are in California, you are not going to get to the correct answer. When you ask that question, you think people must be happier in California if, say, you live in Ohio. (Laughter) And what happens is when you think about living in California, you are thinking of the contrast between California and other places, and that contrast, say, is in climate. Well, it turns out that climate is not very important to the experiencing self and it's not even very important to the reflective self that decides how happy people are. But now, because the reflective self is in charge, you may end up -- some people may end up moving to California. And it's sort of interesting to trace what is going to happen to people who move to California in the hope of getting happier. Well, their experiencing self is not going to get happier. We know that. But one thing will happen: They will think they are happier, because, when they think about it, they'll be reminded of how horrible the weather was in Ohio, and they will feel they made the right decision. It is very difficult to think straight about well-being, and I hope I have given you a sense of how difficult it is. Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Thank you. I've got a question for you. Thank you so much. Now, when we were on the phone a few weeks ago, you mentioned to me that there was quite an interesting result came out of that Gallup survey. Is that something you can share since you do have a few moments left now? Daniel Kahneman: Sure. I think the most interesting result that we found in the Gallup survey is a number, which we absolutely did not expect to find. We found that with respect to the happiness of the experiencing self. When we looked at how feelings, vary with income. And it turns out that, below an income of 60,000 dollars a year, for Americans -- and that's a very large sample of Americans, like 600,000, so it's a large representative sample -- below an income of 600,000 dollars a year... CA: 60,000. DK: 60,000. (Laughter) 60,000 dollars a year, people are unhappy, and they get progressively unhappier the poorer they get. Above that, we get an absolutely flat line. I mean I've rarely seen lines so flat. Clearly, what is happening is money does not buy you experiential happiness, but lack of money certainly buys you misery, and we can measure that misery very, very clearly. In terms of the other self, the remembering self, you get a different story. The more money you earn, the more satisfied you are. That does not hold for emotions. CA: But Danny, the whole American endeavor is about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. If people took seriously that finding, I mean, it seems to turn upside down everything we believe about, like for example, taxation policy and so forth. Is there any chance that politicians, that the country generally, would take a finding like that seriously and run public policy based on it? DK: You know I think that there is recognition of the role of happiness research in public policy. The recognition is going to be slow in the United States, no question about that, but in the U.K., it is happening, and in other countries it is happening. People are recognizing that they ought to be thinking of happiness when they think of public policy. It's going to take a while, and people are going to debate whether they want to study experience happiness, or whether they want to study life evaluation, so we need to have that debate fairly soon. How to enhance happiness goes very different ways depending on how you think, and whether you think of the remembering self or you think of the experiencing self. This is going to influence policy, I think, in years to come. In the United States, efforts are being made to measure the experience happiness of the population. This is going to be, I think, within the next decade or two, part of national statistics. CA: Well, it seems to me that this issue will -- or at least should be -- the most interesting policy discussion to track over the next few years. Thank you so much for inventing behavioral economics. Thank you, Danny Kahneman.

Today I wanted to -- well, this morning -- I want to talk about the future of human-driven transportation; about how we can cut congestion, pollution and parking by getting more people into fewer cars; and how we can do it with the technology that's in our pockets. And yes, I'm talking about smartphones ... not self-driving cars. But to get started we've got to go back over 100 years. Because it turns out there was an Uber way before Uber. And if it had survived, the future of transportation would probably already be here. So let me introduce you to the jitney. In 1914 it was created or invented by a guy named LP Draper. He was a car salesman from LA, and he had an idea. Well, he was cruising around downtown Los Angeles, my hometown, and he saw trolleys with long lines of people trying to get to where they wanted to go. He said, well, why don't I just put a sign on my car that takes people wherever they want to go for a jitney -- that was slang for a nickel. And so people jumped on board, and not just in Los Angeles but across the country. And within one year, by 1915, there were 50,000 rides per day in Seattle, 45,000 rides per day in Kansas and 150,000 rides per day in Los Angeles. To give you some perspective, Uber in Los Angeles is doing 157,000 rides per day, today ... 100 years later. And so these are the trolley guys, the existing transportation monopoly at the time. They were clearly not happy about the jitney juggernaut. And so they got to work and they went to cities across the country and got regulations put in place to slow down the growth of the jitney. And there were all kinds of regulations. There were licenses -- often they were pricey. In some cities, if you were a jitney driver, you were required to be in the jitney for 16 hours a day. In other cities, they required two jitney drivers for one jitney. But there was a really interesting regulation which was they had to put a backseat light -- install it in every Jitney -- to stop a new pernicious innovation which they called spooning. (Laughter) All right. So what happened? Well, within a year this thing had taken off. But the jitney, by 1919, was regulated completely out of existence. That's unfortunate ... because, well, when you can't share a car, then you have to own one. And car ownership skyrocketed and it's no wonder that by 2007, there was a car for every man, woman and child in the United States. And that phenomenon had gone global. In China by 2011, there were more car sales happening in China than in the US. Now, all this private ownership of course had a public cost. In the US, we spend 7 billion hours a year, wasted, sitting in traffic. 160 billion dollars in lost productivity, of course also sitting in traffic, and one-fifth of all of our carbon footprint is spewed out in the air by those cars that we're sitting in. Now, that's only four percent of our problem though. Because if you have to own a car then that means 96 percent of the time your car is sitting idle. And so, up to 30 percent of our land and our space is used storing these hunks of steel. We even have skyscrapers built for cars. That's the world we live in today. Now, cities have been dealing with this problem for decades. It's called mass transit. And even in a city like New York City, one of the most densely populated in the world and one of the most sophisticated mass transit systems in the world, there are still 2.5 million cars that go over those bridges every day. Why is that? Well, it's because mass transit hasn't yet figured out how to get to everybody's doorstep. And so back in San Francisco, where I live, the situation's much worse, in fact, much worse around the world. And so the beginning of Uber in 2010 was -- well, we just wanted to push a button and get a ride. We didn't have any grand ambitions. But it just turned out that lots of people wanted to push a button and get a ride, and ultimately what we started to see was a lot of duplicate rides. We saw a lot of people pushing the same button at the same time going essentially to the same place. And so we started thinking about, well, how do we make those two trips and turn them into one. Because if we did, that ride would be a lot cheaper -- up to 50 percent cheaper -- and of course for the city you've got a lot more people and a lot fewer cars. And so the big question for us was: would it work? Could you have a cheaper ride cheap enough that people would be willing to share it? And the answer, fortunately, is a resounding yes. In San Francisco, before uberPOOL, we had -- well, everybody would take their car wherever the heck they wanted. And the bright colors is where we have the most cars. And once we introduced uberPOOL, well, you see there's not as many bright colors. More people getting around the city in fewer cars, taking cars off the road. It looks like uberPOOL is working. And so we rolled it out in Los Angeles eight months ago. And since then, we've taken 7.9 million miles off the roads and we've taken 1.4 thousand metric tons of CO2 out of the air. But the part that I'm really -- (Applause) But my favorite statistic -- remember, I'm from LA, I spent years of my life sitting behind the wheel, going, "How do we fix this?" -- my favorite part is that eight months later, we have added 100,000 new people that are carpooling every week. Now, in China everything is supersized, and so we're doing 15 million uberPOOL trips per month, that's 500,000 per day. And of course we're seeing that exponential growth happen. In fact, we're seeing it in LA, too. And when I talk to my team, we don't talk about, "Hey, well, 100,000 people carpooling every week and we're done." How do we get that to a million? And in China, well, that could be several million. And so uberPOOL is a very great solution for urban carpooling. But what about the suburbs? This is the street where I grew up in Los Angeles, it's actually a suburb called Northridge, California, and, well -- look, those mailboxes, they kind of just go on forever. And every morning at about the same time, cars roll of out their driveway, most of them, one person in the car, and they go to work, they go to their place of work. So the question for us is: well, how do we turn all of these commuter cars -- and literally there's tens of millions of them -- how do we turn all these commuter cars into shared cars? Well, we have something for this that we recently launched called uberCOMMUTE. You get up in the morning, get ready for work, get your coffee, go to your car and you light up the Uber app, and all of a sudden, you become an Uber driver. And we'll match you up with one of your neighbors on your way to work and it's a really great thing. There's just one hitch ... it's called regulation. So 54 cents a mile, what is that? Well, that is what the US government has determined that the cost of owning a car is per mile. You can pick up anybody in the United States and take them wherever they want to go at a moment's notice, for 54 cents a mile or less. But if you charge 60 cents a mile, you're a criminal. But what if for 60 cents a mile we could get half a million more people carpooling in Los Angeles? And what if at 60 cents a mile we could get 50 million people carpooling in the United States? If we could, it's obviously something we should do. And so it goes back to the lesson of the jitney. If by 1915 this thing was taking off, imagine without the regulations that happened, if that thing could just keep going. How would our cities be different today? Would we have parks in the place of parking lots? Well, we lost that chance. But technology has given us another opportunity. Now, I'm as excited as anybody else about self-driving cars but do we have to really wait five, 10 or even 20 years to make our new cities a reality? With the technology in our pockets today, and a little smart regulation, we can turn every car into a shared car, and we can reclaim our cities starting today. Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Travis, thank you. Travis Kalanick: Thank you. CA: You know -- I mean the company you've built is absolutely astounding. You only just talked about a small part of it here -- a powerful part -- the idea of turning cars into public transport like that, it's cool. But I've got a couple other questions because I know they're out there on people's minds. So first of all, last week I think it was, I switched on my phone and tried to book an Uber and I couldn't find the app. You had this very radical, very bold, brave redesign. TK: Sure. CA: How did it go? Did you notice other people not finding the app that day? Are you going to win people over for this redesign? TK: Well, first I should probably just say, well, what we were trying to accomplish. And I think if you know a little bit about our history, it makes a lot more sense. Which is, when we first got started, it was just black cars. It was literally you push a button and get an S-Class. And so what we did was almost what I would call an immature version of a luxury brand that looked like a badge on a luxury car. And as we've gone worldwide and gone from S-Classes to auto rickshaws in India, it became something that was important for us to be more accessible, to be more hyperlocal, to be about the cities we were in and that's what you see with the patterns and colors. And to be more iconic, because a U doesn't mean anything in Sanskrit, and a U doesn't mean anything in Mandarin. And so that was a little bit what it was about. Now, when you first roll out something like that, I mean, your hands are sweating, you've got -- you know, you're a little worried. What we saw is a lot of people -- actually, at the beginning, we saw a lot more people opening the app because they were curious what they would find when they opened it. And our numbers were slightly up from what we expected. CA: OK, that's cool. Now, so you, yourself, are something of an enigma, I would say. Your supporters and investors, who have been with you the whole way, believe that the only chance of sort of taking on the powerful, entrenched interests of taxi industry and so forth, is to have someone who is a fierce, relentless competitor, which you've certainly proved to be. Some people feel you've almost taken that culture too far, and you know -- like a year or two ago there was a huge controversy where a lot of women got upset. How did it feel like inside the company during that period? Did you notice a loss of business? Did you learn anything from that? TK: Well, look, I think -- I've been an entrepreneur since I've been in high school and you have -- In various different ways an entrepreneur will see hard times and for us, it was about a year and a half ago, and for us it was hard times, too. Now, inside, we felt like -- I guess at the end of the day we felt like we were good people doing good work, but on the outside that wasn't evident. And so there was a lot that we had to do to sort of -- We'd gone from a very small company -- I mean if you go literally two and a half years ago, our company was 400 people, and today it's 6,500. And so when you go through that growth, you have to sort of cement your cultural values and talk about them all of the time. And make sure that people are constantly checking to say, "Are we good people doing good work?" And if you check those boxes, the next part of that is making sure you're telling your story. And I think we learned a lot of lessons but I think at the end of it we came out stronger. But it was certainly a difficult period. CA: It seems to me, everywhere you turn, you're facing people who occasionally give you a hard time. Some Uber drivers in New York and elsewhere are mad as hell now because you changed the fees and they can barely -- they claim -- barely afford the deal anymore. How -- You know, you said that you started this originally -- just the coolness of pressing a button and summoning a ride. This thing's taken off, you're affecting the whole global economy, basically, at this point. You're being forced to be, whether you want it or not, a kind of global visionary who's changing the world. I mean -- who are you? Do you want that? Are you ready to go with that and be what that takes? TK: Well, there's a few things packed in that question, so -- (Laughter) First is on the pricing side -- I mean, keep in mind, right? UberX, when we first started, was literally 10 or 15 percent cheaper than our black car product. It's now in many cities, half the price of a taxi. And we have all the data to show that the divers are making more per hour than they would as taxi drivers. What happens is when the price goes down, people are more likely to take Uber at different times of the day than they otherwise would have, and they're more likely to use it in places they wouldn't have before. And what that means for a driver is wherever he or she drops somebody off, they're much more likely to get a pickup and get back in. And so what that means is more trips per hour, more minutes of the hour where they're productive and actually, earnings come up. And we have cities where we've done literally five or six price cuts and have seen those price cuts go up over time. So even in New York -- We have a blog post we call "4 Septembers" -- compare the earnings September after September after September. Same month every year. And we see the earnings going up over time as the price comes down. And there's a perfect price point -- you can't go down forever. And in those places where we bring the price down but we don't see those earnings pop, we bring the prices back up. So that addresses that first part. And then the enigma and all of this -- I mean, the kind of entrepreneur I am is one that gets really excited about solving hard problems. And the way I like to describe it is it's kind of like a math professor. You know? If a math professor doesn't have hard problems to solve, that's a really sad math professor. And so at Uber we like the hard problems and we like getting excited about those and solving them. But we don't want just any math problem, we want the hardest ones that we can possibly find, and we want the one that if you solve it, there's a little bit of a wow factor. CA: In a couple years' time -- say five years' time, I don't know when -- you roll out your incredible self-driving cars, at probably a lower cost than you currently pay for an Uber ride. What do you say to your army of a million drivers plus at that time? TK: Explain that again -- at which time? CA: At the time when self-driving cars are coming -- TK: Sure, sure, sure. Sorry, I missed that. CA: What do you say to a driver? TK: Well, look, I think the first part is it's going to take -- it's likely going to take a lot longer than I think some of the hype or media might expect. That's part one. Part two is it's going to also take -- there's going to be a long transition. These cars will work in certain places and not in others. For us it's an interesting challenge, right? Because, well -- Google's been investing in this since 2007, Tesla's going to be doing it, Apple's going to be doing it, the manufacturers are going to be doing it. This is a world that's going to exist, and for good reason. A million people die a year in cars. And we already looked at the billions or even trillions of hours worldwide that people are spending sitting in them, driving frustrated, anxious. And think about the quality of life that improves when you give people their time back and it's not so anxiety-ridden. So I think there's a lot of good. And so the way we think about it is that it's a challenge, but one for optimistic leadership, Where instead of resisting -- resisting technology, maybe like the taxi industry, or the trolley industry -- we have to embrace it or be a part of the future. But how do we optimistically lead through it? Are there ways to partner with cities? Are there ways to have education systems, vocational training, etc., for that transition period. It will take a lot longer than I think we all expect, especially that transition period. But it is a world that's going to exist, and it is going to be a better world. CA: Travis, what you're building is absolutely incredible and I'm hugely grateful to you for coming to TED and sharing so openly. Thank you so much. TK: Thank you very much. (Applause)

How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded ... and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There's something else at play here. About three and a half years ago I made a discovery. And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As it turns out, there's a pattern. As it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world -- whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers -- they all think, act and communicate the exact same way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle. Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "why," I mean: What's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in. It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations -- regardless of their size, regardless of their industry -- all think, act and communicate from the inside out. Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" "Meh." And that's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing is done, that's how most sales is done and that's how most of us communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients who do business with us. Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats, buy our car. But it's uninspiring. Here's how Apple actually communicates. "Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. All I did was reverse the order of the information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. But, as I said before, Apple's just a computer company. There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs. They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs. They've been making flat screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products -- and nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Here's the best part: None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, what you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language. In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just doesn't drive behavior. When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from. You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right." Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language. And the best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your soul. Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language. But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do. Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hire people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers. Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. I mean, even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley? A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop; not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur; and The New York Times followed them around nowhere. The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper. And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous so he quit. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe. But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, and if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology. The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators. The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters. The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore. (Laughter) We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips. And I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" And they love to tell you, "Oh, it's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers. We all have about 10 percent who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right? That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it." The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" -- because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available. These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the shelf. These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: They were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions, right? You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time. But TiVo's a commercial failure. They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes. Because you see, when TiVo launched their product they told us all what they had. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking." And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us." What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe. Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak. How many of them showed up for him? Zero. They showed up for themselves. It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25 percent of the audience was white. Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by man. And not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. And, by the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech. (Laughter) Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them. Thank you very much. (Applause)

When I was invited to give this talk a couple of months ago, we discussed a number of titles with the organizers, and a lot of different items were kicked around and were discussed. But nobody suggested this one, and the reason for that was two months ago, Ebola was escalating exponentially and spreading over wider geographic areas than we had ever seen, and the world was terrified, concerned and alarmed by this disease, in a way we've not seen in recent history. But today, I can stand here and I can talk to you about beating Ebola because of people whom you've never heard of, people like Peter Clement, a Liberian doctor who's working in Lofa County, a place that many of you have never heard of, probably, in Liberia. The reason that Lofa County is so important is because about five months ago, when the epidemic was just starting to escalate, Lofa County was right at the center, the epicenter of this epidemic. At that time, MSF and the treatment center there, they were seeing dozens of patients every single day, and these patients, these communities were becoming more and more terrified as time went by, with this disease and what it was doing to their families, to their communities, to their children, to their relatives. And so Peter Clement was charged with driving that 12-hour-long rough road from Monrovia, the capital, up to Lofa County, to try and help bring control to the escalating epidemic there. And what Peter found when he arrived was the terror that I just mentioned to you. So he sat down with the local chiefs, and he listened. And what he heard was heartbreaking. He heard about the devastation and the desperation of people affected by this disease. He heard the heartbreaking stories about not just the damage that Ebola did to people, but what it did to families and what it did to communities. And he listened to the local chiefs there and what they told him -- They said, "When our children are sick, when our children are dying, we can't hold them at a time when we want to be closest to them. When our relatives die, we can't take care of them as our tradition demands. We are not allowed to wash the bodies to bury them the way our communities and our rituals demand. And for this reason, they were deeply disturbed, deeply alarmed and the entire epidemic was unraveling in front of them. People were turning on the healthcare workers who had come, the heroes who had come to try and help save the community, to help work with the community, and they were unable to access them. And what happened then was Peter explained to the leaders. The leaders listened. They turned the tables. And Peter explained what Ebola was. He explained what the disease was. He explained what it did to their communities. And he explained that Ebola threatened everything that made us human. Ebola means you can't hold your children the way you would in this situation. You can't bury your dead the way that you would. You have to trust these people in these space suits to do that for you. And ladies and gentlemen, what happened then was rather extraordinary: The community and the health workers, Peter, they sat down together and they put together a new plan for controlling Ebola in Lofa County. And the reason that this is such an important story, ladies and gentlemen, is because today, this county, which is right at the center of this epidemic you've been watching, you've been seeing in the newspapers, you've been seeing on the television screens, today Lofa County is nearly eight weeks without seeing a single case of Ebola. (Applause) Now, this doesn't mean that the job is done, obviously. There's still a huge risk that there will be additional cases there. But what it does teach us is that Ebola can be beaten. That's the key thing. Even on this scale, even with the rapid kind of growth that we saw in this environment here, we now know Ebola can be beaten. When communities come together with health care workers, work together, that's when this disease can be stopped. But how did Ebola end up in Lofa County in the first place? Well, for that, we have to go back 12 months, to the start of this epidemic. And as many of you know, this virus went undetected, it evaded detection for three or four months when it began. That's because this is not a disease of West Africa, it's a disease of Central Africa, half a continent away. People hadn't seen the disease before; health workers hadn't seen the disease before. They didn't know what they were dealing with, and to make it even more complicated, the virus itself was causing a symptom, a type of a presentation that wasn't classical of the disease. So people didn't even recognize the disease, people who knew Ebola. For that reason it evaded detection for some time, But contrary to public belief sometimes these days, once the virus was detected, there was a rapid surge in of support. MSF rapidly set up an Ebola treatment center, as many of you know, in the area. The World Health Organization and the partners that it works with deployed eventually hundreds of people over the next two months to be able to help track the virus. The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is by then, this virus, well known now as Ebola, had spread too far. It had already outstripped what was one of the largest responses that had been mounted so far to an Ebola outbreak. By the middle of the year, not just Guinea but now Sierra Leone and Liberia were also infected. As the virus was spreading geographically, the numbers were increasing and at this time, not only were hundreds of people infected and dying of the disease, but as importantly, the front line responders, the people who had gone to try and help, the health care workers, the other responders were also sick and dying by the dozens. The presidents of these countries recognized the emergencies. They met right around that time, they agreed on common action and they put together an emergency joint operation center in Conakry to try and work together to finish this disease and get it stopped, to implement the strategies we talked about. But what happened then was something we had never seen before with Ebola. What happened then was the virus, or someone sick with the virus, boarded an airplane, flew to another country, and for the first time, we saw in another distant country the virus pop up again. This time it was in Nigeria, in the teeming metropolis of Lagos, 21 million people. Now the virus was in that environment. And as you can anticipate, there was international alarm, international concern on a scale that we hadn't seen in recent years caused by a disease like this. The World Health Organization immediately called together an expert panel, looked at the situation, declared an international emergency. And in doing so, the expectation would be that there would be a huge outpouring of international assistance to help these countries which were in so much trouble and concern at that time. But what we saw was something very different. There was some great response. A number of countries came to assist -- many, many NGOs and others, as you know, but at the same time, the opposite happened in many places. Alarm escalated, and very soon these countries found themselves not receiving the support they needed, but increasingly isolated. What we saw was commercial airlines started flying into these countries and people who hadn't even been exposed to the virus were no longer allowed to travel. This cause not only problems, obviously, for the countries themselves, but also for the response. Those organizations that were trying to bring people in, to try and help them respond to the outbreak, they could not get people on airplanes, they could not get them into the countries to be able to respond. In that situation, ladies and gentleman, a virus like Ebola takes advantage. And what we saw then was something also we hadn't seen before. Not only did this virus continue in the places where they'd already become infected, but then it started to escalate and we saw the case numbers that you see here, something we'd never seen before on such a scale, an exponential increase of Ebola cases not just in these countries or the areas already infected in these countries but also spreading further and deeper into these countries. Ladies and gentleman, this was one of the most concerning international emergencies in public health we've ever seen. And what happened in these countries then, many of you saw, again, on the television, read about in the newspapers, we saw the health system start to collapse under the weight of this epidemic. We saw the schools begin to close, markets no longer started, no longer functioned the way that they should in these countries. We saw that misinformation and misperceptions started to spread even faster through the communities, which became even more alarmed about the situation. They started to recoil from those people that you saw in those space suits, as they call them, who had come to help them. And then the situation deteriorated even further. The countries had to declare a state of emergency. Large populations needed to be quarantined in some areas, and then riots broke out. It was a very, very terrifying situation. Around the world, many people began to ask, can we ever stop Ebola when it starts to spread like this? And they started to ask, how well do we really know this virus? The reality is we don't know Ebola extremely well. It's a relatively modern disease in terms of what we know about it. We've known the disease only for 40 years, since it first popped up in Central Africa in 1976. But despite that, we do know many things: We know that this virus probably survives in a type of a bat. We know that it probably enters a human population when we come in contact with a wild animal that has been infected with the virus and probably sickened by it. Then we know that the virus spreads from person to person through contaminated body fluids. And as you've all seen, we know the horrific disease that it then causes in humans, where we see this disease cause severe fevers, diarrhea, vomiting, and then unfortunately, in 70 percent of the cases or often more, death. This is a very dangerous, debilitating, and deadly disease. But despite the fact that we've not known this disease for a particularly long time, and we don't know everything about it, we do know how to stop this disease. There are four things that are critical to stopping Ebola. First and foremost, the communities have got to understand this disease, they've got to understand how it spreads and how to stop it. And then we've got to be able to have systems that can find every single case, every contact of those cases, and begin to track the transmission chains so that you can stop transmission. We have to have treatment centers, specialized Ebola treatment centers, where the workers can be protected as they try to provide support to the people who are infected, so that they might survive the disease. And then for those who do die, we have to ensure there is a safe, but at the same time dignified, burial process, so that there is no spread at that time as well. So we do know how to stop Ebola, and these strategies work, ladies and gentlemen. The virus was stopped in Nigeria by these four strategies and the people implementing them, obviously. It was stopped in Senegal, where it had spread, and also in the other countries that were affected by this virus, in this outbreak. So there's no question that these strategies actually work. The big question, ladies and gentlemen, was whether these strategies could work on this scale, in this situation, with so many countries affected with the kind of exponential growth that you saw. That was the big question that we were facing just two or three months ago. Today we know the answer to that question. And we know that answer because of the extraordinary work of an incredible group of NGOs, of governments, of local leaders, of U.N. agencies and many humanitarian and other organizations that came and joined the fight to try and stop Ebola in West Africa. But what had to be done there was slightly different. These countries took those strategies I just showed you; the community engagement, the case finding, contact tracing, etc., and they turned them on their head. There was so much disease, they approached it differently. What they decided to do was they would first try and slow down this epidemic by rapidly building as many beds as possible in specialized treatment centers so that they could prevent the disease from spreading from those were infected. They would rapidly build out many, many burial teams so that they could safely deal with the dead, and with that, they would try and slow this outbreak to see if it could actually then be controlled using the classic approach of case finding and contact tracing. And when I went to West Africa about three months ago, when I was there what I saw was extraordinary. I saw presidents opening emergency operation centers themselves against Ebola so that they could personally coordinate and oversee and champion this surge of international support to try and stop this disease. We saw militaries from within those countries and from far beyond coming in to help build Ebola treatment centers that could be used to isolate those who were sick. We saw the Red Cross movement working with its partner agencies on the ground there to help train the communities so that they could actually safely bury their dead in a dignified manner themselves. And we saw the U.N. agencies, the World Food Program, build a tremendous air bridge that could get responders to every single corner of these countries rapidly to be able to implement the strategies that we just talked about. What we saw, ladies and gentlemen, which was probably most impressive, was this incredible work by the governments, by the leaders in these countries, with the communities, to try to ensure people understood this disease, understood the extraordinary things they would have to do to try and stop Ebola. And as a result, ladies and gentlemen, we saw something that we did not know only two or three months earlier, whether or not it would be possible. What we saw was what you see now in this graph, when we took stock on December 1. What we saw was we could bend that curve, so to speak, change this exponential growth, and bring some hope back to the ability to control this outbreak. And for this reason, ladies and gentlemen, there's absolutely no question now that we can catch up with this outbreak in West Africa and we can beat Ebola. The big question, though, that many people are asking, even when they saw this curve, they said, "Well, hang on a minute -- that's great you can slow it down, but can you actually drive it down to zero?" We already answered that question back at the beginning of this talk, when I spoke about Lofa County in Liberia. We told you the story how Lofa County got to a situation where they have not seen Ebola for eight weeks. But there are similar stories from the other countries as well. From Gueckedou in Guinea, the first area where the first case was actually diagnosed. We've seen very, very few cases in the last couple of months, and here in Kenema, in Sierra Leone, another area in the epicenter, we have not seen the virus for more than a couple of weeks -- way too early to declare victory, obviously, but evidence, ladies and gentlemen, not only can the response catch up to the disease, but this disease can be driven to zero. The challenge now, of course, is doing this on the scale needed right across these three countries, and that is a huge challenge. Because when you've been at something for this long, on this scale, two other big threats come in to join the virus. The first of those is complacency, the risk that as this disease curve starts to bend, the media look elsewhere, the world looks elsewhere. Complacency always a risk. And the other risk, of course, is when you've been working so hard for so long, and slept so few hours over the past months, people are tired, people become fatigued, and these new risks start to creep into the response. Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you today I've just come back from West Africa. The people of these countries, the leaders of these countries, they are not complacent. They want to drive Ebola to zero in their countries. And these people, yes, they're tired, but they are not fatigued. They have an energy, they have a courage, they have the strength to get this finished. What they need, ladies and gentlemen, at this point, is the unwavering support of the international community, to stand with them, to bolster and bring even more support at this time, to get the job finished. Because finishing Ebola right now means turning the tables on this virus, and beginning to hunt it. Remember, this virus, this whole crisis, rather, started with one case, and is going to finish with one case. But it will only finish if those countries have got enough epidemiologists, enough health workers, enough logisticians and enough other people working with them to be able to find every one of those cases, track their contacts and make sure that this disease stops once and for all. Ladies and gentleman, Ebola can be beaten. Now we need you to take this story out to tell it to the people who will listen and educate them on what it means to beat Ebola, and more importantly, we need you to advocate with the people who can help us bring the resources we need to these countries, to beat this disease. There are a lot of people out there who will survive and will thrive, in part because of what you do to help us beat Ebola. Thank you. (Applause)

Well, I thought there would be a podium, so I'm a bit scared. (Laughter) Chris asked me to tell again how we found the structure of DNA. And since, you know, I follow his orders, I'll do it. But it slightly bores me. (Laughter) And, you know, I wrote a book. So I'll say something -- (Laughter) -- I'll say a little about, you know, how the discovery was made, and why Francis and I found it. And then, I hope maybe I have at least five minutes to say what makes me tick now. In back of me is a picture of me when I was 17. I was at the University of Chicago, in my third year, and I was in my third year because the University of Chicago let you in after two years of high school. So you -- it was fun to get away from high school -- (Laughter) -- because I was very small, and I was no good in sports, or anything like that. But I should say that my background -- my father was, you know, raised to be an Episcopalian and Republican, but after one year of college, he became an atheist and a Democrat. (Laughter) And my mother was Irish Catholic, and -- but she didn't take religion too seriously. And by the age of 11, I was no longer going to Sunday Mass, and going on birdwatching walks with my father. So early on, I heard of Charles Darwin. I guess, you know, he was the big hero. And, you know, you understand life as it now exists through evolution. And at the University of Chicago I was a zoology major, and thought I would end up, you know, if I was bright enough, maybe getting a Ph.D. from Cornell in ornithology. Then, in the Chicago paper, there was a review of a book called "What is Life?" by the great physicist, Schrodinger. And that, of course, had been a question I wanted to know. You know, Darwin explained life after it got started, but what was the essence of life? And Schrodinger said the essence was information present in our chromosomes, and it had to be present on a molecule. I'd never really thought of molecules before. You know chromosomes, but this was a molecule, and somehow all the information was probably present in some digital form. And there was the big question of, how did you copy the information? So that was the book. And so, from that moment on, I wanted to be a geneticist -- understand the gene and, through that, understand life. So I had, you know, a hero at a distance. It wasn't a baseball player; it was Linus Pauling. And so I applied to Caltech and they turned me down. (Laughter) So I went to Indiana, which was actually as good as Caltech in genetics, and besides, they had a really good basketball team. (Laughter) So I had a really quite happy life at Indiana. And it was at Indiana I got the impression that, you know, the gene was likely to be DNA. And so when I got my Ph.D., I should go and search for DNA. So I first went to Copenhagen because I thought, well, maybe I could become a biochemist, but I discovered biochemistry was very boring. It wasn't going anywhere toward, you know, saying what the gene was; it was just nuclear science. And oh, that's the book, little book. You can read it in about two hours. And -- but then I went to a meeting in Italy. And there was an unexpected speaker who wasn't on the program, and he talked about DNA. And this was Maurice Wilkins. He was trained as a physicist, and after the war he wanted to do biophysics, and he picked DNA because DNA had been determined at the Rockefeller Institute to possibly be the genetic molecules on the chromosomes. Most people believed it was proteins. But Wilkins, you know, thought DNA was the best bet, and he showed this x-ray photograph. Sort of crystalline. So DNA had a structure, even though it owed it to probably different molecules carrying different sets of instructions. So there was something universal about the DNA molecule. So I wanted to work with him, but he didn't want a former birdwatcher, and I ended up in Cambridge, England. So I went to Cambridge, because it was really the best place in the world then for x-ray crystallography. And x-ray crystallography is now a subject in, you know, chemistry departments. I mean, in those days it was the domain of the physicists. So the best place for x-ray crystallography was at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. And there I met Francis Crick. I went there without knowing him. He was 35. I was 23. And within a day, we had decided that maybe we could take a shortcut to finding the structure of DNA. Not solve it like, you know, in rigorous fashion, but build a model, an electro-model, using some coordinates of, you know, length, all that sort of stuff from x-ray photographs. But just ask what the molecule -- how should it fold up? And the reason for doing so, at the center of this photograph, is Linus Pauling. About six months before, he proposed the alpha helical structure for proteins. And in doing so, he banished the man out on the right, Sir Lawrence Bragg, who was the Cavendish professor. This is a photograph several years later, when Bragg had cause to smile. He certainly wasn't smiling when I got there, because he was somewhat humiliated by Pauling getting the alpha helix, and the Cambridge people failing because they weren't chemists. And certainly, neither Crick or I were chemists, so we tried to build a model. And he knew, Francis knew Wilkins. So Wilkins said he thought it was the helix. X-ray diagram, he thought was comparable with the helix. So we built a three-stranded model. The people from London came up. Wilkins and this collaborator, or possible collaborator, Rosalind Franklin, came up and sort of laughed at our model. They said it was lousy, and it was. So we were told to build no more models; we were incompetent. (Laughter) And so we didn't build any models, and Francis sort of continued to work on proteins. And basically, I did nothing. And -- except read. You know, basically, reading is a good thing; you get facts. And we kept telling the people in London that Linus Pauling's going to move on to DNA. If DNA is that important, Linus will know it. He'll build a model, and then we're going to be scooped. And, in fact, he'd written the people in London: Could he see their x-ray photograph? And they had the wisdom to say "no." So he didn't have it. But there was ones in the literature. Actually, Linus didn't look at them that carefully. But about, oh, 15 months after I got to Cambridge, a rumor began to appear from Linus Pauling's son, who was in Cambridge, that his father was now working on DNA. And so, one day Peter came in and he said he was Peter Pauling, and he gave me a copy of his father's manuscripts. And boy, I was scared because I thought, you know, we may be scooped. I have nothing to do, no qualifications for anything. (Laughter) And so there was the paper, and he proposed a three-stranded structure. And I read it, and it was just -- it was crap. (Laughter) So this was, you know, unexpected from the world's -- (Laughter) -- and so, it was held together by hydrogen bonds between phosphate groups. Well, if the peak pH that cells have is around seven, those hydrogen bonds couldn't exist. We rushed over to the chemistry department and said, "Could Pauling be right?" And Alex Hust said, "No." So we were happy. (Laughter) And, you know, we were still in the game, but we were frightened that somebody at Caltech would tell Linus that he was wrong. And so Bragg said, "Build models." And a month after we got the Pauling manuscript -- I should say I took the manuscript to London, and showed the people. Well, I said, Linus was wrong and that we're still in the game and that they should immediately start building models. But Wilkins said "no." Rosalind Franklin was leaving in about two months, and after she left he would start building models. And so I came back with that news to Cambridge, and Bragg said, "Build models." Well, of course, I wanted to build models. And there's a picture of Rosalind. She really, you know, in one sense she was a chemist, but really she would have been trained -- she didn't know any organic chemistry or quantum chemistry. She was a crystallographer. And I think part of the reason she didn't want to build models was, she wasn't a chemist, whereas Pauling was a chemist. And so Crick and I, you know, started building models, and I'd learned a little chemistry, but not enough. Well, we got the answer on the 28th February '53. And it was because of a rule, which, to me, is a very good rule: Never be the brightest person in a room, and we weren't. We weren't the best chemists in the room. I went in and showed them a pairing I'd done, and Jerry Donohue -- he was a chemist -- he said, it's wrong. You've got -- the hydrogen atoms are in the wrong place. I just put them down like they were in the books. He said they were wrong. So the next day, you know, after I thought, "Well, he might be right." So I changed the locations, and then we found the base pairing, and Francis immediately said the chains run in absolute directions. And we knew we were right. So it was a pretty, you know, it all happened in about two hours. From nothing to thing. And we knew it was big because, you know, if you just put A next to T and G next to C, you have a copying mechanism. So we saw how genetic information is carried. It's the order of the four bases. So in a sense, it is a sort of digital-type information. And you copy it by going from strand-separating. So, you know, if it didn't work this way, you might as well believe it, because you didn't have any other scheme. (Laughter) But that's not the way most scientists think. Most scientists are really rather dull. They said, we won't think about it until we know it's right. But, you know, we thought, well, it's at least 95 percent right or 99 percent right. So think about it. The next five years, there were essentially something like five references to our work in "Nature" -- none. And so we were left by ourselves, and trying to do the last part of the trio: how do you -- what does this genetic information do? It was pretty obvious that it provided the information to an RNA molecule, and then how do you go from RNA to protein? For about three years we just -- I tried to solve the structure of RNA. It didn't yield. It didn't give good x-ray photographs. I was decidedly unhappy; a girl didn't marry me. It was really, you know, sort of a shitty time. (Laughter) So there's a picture of Francis and I before I met the girl, so I'm still looking happy. (Laughter) But there is what we did when we didn't know where to go forward: we formed a club and called it the RNA Tie Club. George Gamow, also a great physicist, he designed the tie. He was one of the members. The question was: How do you go from a four-letter code to the 20-letter code of proteins? Feynman was a member, and Teller, and friends of Gamow. But that's the only -- no, we were only photographed twice. And on both occasions, you know, one of us was missing the tie. There's Francis up on the upper right, and Alex Rich -- the M.D.-turned-crystallographer -- is next to me. This was taken in Cambridge in September of 1955. And I'm smiling, sort of forced, I think, because the girl I had, boy, she was gone. (Laughter) And so I didn't really get happy until 1960, because then we found out, basically, you know, that there are three forms of RNA. And we knew, basically, DNA provides the information for RNA. RNA provides the information for protein. And that let Marshall Nirenberg, you know, take RNA -- synthetic RNA -- put it in a system making protein. He made polyphenylalanine, polyphenylalanine. So that's the first cracking of the genetic code, and it was all over by 1966. So there, that's what Chris wanted me to do, it was -- so what happened since then? Well, at that time -- I should go back. When we found the structure of DNA, I gave my first talk at Cold Spring Harbor. The physicist, Leo Szilard, he looked at me and said, "Are you going to patent this?" And -- but he knew patent law, and that we couldn't patent it, because you couldn't. No use for it. (Laughter) And so DNA didn't become a useful molecule, and the lawyers didn't enter into the equation until 1973, 20 years later, when Boyer and Cohen in San Francisco and Stanford came up with their method of recombinant DNA, and Stanford patented it and made a lot of money. At least they patented something which, you know, could do useful things. And then, they learned how to read the letters for the code. And, boom, we've, you know, had a biotech industry. And, but we were still a long ways from, you know, answering a question which sort of dominated my childhood, which is: How do you nature-nurture? And so I'll go on. I'm already out of time, but this is Michael Wigler, a very, very clever mathematician turned physicist. And he developed a technique which essentially will let us look at sample DNA and, eventually, a million spots along it. There's a chip there, a conventional one. Then there's one made by a photolithography by a company in Madison called NimbleGen, which is way ahead of Affymetrix. And we use their technique. And what you can do is sort of compare DNA of normal segs versus cancer. And you can see on the top that cancers which are bad show insertions or deletions. So the DNA is really badly mucked up, whereas if you have a chance of surviving, the DNA isn't so mucked up. So we think that this will eventually lead to what we call "DNA biopsies." Before you get treated for cancer, you should really look at this technique, and get a feeling of the face of the enemy. It's not a -- it's only a partial look, but it's a -- I think it's going to be very, very useful. So, we started with breast cancer because there's lots of money for it, no government money. And now I have a sort of vested interest: I want to do it for prostate cancer. So, you know, you aren't treated if it's not dangerous. But Wigler, besides looking at cancer cells, looked at normal cells, and made a really sort of surprising observation. Which is, all of us have about 10 places in our genome where we've lost a gene or gained another one. So we're sort of all imperfect. And the question is well, if we're around here, you know, these little losses or gains might not be too bad. But if these deletions or amplifications occurred in the wrong gene, maybe we'll feel sick. So the first disease he looked at is autism. And the reason we looked at autism is we had the money to do it. Looking at an individual is about 3,000 dollars. And the parent of a child with Asperger's disease, the high-intelligence autism, had sent his thing to a conventional company; they didn't do it. Couldn't do it by conventional genetics, but just scanning it we began to find genes for autism. And you can see here, there are a lot of them. So a lot of autistic kids are autistic because they just lost a big piece of DNA. I mean, big piece at the molecular level. We saw one autistic kid, about five million bases just missing from one of his chromosomes. We haven't yet looked at the parents, but the parents probably don't have that loss, or they wouldn't be parents. Now, so, our autism study is just beginning. We got three million dollars. I think it will cost at least 10 to 20 before you'd be in a position to help parents who've had an autistic child, or think they may have an autistic child, and can we spot the difference? So this same technique should probably look at all. It's a wonderful way to find genes. And so, I'll conclude by saying we've looked at 20 people with schizophrenia. And we thought we'd probably have to look at several hundred before we got the picture. But as you can see, there's seven out of 20 had a change which was very high. And yet, in the controls there were three. So what's the meaning of the controls? Were they crazy also, and we didn't know it? Or, you know, were they normal? I would guess they're normal. And what we think in schizophrenia is there are genes of predisposure, and whether this is one that predisposes -- and then there's only a sub-segment of the population that's capable of being schizophrenic. Now, we don't have really any evidence of it, but I think, to give you a hypothesis, the best guess is that if you're left-handed, you're prone to schizophrenia. 30 percent of schizophrenic people are left-handed, and schizophrenia has a very funny genetics, which means 60 percent of the people are genetically left-handed, but only half of it showed. I don't have the time to say. Now, some people who think they're right-handed are genetically left-handed. OK. I'm just saying that, if you think, oh, I don't carry a left-handed gene so therefore my, you know, children won't be at risk of schizophrenia. You might. OK? (Laughter) So it's, to me, an extraordinarily exciting time. We ought to be able to find the gene for bipolar; there's a relationship. And if I had enough money, we'd find them all this year. I thank you.

On simplicity. What a great way to start. First of all, I've been watching this trend where we have these books like such and such "For Dummies." Do you know these books, these such and such "For Dummies?" My daughters pointed out that I'm very similar looking, so this is a bit of a problem. (Laughter) But I was looking online at Amazon.com for other books like this. You know, there's also something called the "Complete Idiot's Guide?" There's a sort of business model around being stupid in some sense. We like to have technology make us feel bad, for some strange reason. But I really like that, so I wrote a book called "The Laws of Simplicity." I was in Milan last week, for the Italian launch. It's kind of a book about questions, questions about simplicity. Very few answers. I'm also wondering myself, what is simplicity? Is it good? Is it bad? Is complexity better? I'm not sure. After I wrote "The Laws of Simplicity," I was very tired of simplicity, as you can imagine. And so in my life, I've discovered that vacation is the most important skill for any kind of over-achiever. Because your companies will always take away your life, but they can never take away your vacation -- in theory. (Laughter) So, I went to the Cape last summer to hide from simplicity, and I went to the Gap, because I only have black pants. So I went and bought khaki shorts or whatever, and unfortunately, their branding was all about "Keep It Simple." (Laughter) I opened up a magazine, and Visa's branding was, "Business Takes Simplicity." I develop photographs, and Kodak said, "Keep It Simple." So, I felt kind of weird that simplicity was sort of following me around. So, I turned on the TV, and I don't watch TV very much, but you know this person? This is Paris Hilton, apparently. And she has this show, "The Simple Life." So I watched this. It's not very simple, a little bit confusing. (Laughter) So, I looked for a different show to watch. So, I opened up this TV Guide thing, and on the E! channel, this "Simple Life" show is very popular. They'll play it over, and over, and over. (Laughter) So it was traumatizing, actually. So, I wanted to escape again, so I went out to my car. And Cape Cod, there are idyllic roads, and all of us can drive in this room. And when you drive, these signs are very important. It's a very simple sign, it says, "road" and "road approaching." So I'm mostly driving along, okay, and then I saw this sign. (Laughter) So, I thought complexity was attacking me suddenly, so I thought, "Ah, simplicity. Very important." But then I thought, "Oh, simplicity. What would that be like on a beach? What if the sky was 41 percent gray? Wouldn't that be the perfect sky?" I mean that simplicity sky. But in reality, the sky looked like this. It was a beautiful, complex sky. You know, with the pinks and blues. We can't help but love complexity. We're human beings: we love complex things. We love relationships -- very complex. So we love this kind of stuff. I'm at this place called the Media Lab. Maybe some of you guys have heard of this place. It's designed by I. M. Pei, one of the premier modernist architects. Modernism means white box, and it's a perfect white box. (Laughter) And some of you guys are entrepreneurs, etc., whatever. Last month, I was at Google, and, boy, that cafeteria, man. You guys have things here in Silicon Valley like stock options. See, in academia, we get titles, lots of titles. Last year at TED, these were all my titles. I had a lot of titles. I have a default title as a father of a bunch of daughters. This year at TED, I'm happy to report that I have new titles, in addition to my previous titles. Another "Associate Director of Research." And this also happened, so I have five daughters now. (Laughter) That's my baby Reina. (Applause) Thank you. And so, my life is much more complex because of the baby, actually, but that's okay. We will still stay married, I think. But looking way back, when I was a child -- you see, I grew up in a tofu factory in Seattle. Many of you may not like tofu because you haven't had good tofu, but tofu's a good food. It's a very simple kind of food. It's very hard work to make tofu. As a child, we used to wake up at 1 a.m. and work till 6 p.m., six days a week. My father was kind of like Andy Grove, paranoid of the competition. So often, seven days a week. Family business equals child labor. We were a great model. So, I loved going to school. School was great, and maybe going to school helped me get to this Media Lab place, I'm not sure. (Laughter) Thank you. But the Media Lab is an interesting place, and it's important to me because as a student, I was a computer science undergrad, and I discovered design later on in my life. And there was this person, Muriel Cooper. Who knows Muriel Cooper? Muriel Cooper? Wasn't she amazing? Muriel Cooper. She was wacky. And she was a TEDster, exactly, and she showed us, she showed the world how to make the computer beautiful again. And she's very important in my life, because she's the one that told me to leave MIT and go to art school. It was the best advice I ever got. So I went to art school, because of her. She passed away in 1994, and I was hired back to MIT to try to fill her shoes, but it's so hard. This amazing person, Muriel Cooper. When I was in Japan -- I went to an art school in Japan -- I had a nice sort of situation, because somehow I was connected to Paul Rand. Some of you guys know Paul Rand, the greatest graphic designer -- I'm sorry -- out there. The great graphic designer Paul Rand designed the IBM logo, the Westinghouse logo. He basically said, "I've designed everything." And also Ikko Tanaka was a very important mentor in my life -- the Paul Rand of Japan. He designed most of the major icons of Japan, like Issey Miyake's brand and also Muji. When you have mentors -- and yesterday, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar talked about mentors, these people in your life -- the problem with mentors is that they all die. This is a sad thing, but it's actually a happy thing in a way, because you can remember them in their pure form. I think that the mentors that we all meet sort of humanize us. When you get older, and you're all freaked out, whatever, the mentors calm us down. And I'm grateful for my mentors, and I'm sure all of you are too. Because the human thing is very hard when you're at MIT. The T doesn't stand for "human," it stands for "technology." And because of that, I always wondered about this human thing. So, I've always been Googling this word, "human," to find out how many hits I get. And in 2001, I had 26 million hits, and for "computer," because computers are against humans a bit, I have 42 million hits. Let me do an Al Gore here. So, if you sort of compare that, like this, you'll see that computer versus human -- I've been tracking this for the last year -- computer versus human over the last year has changed. It used to be kind of two to one. Now, humans are catching up. Very good, us humans! We're catching up with the computers. In the simplicity realm, it's also interesting. So if you compare complexities to simplicity, it's also catching up in a way, too. So, somehow humans and simplicity are intertwined, I think. I have a confession: I'm not a man of simplicity. I spent my entire early career making complex stuff. Lots of complex stuff. I wrote computer programs to make complex graphics like this. I had clients in Japan to make really complex stuff like this. And I've always felt bad about it, in a sense. So, I hid in a time dimension. I built things in a time-graphics dimension. I did this series of calendars for Shiseido. This is a floral theme calendar in 1997, and this is a firework calendar. So, you launch the number into space, because the Japanese believe that when you see fireworks, you're cooler for some reason. This is why they have fireworks in the summer. A very extreme culture. Lastly, this is a fall-based calendar, because I have so many leaves in my yard. So this is the leaves in my yard, essentially. And so I made a lot of these types of things. I've been lucky to have been there before people made these kind of things, and so I made all this kind of stuff that messes with your eyes. I feel kind of bad about that. Tomorrow, Paola Antonelli is speaking. I love Paola. She has this show right now at MoMA, where some of these early works are here on display at MoMA, on the walls. If you're in New York, please go and see that. But I've had a problem, because I make all this flying stuff and people say, "Oh, I know your work. You're the guy that makes eye candy." And when you're told this, you feel kind of weird. "Eye candy" -- sort of pejorative, don't you think? So, I say, "No, I make eye meat," instead. (Laughter) And eye meat is something different, something more fibrous, something more powerful, perhaps. But what could that be, eye meat? I've been interested in computer programs all my life, actually. Computer programs are essentially trees, and when you make art with a computer program, there's kind of a problem. Whenever you make art with a computer program, you're always on the tree, and the paradox is that for excellent art, you want to be off the tree. So, this is sort of a complication I've found. So, to get off the tree, I began to use my old computers. I took these to Tokyo in 2001 to make computer objects. This is a new way to type, on my old, color Classic. You can't type very much on this. I also discovered that an IR mouse responds to CRT emissions and starts to move by itself, so this is a self-drawing machine. And also, one year, the G3 Bondi Blue thing -- that caddy would come out, like, dangerous, like, "whack," like that. But I thought, "This is very interesting. What if I make like a car crash test?" So I have a crash test. (Laughter) And sort of measure the impact. Stuff like this are things I made, just to sort of understand what these things are. (Laughter) Shortly after this, 9/11 happened, and I was very depressed. I was concerned with contemporary art that was all about piss, and sort of really sad things, and so I wanted to think about something happy. So I focused on food as my area -- these sort of clementine peel things. In Japan, it's a wonderful thing to remove the clementine peel just in one piece. Who's done that before? One-piece clementine? Oh, you guys are missing out, if you haven't done it yet. It was very good, and I discovered I can make sculptures out of this, actually, in different forms. If you dry them quick, you can make, like, elephants and steers and stuff, and my wife didn't like these, because they mold, so I had to stop that. So, I went back to the computer, and I bought five large fries, and scanned them all. And I was looking for some kind of food theme, and I wrote some software to automatically lay out french-fry images. And as a child, I'd hear that song, you know, "Oh, beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain," so I made this amber waves image. It's sort of a Midwest cornfield out of french fries. And also, as a child, I was the fattest kid in class, so I used to love Cheetos. Oh, I love Cheetos, yummy. So, I wanted to play with Cheetos in some way. I wasn't sure where to go with this. I invented Cheeto paint. Cheeto paint is a very simple way to paint with Cheetos. (Laughter) I discovered that Cheetos are good, expressive material. And with these Cheetos, I began to think, "What can I make with these Cheetos?" And so, I began to crinkle up potato chip flecks, and also pretzels. I was looking for some kind of form, and in the end, I made 100 butter-fries. Do you get it? (Laughter) And each butter-fry is composed of different pieces. People ask me how they make the antenna. Sometimes, they find a hair in the food. That's my hair. My hair's clean -- it's okay. I'm a tenured professor, which means, basically, I don't have to work anymore. It's a strange business model. I can come into work everyday and staple five pieces of paper and just stare at it with my latte. End of story. (Laughter) But I realized that life could be very boring, so I've been thinking about life, and I notice that my camera -- my digital camera versus my car, a very strange thing. The car is so big, the camera is so small, yet the manual for the camera is so much bigger than the car manual. It doesn't make any sense. (Laughter) So, I was in the Cape one time, and I typed the word "simplicity," and I discovered, in this weird, M. Night Shyamalan way, that I discovered [the] letters, M, I, T. You know the word? In the words "simplicity" and "complexity," M, I, T occur in perfect sequence. It's a bit eerie, isn't it? So, I thought, maybe I'll do this for the next twenty years or something. And I wrote this book, "The Laws of Simplicity." It's a very short, simple book. There are ten laws and three keys. The ten laws and three keys -- I won't go over them because that's why I have a book, and also that's why it's on the Web for free. But the laws are kind of like sushi in a way: there are all kinds. In Japan, they say that sushi is challenging. You know the uni is the most challenging, so number ten is challenging. People hate number ten like they hate uni, actually. The three keys are easy to eat, so this is anago, cooked already, so easy to eat. So enjoy your sushi meal later, with the laws of simplicity. Because I want to simplify them for you. Because that's what this is about. I have to simplify this thing. So, if I simplify the laws of simplicity, I have what's called the cookie versus laundry thing. Anyone who has kids knows that if you offer a kid a big cookie or a small cookie, which cookie are they going to take? The big cookie. You can say the small cookie has Godiva chocolate bits in it, but it doesn't work. They want the big cookie. But if you offer kids two piles of laundry to fold, the small pile or the big pile, which will they choose? Strangely, not the big pile. So, I think it's as simple as this. You know, when you want more, it's because you want to enjoy it. When you want less, it's because it's about work. And so, to boil it all down, simplicity is about living life with more enjoyment and less pain. I think this is sort of simple more versus less. Basically, it always depends. This book I wrote because I want to figure out life. I love life. I love being alive. I like to see things. And so life is a big question, I think, in simplicity, because you're trying to simplify your life. And I just love to see the world. The world is an amazing place. By being at TED, we see so many things at one time. And I can't help but enjoy looking at everything in the world. Like everything you see, every time you wake up. It's such a joy to sort of experience everything in the world. From everything from a weird hotel lobby, to Saran wrap placed over your window, to this moment where I had my road in front of my house paved dark black, and this white moth was sitting there dying in the sun. And so, this whole thing has struck me as exciting to be here, because life is finite. This was given to me by the chairman of Shiseido. He's an expert in aging. This horizontal axis is how old you are -- twelve years old, twenty-four years old, seventy-four, ninety-six years old -- and this is some medical data. So, brain strength increases up to 60, and then after 60, it sort of goes down. Kind of depressing in a way. Also, if you look at your physical strength. You know, I have a lot of cocky freshmen at MIT, so I tell them, "Oh, your bodies are really getting stronger and stronger, but in your late twenties and mid-thirties, cells, they die." OK. It gets them to work harder, sometimes. And if you have your vision, vision is interesting. As you age from infant age, your vision gets better, and maybe in your late teens, early twenties, you're looking for a mate, and your vision goes after that. (Laughter) Your social responsibility is very interesting. So, as you get older, you may, like, have kids, whatever. And then the kids graduate, and you have no responsibility any more -- that's very good, too. But if any of you people ask, "What actually goes up? Does anything go up? What's the positive part of this, you know?" I think wisdom always goes up. I love these eighty-year-old, ninety-year-old guys and women. They have so many thoughts, and they have so much wisdom, and I think -- you know, this TED thing, I've come here. And this is the fourth time, and I come here for this wisdom, I think. This whole TED effect, it sort of ups your wisdom, somehow. And I'm so glad to be here, and I'm very grateful to be here, Chris. And this is an amazing experience for me as well.

There are more Chinese restaurants in this country than McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Wendy's, combined -- 40,000, actually. Chinese restaurants have played an important role in American history, as a matter of fact. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved in a Chinese restaurant called Yenching Palace in Washington, D.C., which unfortunately is closed now, and about to be turned into Walgreen's. And the house that John Wilkes Booth planned the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is actually also now a Chinese restaurant called Wok 'n Roll, on H Street in Washington. (Laughter) And it's not completely gratuitous, because wok and roll -- Chinese food and Japanese foods, so it kind of works out. And Americans love their Chinese food so much they've actually brought it into space. NASA, for example, serves thermal-stabilized sweet-and-sour pork on its shuttle menu for its astronauts. So, let me present the question to you: If our benchmark for Americanness is apple pie, you should ask yourself, how often do you eat apple pie, versus how often do you eat Chinese food. Right? (Laughter) And if you think about it, a lot of the foods that you think of or we think of or Americans think of as Chinese food are barely recognizable to Chinese, for example: beef with broccoli, egg rolls, General Tso's Chicken, fortune cookies, chop suey, the take-out boxes. For example, I took a whole bunch of fortune cookies back to China, gave them to Chinese to see how they would react. What is this? Should I try it? Try it! What is it called? Fortune cookie. There's a piece of paper inside! (Laughter) What is this? You've won a prize! What is this? It's a fortune! Tasty! So, where are they from? The short answer is, actually, they're from Japan. And in Kyoto, outside, there are still small family-run bakeries that make fortune cookies, as they did over 100 years ago, 30 years before fortune cookies were introduced in the United States. If you see them side by side, there's yellow and brown. Theirs are actually flavored with miso and sesame paste, so they're not as sweet as our version. So, how did they get to the United States? Well, the short answer is, the Japanese immigrants came over, and a bunch of the bakers introduced them -- including at least one in Los Angeles, and one here in San Francisco called Benkyo-do, which is on the corner of Sutter and Buchanan. They back then, actually, made fortune cookies using very much the similar kind of irons that we saw back in Kyoto. So, the interesting question is, how do you go from fortune cookies being something that is Japanese to being something that is Chinese? Well, the short answer is, we locked up all the Japanese during World War II, including those that made fortune cookies, so that's the time when the Chinese moved in, kind of saw a market opportunity and took over. (Laughter) So, fortune cookies: invented by the Japanese, popularized by the Chinese, but ultimately consumed by Americans. They are more American than anything else. Another one of my favorite dishes: General Tso's Chicken -- which, by the way, in the US Naval Academy is called Admiral Tso's Chicken. I love this dish. The original name in my book was actually called The Long March of General Tso, and he has marched very far indeed, because he is sweet, he is fried, and he is chicken -- all things that Americans love. (Laughter) He has marched so far, actually, that the chef who originally invented the dish doesn't recognize it; he's kind of horrified. He's in Taiwan right now. He's retired, deaf and plays a lot of Mahjong. So, he -- after this I showed him, he got up, and he's like, "Mominqimiao," which means, "This is all nonsense," and goes back to play his Mahjong game during the afternoon. So, another dish. One of my favorites. Beef with broccoli. Broccoli is not a Chinese vegetable; in fact, it is originally an Italian vegetable. It was introduced into the United States in the 1800s, but became popularized in the 1920s and the 1930s. In fact, the Chinese had their own version of broccoli, which is called Chinese broccoli, but right now, what -- they've now discovered American broccoli, and are importing it as a, sort of, exotic delicacy. I guarantee you, General Tso never saw a stalk of broccoli in his life -- and indeed, that actually was a picture of General Tso. I went to his home town. This is a billboard that says: "Welcome to the birthplace of General Tso." And I went looking for chicken. Finally found a cow -- and did find chicken. Believe it or not, these guys were actually crossing the road. And -- (Laughter) -- I actually found a whole bunch of General Tso's relatives who are still in the little town. This guy is now five generations removed from the General; this guy is about seven. Showed them all the pictures of General Tso Chicken that I showed you, and they're like, we don't know this dish. And then they're like, is this Chinese food? Because it doesn't look like Chinese food to them. But they weren't kind of surprised I traveled around the world to visit them, because in their eyes he is, after all, a famous Qing dynasty military hero. He played an important role in the Taiping rebellion, which was a war started by a guy who thought he was the son of God and the baby brother of Jesus Christ. And caused the war that killed 20 million people -- still the deadliest civil war in the world to this day. So, you know, I realized when I was there, General Tso is kind of a lot like Colonel Sanders in America, in that he's known for chicken and not war. But in China, this guy's actually known for war and not chicken. But the granddaddy of all the Chinese-American dishes we probably ought to talk about is chop suey, which was introduced around the turn of the 20th century. And according to New York Times, in 1904, there was an outbreak of Chinese restaurants all over town, and "the city has gone 'chop suey' mad." So it took about 30 years before the Americans realized that, whoa, chop suey is actually not known in China. And as this article points out, "The average native of any city in China knows nothing of chop suey." You know, back then it was a way to show that you were sophisticated and cosmopolitan: if you were a guy and you wanted to impress a girl, you could take her out on a chop suey date. I like to say chop suey's the biggest culinary joke that one culture has ever played on another, because chop suey, if you translate into Chinese, means tsap sui, which, if you translate back, means "odds and ends." So, these people are going around China asking for chop suey, which is sort of like a Japanese guy coming here and saying, I understand you have a very popular dish in your country called "leftovers," and it is particularly -- (Laughter) -- right? And not only that: this dish is particularly popular after that holiday you call Thanksgiving. (Laughter) So, why -- why and where -- did chop suey come from? Let's go back to mid-1800s when the Chinese first came to America. Now back then, the Americans were not clamoring to eat Chinese food. In fact, they saw this people who landed at their shores as alien. These people weren't eating dogs -- they were eating cats -- and they weren't eating cats -- they were eating rats. In fact, The New York Times, my esteemed employer, in 1883 ran an article that asked, "Do Chinese eat rats?" And not the most PC question to be asked today, but if you kind of look at the popular imagery of the time, not so outlandish. This is actually a real advertisement for rat poison from the late 1800s, and if you see, under the word "Clears" -- very small -- it says, "They must go," which refers not only to the rats, but to the Chinese in their midst, because the way that the food was perceived was that these people who ate foods different from us must be different from us. And another way that you saw, sort of, this sort of, this antipathy towards the Chinese is through documents like this. This is actually in the Library of Congress; it is a pamphlet published by Samuel Gompers, hero of our American labor movement, and it's called, "Some Reason for Chinese Exclusion: Meat versus Rice: American Manhood against Asiatic Coolieism: Which shall survive? And it basically made the argument that Chinese men who ate rice would necessarily bring down the standard of living for American men who ate meat. And as a matter of fact, then, this is one of the reasons why we must exclude them from this country So, with sentiments like these, the Chinese Exclusion Act was sort of passed between 1882 and 1902, the only time in American history when a group was specifically excluded for its national origin or ethnicity. So, in a way, because the Chinese were attacked, chop suey was created as a defense mechanism. Now, who came up with the idea of chop suey? There's a lot of different mysteries, a lot of different legends, but of the ones that I've found that I thought was most interesting is this article from 1904. A Chinese guy named Lem Sen shows up in Chinatown, New York City, and says, I want you guys all to stop making chop suey, because I am the original creator and sole proprietor of the dish known as chop suey. And the way that he tells it, there was a guy, there was a famous Chinese diplomat that showed up, and he was told to make a dish that looked very popular and could, quote, "pass" as Chinese. And as he said -- we would never print this today -- but basically, the American man has become very rich. Lem Sen, who's this guy: I would have made this money, too, but I've spent all this time looking for the American man who stole my recipe. Now I've come and found him, and I want my recipe back and I want everyone to stop making chop suey, or pay me for the right to do the same. So it was an early exercise of intellectual property rights. So the thing is, this kind of idea of Chinese-American food doesn't exist only in America. In fact, if you think about it, Chinese food is the most pervasive food on the planet, served on all seven continents, even Antarctica, because Monday night is Chinese food night at McMurdo Station, which is the main scientific station in Antarctica. So, you see different varieties of Chinese food. For example, there is French Chinese food, where they serve salt and pepper frog legs. There is Italian Chinese food, where they don't have fortune cookies, so they serve fried gelato. My downstairs neighbor, Alessandra, was completely shocked when I told her, "Dude, fried gelato is not Chinese." She's like, "It's not? But they serve it in all the Chinese restaurants in Italy." (Laughter) And even the Brits have their own version. This is a dish called crispy shredded beef, which has a lot of crisp, a lot of shred, and not a lot of beef. There is West Indian Chinese food, there's Jamaican Chinese food, there is Middle Eastern Chinese food, there's Mauritian Chinese food. This is a dish called Magic Bowl that I discovered. There's Indian Chinese food, Korean Chinese food, Japanese Chinese food, where they take the bao, the little buns, and they make them into pizza versions, and they take -- and they -- like, totally randomly they'll take Chinese noodle dishes, and they'll just Ramen-ize them. This is, like, this is something that in the Chinese version has no soup. So, there's Peruvian Chinese food, which should not be mixed with Mexican Chinese food, where they basically take things and make it look like fajitas. And then -- one thing: they have things like risotto chop suey. My personal favorite of all the restaurants I've encountered around the world was this one in Brazil, called "Kung Food." (Laughter) So, let's take a step back, and kind of, understand what is to be appreciated in America. McDonald's has, sort of, garnered a lot of attention, a lot of respect, for basically standardizing the menu, décor and dining experience in post-World War II America. But you know what? They actually did so through a centralized headquarters out of Illinois, right? Chinese restaurants have done largely the same thing, I would argue, with the menu and the décor -- even the restaurant name -- but without a centralized headquarters. So, this actually became very clear to me with the March 30, 2005 Powerball drawing, where, you know, they expected, based on the number of ticket sales they had, to have three or four second-place winners -- those are the people who match five or six Powerball numbers. Instead, they had 110, and they were completely shocked. They looked all across the country, and discovered it couldn't necessarily be fraud, because it happened, you know, in different states, across different computer systems. So whatever it was, it caused people to sort of behave in a mass synchronized way. So, like, OK, maybe it had to do with the patterns on the little pieces of paper -- you know, like, it was a diamond, or, you know, diagonal. It wasn't that. It wasn't that, so they're like, OK, let's look at television, so they looked at an episode of "Lost." Now, I don't have a TV, which makes me a freak, but very productive, and -- (Laughter) -- and this episode of "Lost," I understand, where the overweight guy has a lucky number which was not a lucky number, which was how long they'd been on the island, but they looked, and the numbers did not match. So they looked at "The Young and The Restless," and it wasn't that, either. So, it wasn't until the first guy shows up the next day, and they ask him, "Where did you get your number from?" He's like, "Oh, I got it from a fortune cookie." This actually is a slip that one of the winners had, because the Tennessee lottery security officials were like, oh, no -- like, this can't be true. But it was true, and basically, of those 110 people, and 104 of them or so had gotten their number from the fortune cookie. (Laughter) Yeah. So, I went and started looking. I went across the country, looking for these restaurants where these people had gotten their fortune cookies from. You know, there are a bunch of them, including Lee's China in Omaha -- which is actually run by Koreans, but that's another point -- and a bunch of them named China Buffet. So, what's interesting is that their stories were similar, but they were different. It was lunch, it was take-out, it was sit-down, it was buffet, it was three weeks ago, it was three months ago. But at some point, all these people had a very similar experience that converged at a fortune cookie and at a Chinese restaurant, and all these Chinese restaurants were serving fortune cookies, which, of course we know aren't even Chinese to begin with. So it's kind of part of the phenomenon I called spontaneous self-organization, right, where, like in ant colonies, where little decisions made by -- on the micro-level actually have a big impact on the macro-level. So, a good sort of contrast is Chicken McNuggets. McDonald's actually spent 10 years coming out with a chicken-like product. They did chicken pot pie, they did fried chicken, and then they finally introduced Chicken McNuggets. And the great innovation of Chicken McNuggets was not nuggetfying them, because that's kind of an easy concept, but the trick behind Chicken McNuggets was, they were able to remove the chicken from the bone in a cost-effective manner, which is why it took so long for other people to copy them. It took 10 years, and then within a couple of months, it was such a hit they just introduced it and rolled it across the entire system of McDonald's in the country. In contrast, we have General Tso's Chicken, which actually started in New York City in the early 1970s, as I was also starting in the university in New York City in the early 1970s, so ... And this logo! So me, General Tso's Chicken and this logo are all karmacally related. But that dish also took about 10 years to spread across America from a random restaurant in New York City. Someone's like, oh, God -- it's sweet, it's fried, it's chicken: Americans will love this. So, what I like to say, you know, this being sort of Bay Area, Silicon Valley -- is that we think of McDonald's as sort of the Microsoft of the dining experiences. We can think of Chinese restaurants perhaps as Linux: sort of an open source thing, right, where ideas from one person can be copied and propagated across the entire system, that there can be specialized versions of Chinese food, you know, depending on the region. For example, you know, in New Orleans we have Cajun Chinese food, where they serve Sichuan alligator and sweet and sour crawfish, right? And in Philadelphia, you have Philadelphia cheesesteak roll, which looks like an egg roll on the outside, but a cheesesteak on the inside. I was really surprised to discover that, not only in Philadelphia, but also in Atlanta, because what had happened was that a Chinese family had moved from Atlanta to -- sorry, from Philadelphia to Atlanta, and brought that with them. So, the thing is, our historical lore, because of the way we like narratives, are full of vast characters such as, you know, Howard Schultz of Starbucks and Ray Kroc with McDonald's and Asa Chandler with Coca-Cola. But, you know, it's very easy to overlook the smaller characters -- oops -- for example, like Lem Sen, who introduced chop suey, Chef Peng, who introduced General Tso Chicken, and all the Japanese bakers who introduced fortune cookies. So, the point of my presentation is to make you think twice, that those whose names are forgotten in history can often have had as much, if not more, impact on what we eat today. So. Thank you very much.

As an Indian, and now as a politician and a government minister, I've become rather concerned about the hype we're hearing about our own country, all this talk about India becoming a world leader, even the next superpower. In fact, the American publishers of my book, "The Elephant, The Tiger and the Cell Phone," added a gratuitous subtitle saying, "India: The next 21st-century power." And I just don't think that's what India's all about, or should be all about. Indeed, what worries me is the entire notion of world leadership seems to me terribly archaic. It's redolent of James Bond movies and Kipling ballads. After all, what constitutes a world leader? If it's population, we're on course to top the charts. We will overtake China by 2034. Is it military strength? Well, we have the world's fourth largest army. Is it nuclear capacity? We know we have that. The Americans have even recognized it, in an agreement. Is it the economy? Well, we have now the fifth-largest economy in the world in purchasing power parity terms. And we continue to grow. When the rest of the world took a beating last year, we grew at 6.7 percent. But, somehow, none of that adds up to me, to what I think India really can aim to contribute in the world, in this part of the 21st century. And so I wondered, could what the future beckons for India to be all about be a combination of these things allied to something else, the power of example, the attraction of India's culture, what, in other words, people like to call "soft power." Soft power is a concept invented by a Harvard academic, Joseph Nye, a friend of mine. And, very simply, and I'm really cutting it short because of the time limits here, it's essentially the ability of a country to attract others because of its culture, its political values, its foreign policies. And, you know, lots of countries do this. He was writing initially about the States, but we know the Alliance Francaise is all about French soft power, the British Council. The Beijing Olympics were an exercise in Chinese soft power. Americans have the Voice of America and the Fulbright scholarships. But, the fact is, in fact, that probably Hollywood and MTV and McDonalds have done more for American soft power around the world than any specifically government activity. So soft power is something that really emerges partly because of governments, but partly despite governments. And in the information era we all live in today, what we might call the TED age, I'd say that countries are increasingly being judged by a global public that's been fed on an incessant diet of Internet news, of televised images, of cellphone videos, of email gossip. In other words, all sorts of communication devices are telling us the stories of countries, whether or not the countries concerned want people to hear those stories. Now, in this age, again, countries with access to multiple channels of communication and information have a particular advantage. And of course they have more influence, sometimes, about how they're seen. India has more all-news TV channels than any country in the world, in fact in most of the countries in this part of the world put together. But, the fact still is that it's not just that. In order to have soft power, you have to be connected. One might argue that India has become an astonishingly connected country. I think you've already heard the figures. We've been selling 15 million cellphones a month. Currently there are 509 million cellphones in Indian hands, in India. And that makes us larger than the U.S. as a telephone market. In fact, those 15 million cellphones are the most connections that any country, including the U.S. and China, has ever established in the history of telecommunications. But, what perhaps some of you don't realize is how far we've come to get there. You know, when I grew up in India, telephones were a rarity. In fact, they were so rare that elected members of Parliament had the right to allocate 15 telephone lines as a favor to those they deemed worthy. If you were lucky enough to be a wealthy businessman or an influential journalist, or a doctor or something, you might have a telephone. But sometimes it just sat there. I went to high school in Calcutta. And we would look at this instrument sitting in the front foyer. But half the time we would pick it up with an expectant look on our faces, there would be no dial tone. If there was a dial tone and you dialed a number, the odds were two in three you wouldn't get the number you were intending to reach. In fact the words "wrong number" were more popular than the word "Hello." (Laughter) If you then wanted to connect to another city, let's say from Calcutta you wanted to call Delhi, you'd have to book something called a trunk call, and then sit by the phone all day, waiting for it to come through. Or you could pay eight times the going rate for something called a lightning call. But, lightning struck rather slowly in our country in those days, so, it was like about a half an hour for a lightning call to come through. In fact, so woeful was our telephone service that a Member of Parliament stood up in 1984 and complained about this. And the Then-Communications Minister replied in a lordly manner that in a developing country communications are a luxury, not a right, that the government had no obligation to provide better service, and if the honorable Member wasn't satisfied with his telephone, could he please return it, since there was an eight-year-long waiting list for telephones in India. Now, fast-forward to today and this is what you see: the 15 million cell phones a month. But what is most striking is who is carrying those cell phones. You know, if you visit friends in the suburbs of Delhi, on the side streets you will find a fellow with a cart that looks like it was designed in the 16th century, wielding a coal-fired steam iron that might have been invented in the 18th century. He's called an isthri wala. But he's carrying a 21st-century instrument. He's carrying a cell phone because most incoming calls are free, and that's how he gets orders from the neighborhood, to know where to collect clothes to get them ironed. The other day I was in Kerala, my home state, at the country farm of a friend, about 20 kilometers away from any place you'd consider urban. And it was a hot day and he said, "Hey, would you like some fresh coconut water?" And it's the best thing and the most nutritious and refreshing thing you can drink on a hot day in the tropics, so I said sure. And he whipped out his cellphone, dialed the number, and a voice said, "I'm up here." And right on top of the nearest coconut tree, with a hatchet in one hand and a cell phone in the other, was a local toddy tapper, who proceeded to bring down the coconuts for us to drink. Fishermen are going out to sea and carrying their cell phones. When they catch the fish they call all the market towns along the coast to find out where they get the best possible prices. Farmers now, who used to have to spend half a day of backbreaking labor to find out if the market town was open, if the market was on, whether the product they'd harvested could be sold, what price they'd fetch. They'd often send an eight year old boy all the way on this trudge to the market town to get that information and come back, then they'd load the cart. Today they're saving half a day's labor with a two minute phone call. So this empowerment of the underclass is the real result of India being connected. And that transformation is part of where India is heading today. But, of course that's not the only thing about India that's spreading. You've got Bollywood. My attitude to Bollywood is best summarized in the tale of the two goats at a Bollywood garbage dump -- Mr. Shekhar Kapur, forgive me -- and they're chewing away on cans of celluloid discarded by a Bollywood studio. And the first goat, chewing away, says, "You know, this film is not bad." And the second goat says, "No, the book was better." (Laughter) I usually tend to think that the book is usually better, but, having said that, the fact is that Bollywood is now taking a certain aspect of Indian-ness and Indian culture around the globe, not just in the Indian diaspora in the U.S. and the U.K., but to the screens of Arabs and Africans, of Senegalese and Syrians. I've met a young man in New York whose illiterate mother in a village in Senegal takes a bus once a month to the capital city of Dakar, just to watch a Bollywood movie. She can't understand the dialogue. She's illiterate, so she can't read the French subtitles. But these movies are made to be understood despite such handicaps, and she has a great time in the song and the dance and the action. She goes away with stars in her eyes about India, as a result. And this is happening more and more. Afghanistan, we know what a serious security problem Afghanistan is for so many of us in the world. India doesn't have a military mission there. You know what was India's biggest asset in Afghanistan in the last seven years? One simple fact: you couldn't try to call an Afghan at 8:30 in the evening. Why? Because that was the moment when the Indian television soap opera, "Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi," dubbed into Dari, was telecast on Tolo T.V. And it was the most popular television show in Afghan history. Every Afghan family wanted to watch it. They had to suspend functions at 8:30. Weddings were reported to be interrupted so guests could cluster around the T.V. set, and then turn their attention back to the bride and groom. Crime went up at 8:30. I have read a Reuters dispatch -- so this is not Indian propaganda, a British news agency -- about how robbers in the town of Musarri Sharif* stripped a vehicle of its windshield wipers, its hubcaps, its sideview mirrors, any moving part they could find, at 8:30, because the watchmen were busy watching the T.V. rather than minding the store. And they scrawled on the windshield in a reference to the show's heroine, "Tulsi Zindabad": "Long live Tulsi." (Laughter) That's soft power. And that is what India is developing through the "E" part of TED: its own entertainment industry. The same is true, of course -- we don't have time for too many more examples -- but it's true of our music, of our dance, of our art, yoga, ayurveda, even Indian cuisine. I mean, the proliferation of Indian restaurants since I first went abroad as a student, in the mid '70s, and what I see today, you can't go to a mid-size town in Europe or North America and not find an Indian restaurant. It may not be a very good one. But, today in Britain, for example, Indian restaurants in Britain employ more people than the coal mining, ship building and iron and steel industries combined. So the empire can strike back. (Applause) But, with this increasing awareness of India, with you and with I, and so on, with tales like Afghanistan, comes something vital in the information era, the sense that in today's world it's not the side of the bigger army that wins, it's the country that tells a better story that prevails. And India is, and must remain, in my view, the land of the better story. Stereotypes are changing. I mean, again, having gone to the U.S. as a student in the mid '70s, I knew what the image of India was then, if there was an image at all. Today, people in Silicon Valley and elsewhere speak of the IITs, the Indian Institutes of Technology with the same reverence they used to accord to MIT. This can sometimes have unintended consequences. OK. I had a friend, a history major like me, who was accosted at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, by an anxiously perspiring European saying, "You're Indian, you're Indian! Can you help me fix my laptop?" (Laughter) We've gone from the image of India as land of fakirs lying on beds of nails, and snake charmers with the Indian rope trick, to the image of India as a land of mathematical geniuses, computer wizards, software gurus. But that too is transforming the Indian story around the world. But, there is something more substantive to that. The story rests on a fundamental platform of political pluralism. It's a civilizational story to begin with. Because India has been an open society for millennia. India gave refuge to the Jews, fleeing the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians, and said thereafter by the Romans. In fact, legend has is that when Doubting Thomas, the Apostle, Saint Thomas, landed on the shores of Kerala, my home state, somewhere around 52 A.D., he was welcomed on shore by a flute-playing Jewish girl. And to this day remains the only Jewish diaspora in the history of the Jewish people, which has never encountered a single incident of anti-semitism. (Applause) That's the Indian story. Islam came peacefully to the south, slightly more differently complicated history in the north. But all of these religions have found a place and a welcome home in India. You know, we just celebrated, this year, our general elections, the biggest exercise in democratic franchise in human history. And the next one will be even bigger, because our voting population keeps growing by 20 million a year. But, the fact is that the last elections, five years ago, gave the world extraordinary phenomenon of an election being won by a woman political leader of Italian origin and Roman Catholic faith, Sonia Gandhi, who then made way for a Sikh, Mohan Singh, to be sworn in as Prime Minister by a Muslim, President Abdul Kalam, in a country 81 percent Hindu. (Applause) This is India, and of course it's all the more striking because it was four years later that we all applauded the U.S., the oldest democracy in the modern world, more than 220 years of free and fair elections, which took till last year to elect a president or a vice president who wasn't white, male or Christian. So, maybe -- oh sorry, he is Christian, I beg your pardon -- and he is male, but he isn't white. All the others have been all those three. (Laughter) All his predecessors have been all those three, and that's the point I was trying to make. (Laughter) But, the issue is that when I talked about that example, it's not just about talking about India, it's not propaganda. Because ultimately, that electoral outcome had nothing to do with the rest of the world. It was essentially India being itself. And ultimately, it seems to me, that always works better than propaganda. Governments aren't very good at telling stories. But people see a society for what it is, and that, it seems to me, is what ultimately will make a difference in today's information era, in today's TED age. So India now is no longer the nationalism of ethnicity or language or religion, because we have every ethnicity known to mankind, practically, we've every religion know to mankind, with the possible exception of Shintoism, though that has some Hindu elements somewhere. We have 23 official languages that are recognized in our Constitution. And those of you who cashed your money here might be surprised to see how many scripts there are on the rupee note, spelling out the denominations. We've got all of that. We don't even have geography uniting us, because the natural geography of the subcontinent framed by the mountains and the sea was hacked by the partition with Pakistan in 1947. In fact, you can't even take the name of the country for granted, because the name "India" comes from the river Indus, which flows in Pakistan. But, the whole point is that India is the nationalism of an idea. It's the idea of an ever-ever-land, emerging from an ancient civilization, united by a shared history, but sustained, above all, by pluralist democracy. That is a 21st-century story as well as an ancient one. And it's the nationalism of an idea that essentially says you can endure differences of caste, creed, color, culture, cuisine, custom and costume, consonant, for that matter, and still rally around a consensus. And the consensus is of a very simple principle, that in a diverse plural democracy like India you don't really have to agree on everything all the time, so long as you agree on the ground rules of how you will disagree. The great success story of India, a country that so many learned scholars and journalists assumed would disintegrate, in the '50s and '60s, is that it managed to maintain consensus on how to survive without consensus. Now, that is the India that is emerging into the 21st century. And I do want to make the point that if there is anything worth celebrating about India, it isn't military muscle, economic power. All of that is necessary, but we still have huge amounts of problems to overcome. Somebody said we are super poor, and we are also super power. We can't really be both of those. We have to overcome our poverty. We have to deal with the hardware of development, the ports, the roads, the airports, all the infrastructural things we need to do, and the software of development, the human capital, the need for the ordinary person in India to be able to have a couple of square meals a day, to be able to send his or her children to a decent school, and to aspire to work a job that will give them opportunities in their lives that can transform themselves. But, it's all taking place, this great adventure of conquering those challenges, those real challenges which none of us can pretend don't exist. But, it's all taking place in an open society, in a rich and diverse and plural civilization, in one that is determined to liberate and fulfill the creative energies of its people. That's why India belongs at TED, and that's why TED belongs in India. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I guess the story actually has to start maybe back in the the 1960s, when I was seven or eight years old, watching Jacques Cousteau documentaries on the living room floor with my mask and flippers on. Then after every episode, I had to go up to the bathtub and swim around the bathtub and look at the drain, because that's all there was to look at. And by the time I turned 16, I pursued a career in marine science, in exploration and diving, and lived in underwater habitats, like this one off the Florida Keys, for 30 days total. Brian Skerry took this shot. Thanks, Brian. And I've dived in deep-sea submersibles around the world. And this one is the deepest diving submarine in the world, operated by the Japanese government. And Sylvia Earle and I were on an expedition in this submarine 20 years ago in Japan. And on my dive, I went down 18,000 feet, to an area that I thought would be pristine wilderness area on the sea floor. But when I got there, I found lots of plastic garbage and other debris. And it was really a turning point in my life, where I started to realize that I couldn't just go have fun doing science and exploration. I needed to put it into a context. I needed to head towards conservation goals. So I began to work with National Geographic Society and others and led expeditions to Antarctica. I led three diving expeditions to Antarctica. Ten years ago was a seminal trip, where we explored that big iceberg, B-15, the largest iceberg in history, that broke off the Ross Ice Shelf. And we developed techniques to dive inside and under the iceberg, such as heating pads on our kidneys with a battery that we dragged around, so that, as the blood flowed through our kidneys, it would get a little boost of warmth before going back into our bodies. But after three trips to Antarctica, I decided that it might be nicer to work in warmer water. And that same year, 10 years ago, I headed north to the Phoenix Islands. And I'm going to tell you that story here in a moment. But before I do, I just want you to ponder this graph for a moment. You may have seen this in other forms, but the top line is the amount of protected area on land, globally, and it's about 12 percent. And you can see that it kind of hockey sticks up around the 1960s and '70s, and it's on kind of a nice trajectory right now. And that's probably because that's when everybody got aware of the environment and Earth Day and all the stuff that happened in the '60s with the Hippies and everything really did, I think, have an affect on global awareness. But the ocean-protected area is basically flat line until right about now -- it appears to be ticking up. And I do believe that we are at the hockey stick point of the protected area in the ocean. I think we would have gotten there a lot earlier if we could see what happens in the ocean like we can see what happens on land. But unfortunately, the ocean is opaque, and we can't see what's going on. And therefore we're way behind on protection. But scuba diving, submersibles and all the work that we're setting about to do here will help rectify that. So where are the Phoenix Islands? They were the world's largest marine-protected area up until last week when the Chagos Archipelago was declared. It's in the mid-Pacific. It's about five days from anywhere. If you want to get to the Phoenix Islands, it's five days from Fiji, it's five days from Hawaii, it's five days from Samoa. It's out in the middle of the Pacific, right around the Equator. I had never heard of the islands 10 years ago, nor the country, Kiribati, that owns them, till two friends of mine who run a liveaboard dive boat in Fiji said, "Greg, would you lead a scientific expedition up to these islands? They've never been dived." And I said, "Yeah. But tell me where they are and the country that owns them." So that's when I first learned of the Islands and had no idea what I was getting into. But I was in for the adventure. Let me give you a little peek here of the Phoenix Islands-protected area. It's a very deep-water part of our planet. The average depths are about 12,000 ft. There's lots of seamounts in the Phoenix Islands, which are specifically part of the protected area. Seamounts are important for biodiversity. There's actually more mountains in the ocean than there are on land. It's an interesting fact. And the Phoenix Islands is very rich in those seamounts. So it's a deep -- think about it in a big three-dimensional space, very deep three-dimensional space with herds of tuna, whales, all kinds of deep sea marine life like we've seen here before. That's the vessel that we took up there for these studies, early on, and that's what the Islands look like -- you can see in the background. They're very low to the water, and they're all uninhabited, except one island has about 35 caretakers on it. And they've been uninhabited for most of time because even in the ancient days, these islands were too far away from the bright lights of Fiji and Hawaii and Tahiti for those ancient Polynesian mariners that were traversing the Pacific so widely. But we got up there, and I had the unique and wonderful scientific opportunity and personal opportunity to get to a place that had never been dived and just get to an island and go, "Okay, where are we going to dive? Let's try there," and then falling into the water. Both my personal and my professional life changed. Suddenly, I saw a world that I had never seen before in the ocean -- schools of fish that were so dense they dulled the penetration of sunlight from the surface, coral reefs that were continuous and solid and colorful, large fish everywhere, manta rays. It was an ecosystem. Parrotfish spawning -- this is about 5,000 longnose parrotfish spawning at the entrance to one of the Phoenix Islands. You can see the fish are balled up and then there's a little cloudy area there where they're exchanging the eggs and sperm for reproduction -- events that the ocean is supposed to do, but struggles to do in many places now because of human activity. The Phoenix Islands and all the equatorial parts of our planet are very important for tuna fisheries, especially this yellowfin tuna that you see here. Phoenix Islands is a major tuna location. And sharks -- we had sharks on our early dives, up to 150 sharks at once, which is an indication of a very, very healthy, very strong, system. So I thought the scenes of never-ending wilderness would go on forever, but they did finally come to an end. And we explored the surface of the Islands as well -- very important bird nesting site, some of the most important bird-nesting sites in the Pacific, in the world. And we finished our trip. And that's the area again. You can see the Islands -- there are eight islands -- that pop out of the water. The peaks that don't come out of the water are the seamounts. Remember, a seamount turns into an island when it hits the surface. And what's the context of the Phoenix Islands? Where do these exist? Well they exist in the Republic of Kiribati, and Kiribati is located in the Central Pacific in three island groups. In the west we have the Gilbert Islands. In the center we have the Phoenix Islands, which is the subject that I'm talking about. And then over to the east we have the Line Islands. It's the largest atoll nation in the world. And they have about 110,000 people spread out over 33 islands. They control 3.4 million cubic miles of ocean, and that's between one and two percent of all the ocean water on the planet. And when I was first going up there, I barely knew the name of this country 10 years ago, and people would ask me, "Why are you going to this place called Kiribati?" And it reminded me of that old joke where the bank robber comes out of the courthouse handcuffed, and the reporter yells, "Hey, Willy. Why do you rob banks?" And he says, "cause that's where all the money is." And I would tell people, "Why do I go to Kiribati? Because that's where all the ocean is." They basically are one nation that controls most of the equatorial waters of the Central Pacific Ocean. They're also a country that is in dire danger. Sea levels are rising, and Kiribati, along with 42 other nations in the world, will be under water within 50 to 100 years due to climate change and the associated sea-level rise from thermal expansion and the melting of freshwater into the ocean. The Islands rise only one to two meters above the surface. Some of the islands have already gone under water. And these nations are faced with a real problem. We as a world are faced with a problem. What do we do with displaced fellow Earthlings who no longer have a home on the planet? The president of the Maldives conducted a mock cabinet meeting underwater recently to highlight the dire straits of these countries. So it's something we need to focus on. But back to the Phoenix Islands, which is the subject of this Talk. After I got back, I said, okay, this is amazing, what we found. I'd like to go back and share it with the government of Kiribati, who are over in Tarawa, the westernmost group. So I started contacting them -- because they had actually given me a permit to do this -- and I said, "I want to come up and tell you what we found." And for some reason they didn't want me to come, or it was hard to find a time and a place, and it took a while, but finally they said, "Okay, you can come. But if you come, you have to buy lunch for everybody who comes to the seminar." So I said, "Okay, I'm happy to buy lunch. Just get whatever anybody wants." So David Obura, a coral reef biologist, and I went to Tarawa, and we presented for two hours on the amazing findings of the Phoenix Islands. And the country never knew this. They never had any data from this area. They'd never had any information from the Phoenix Islands. After the talk, the Minister of Fisheries walked up to me and he said, "Greg, do you realize that you are the first scientist who has ever come back and told us what they did?" He said, "We often issue these permits to do research in our waters, but usually we get a note two or three years later, or a reprint. But you're the first one who's ever come back and told us what you did. And we really appreciate that. And we're buying you lunch today. And are you free for dinner?" And I was free for dinner, and I went out to dinner with the Minister of Fisheries in Kiribati. And over the course of dinner, I learned that Kiribati gains most of its revenue -- it's a very poor country -- but it gains what revenue is has by selling access to foreign nations to take fish out of its waters, because Kiribati does not have the capacity to take the fish itself. And the deal that they strike is the extracting country gives Kiribati five percent of the landed value. So if the United States removes a million dollars' worth of lobsters from a reef, Kiribati gets 50,000 dollars. And, you know, it didn't seem like a very good deal to me. So I asked the Minister over dinner, I said, "Would you consider a situation where you would still get paid -- we do the math and figure out what the value of the resource is -- but you leave fish and the sharks and the shrimp in the water?" He stopped, and he said, "Yes, we would like to do that to deal with our overfishing problem, and I think we would call it a reverse fishing license." He coined the term "reverse fishing license." So I said, "Yes, a 'reverse fishing license.'" So we walked away from this dinner really not knowing where to go at that point. I went back to the States and started looking around to see if I could find examples where reverse fishing licenses had been issued, and it turned out there were none. There were no oceanic deals where countries were compensated for not fishing. It had occurred on land, in rainforests of South America and Africa, where landowners had been paid not to cut the trees down. And Conservation International had struck some of those deals. So I went to Conservation International and brought them in as a partner and went through the process of valuing the fishery resource, deciding how much Kiribati should be compensated, what the range of the fishes were, brought in a whole bunch of other partners -- the government of Australia, the government of New Zealand, the World Bank. The Oak Foundation and National Geographic have been big funders of this as well. And we basically founded the park on the idea of an endowment that would pay the equivalent lost fishing license fees to this very poor country to keep the area intact. Halfway through this process, I met the president of Kiribati, President Anote Tong. He's a really important leader, a real visionary, forward-thinking man, and he told me two things when I approached him. He said, "Greg, there's two things I'd like you to do. One is, remember I'm a politician, so you've got to go out and work with my ministers and convince the people of Kiribati that this is a good idea. Secondly, I'd like you to create principles that will transcend my own presidency. I don't want to do something like this if it's going to go away after I'm voted out of office." So we had very strong leadership, very good vision and a lot of science, a lot of lawyers involved. Many, many steps were taken to pull this off. And it was primarily because Kiribati realized that this was in their own self-interest to do this. They realized that this was a common cause that they had found with the conservation community. Then in 2002, when this was all going full-swing, a coral-bleaching event happened in the Phoenix Islands. Here's this resource that we're looking to save, and it turns out it's the hottest heating event that we can find on record. The ocean heated up as it does sometimes, and the hot spot formed and stalled right over the Phoenix Islands for six months. It was over 32 degrees Celsius for six months and it basically killed 60 percent of the coral. So suddenly we had this area that we were protecting, but now it appeared to be dead, at least in the coral areas. Of course the deep-sea areas and the open ocean areas were fine, but the coral, which everybody likes to look at, was in trouble. Well, the good news is it's recovered and recovering fast, faster than any reef we've seen. This picture was just taken by Brian Skerry a few months ago when we returned to the Phoenix Islands and discovered that, because it is a protected area and has healthy fish populations that keep the algae grazed down and keep the rest of the reef healthy, the coral is booming, is just booming back. It's almost like if a person has multiple diseases, it's hard to get well, you might die, but if you only have one disease to deal with, you can get better. And that's the story with climate-change heating. It's the only threat, the only influence that the reef had to deal with. There was no fishing, there was no pollution, there was no coastal development, and the reef is on a full-bore recovery. Now I remember that dinner I had with the Minister of Fisheries 10 years ago when we first brought this up and I got quite animated during the dinner and said, "Well, I think that the conservation community might embrace this idea, Minister." He paused and put his hands together and said, "Yes, Greg, but the devil will be in the details," he said. And it certainly was. The last 10 years have been detail after detail ranging from creating legislation to multiple research expeditions to communication plans, as I said, teams of lawyers, MOUs, creating the Phoenix Islands Trust Board. And we are now in the process of raising the full endowment. Kiribati has frozen extracting activities at its current state while we raise the endowment. We just had our first PIPA Trust Board meeting three weeks ago. So it's a fully functional up-and-running entity that negotiates the reverse fishing license with the country. And the PIPA Trust Board holds that license and pays the country for this. So it's a very solid, very well thought-out, very well grounded system, and it was a bottom-up system, and that was very important with this work, from the bottom up to secure this. So the conditions for success here are listed. You can read them yourselves. But I would say the most important one in my mind was working within the market forces of the situation. And that insured that we could move this forward and it would have both the self-interest of Kiribati as well as the self-interest of the world. And I'll leave you with one final slide, that is: how do we scale this up? How do we realize Sylvia's dream? Where eventually do we take this? Here's the Pacific with large MPAs and large conservation zones on it. And as you can see, we have a patchwork across this ocean. I've just described to you the one story behind that rectangular area in the middle, the Phoenix Islands, but every other green patch on that has its own story. And what we need to do now is look at the whole Pacific Ocean in its entirety and make a network of MPAs across the Pacific so that we have our world's largest ocean protected and self-sustaining over time. Thank you very much. (Applause)

About four years ago, the New Yorker published an article about a cache of dodo bones that was found in a pit on the island of Mauritius. Now, the island of Mauritius is a small island off the east coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean, and it is the place where the dodo bird was discovered and extinguished, all within about 150 years. Everyone was very excited about this archaeological find, because it meant that they might finally be able to assemble a single dodo skeleton. See, while museums all over the world have dodo skeletons in their collection, nobody -- not even the actual Natural History Museum on the island of Mauritius -- has a skeleton that's made from the bones of a single dodo. Well, this isn't exactly true. The fact is, is that the British Museum had a complete specimen of a dodo in their collection up until the 18th century -- it was actually mummified, skin and all -- but in a fit of space-saving zeal, they actually cut off the head and they cut off the feet and they burned the rest in a bonfire. If you go look at their website today, they'll actually list these specimens, saying, the rest was lost in a fire. Not quite the whole truth. Anyway. The frontispiece of this article was this photo, and I'm one of the people that thinks that Tina Brown was great for bringing photos to the New Yorker, because this photo completely rocked my world. I became obsessed with the object -- not just the beautiful photograph itself, and the color, the shallow depth of field, the detail that's visible, the wire you can see on the beak there that the conservator used to put this skeleton together -- there's an entire story here. And I thought to myself, wouldn't it be great if I had my own dodo skeleton? (Laughter) I want to point out here at this point that I've spent my life obsessed by objects and the stories that they tell, and this was the very latest one. So I began looking around for -- to see if anyone sold a kit, some kind of model that I could get, and I found lots of reference material, lots of lovely pictures. No dice: no dodo skeleton for me. But the damage had been done. I had saved a few hundred photos of dodo skeletons into my "Creative Projects" folder -- it's a repository for my brain, everything that I could possibly be interested in. Any time I have an internet connection, there's a sluice of stuff moving into there, everything from beautiful rings to cockpit photos. The key that the Marquis du Lafayette sent to George Washington to celebrate the storming of the Bastille. Russian nuclear launch key: The one on the top is the picture of the one I found on eBay; the one on the bottom is the one I made for myself, because I couldn't afford the one on eBay. Storm trooper costumes. Maps of Middle Earth -- that's one I hand-drew myself. There's the dodo skeleton folder. This folder has 17,000 photos -- over 20 gigabytes of information -- and it's growing constantly. And one day, a couple of weeks later, it might have been maybe a year later, I was in the art store with my kids, and I was buying some clay tools -- we were going to have a craft day. I bought some Super Sculpeys, some armature wire, some various materials. And I looked down at this Sculpey, and I thought, maybe, yeah, maybe I could make my own dodo skull. I should point out at this time -- I'm not a sculptor; I'm a hard-edged model maker. You give me a drawing, you give me a prop to replicate, you give me a crane, scaffolding, parts from "Star Wars" -- especially parts from "Star Wars" -- I can do this stuff all day long. It's exactly how I made my living for 15 years. But you give me something like this -- my friend Mike Murnane sculpted this; it's a maquette for "Star Wars, Episode Two" -- this is not my thing -- this is something other people do -- dragons, soft things. However, I felt like I had looked at enough photos of dodo skulls to actually be able to understand the topology and perhaps replicate it -- I mean, it couldn't be that difficult. So, I started looking at the best photos I could find. I grabbed all the reference, and I found this lovely piece of reference. This is someone selling this on eBay; it was clearly a woman’s hand, hopefully a woman's hand. Assuming it was roughly the size of my wife's hand, I made some measurements of her thumb, and I scaled them out to the size of the skull. I blew it up to the actual size, and I began using that, along with all the other reference that I had, comparing it to it as size reference for figuring out exactly how big the beak should be, exactly how long, etc. And over a few hours, I eventually achieved what was actually a pretty reasonable dodo skull. And I didn't mean to continue, I -- it's kind of like, you know, you can only clean a super messy room by picking up one thing at a time; you can't think about the totality. I wasn't thinking about a dodo skeleton; I just noticed that as I finished this skull, the armature wire that I had been used to holding it up was sticking out of the back just where a spine would be. And one of the other things I'd been interested in and obsessed with over the years is spines and skeletons, having collected a couple of hundred. I actually understood the mechanics of vertebrae enough to kind of start to imitate them. And so button by button, vertebrae by vertebrae, I built my way down. And actually, by the end of the day, I had a reasonable skull, a moderately good vertebrae and half of a pelvis. And again, I kept on going, looking for more reference, every bit of reference I could find -- drawings, beautiful photos. This guy -- I love this guy! He put a dodo leg bones on a scanner with a ruler. This is the kind of accuracy that I wanted, and I replicated every last bone and put it in. And after about six weeks, I finished, painted, mounted my own dodo skeleton. You can see that I even made a museum label for it that includes a brief history of the dodo. And TAP Plastics made me -- although I didn't photograph it -- a museum vitrine. I don't have the room for this in my house, but I had to finish what I had started. And this actually represented kind of a sea change to me. Again, like I said, my life has been about being fascinated by objects and the stories that they tell, and also making them for myself, obtaining them, appreciating them and diving into them. And in this folder, "Creative Projects," there are tons of projects that I'm currently working on, projects that I've already worked on, things that I might want to work on some day, and things that I may just want to find and buy and have and look at and touch. But now there was potentially this new category of things that I could sculpt that was different, that I -- you know, I have my own R2D2, but that's -- honestly, relative to sculpting, to me, that's easy. And so I went back and looked through my "Creative Projects" folder, and I happened across the Maltese Falcon. Now, this is funny for me: to fall in love with an object from a Hammett novel, because if it's true that the world is divided into two types of people, Chandler people and Hammett people, I am absolutely a Chandler person. But in this case, it's not about the author, it's not about the book or the movie or the story, it's about the object in and of itself. And in this case, this object is -- plays on a host of levels. First of all, there's the object in the world. This is the "Kniphausen Hawk." It is a ceremonial pouring vessel made around 1700 for a Swedish Count, and it is very likely the object from which Hammett drew his inspiration for the Maltese Falcon. Then there is the fictional bird, the one that Hammett created for the book. Built out of words, it is the engine that drives the plot of his book and also the movie, in which another object is created: a prop that has to represent the thing that Hammett created out of words, inspired by the Kniphausen Hawk, and this represents the falcon in the movie. And then there is this fourth level, which is a whole new object in the world: the prop made for the movie, the representative of the thing, becomes, in its own right, a whole other thing, a whole new object of desire. And so now it was time to do some research. I actually had done some research a few years before -- it's why the folder was there. I'd bought a replica, a really crappy replica, of the Maltese Falcon on eBay, and had downloaded enough pictures to actually have some reasonable reference. But I discovered, in researching further, really wanting precise reference, that one of the original lead birds had been sold at Christie's in 1994, and so I contacted an antiquarian bookseller who had the original Christie's catalogue, and in it I found this magnificent picture, which included a size reference. I was able to scan the picture, blow it up to exactly full size. I found other reference. Avi [Ara] Chekmayan, a New Jersey editor, actually found this resin Maltese Falcon at a flea market in 1991, although it took him five years to authenticate this bird to the auctioneers' specifications, because there was a lot of controversy about it. It was made out of resin, which wasn't a common material for movie props about the time the movie was made. It's funny to me that it took a while to authenticate it, because I can see it compared to this thing, and I can tell you -- it's real, it's the real thing, it's made from the exact same mold that this one is. In this one, because the auction was actually so controversial, Profiles in History, the auction house that sold this -- I think in 1995 for about 100,000 dollars -- they actually included -- you can see here on the bottom -- not just a front elevation, but also a side, rear and other side elevation. So now, I had all the topology I needed to replicate the Maltese Falcon. What do they do, how do you start something like that? I really don't know. So what I did was, again, like I did with the dodo skull, I blew all my reference up to full size, and then I began cutting out the negatives and using those templates as shape references. So I took Sculpey, and I built a big block of it, and I passed it through until, you know, I got the right profiles. And then slowly, feather by feather, detail by detail, I worked out and achieved -- working in front of the television and Super Sculpey -- here's me sitting next to my wife -- it's the only picture I took of the entire process. As I moved through, I achieved a very reasonable facsimile of the Maltese Falcon. But again, I am not a sculptor, and so I don't know a lot of the tricks, like, I don't know how my friend Mike gets beautiful, shiny surfaces with his Sculpey; I certainly wasn't able to get it. So, I went down to my shop, and I molded it and I cast it in resin, because in the resin, then, I could absolutely get the glass smooth finished. Now there's a lot of ways to fill and get yourself a nice smooth finish. My preference is about 70 coats of this -- matte black auto primer. I spray it on for about three or four days, it drips to hell, but it allows me a really, really nice gentle sanding surface and I can get it glass-smooth. Oh, finishing up with triple-zero steel wool. Now, the great thing about getting it to this point was that because in the movie, when they finally bring out the bird at the end, and they place it on the table, they actually spin it. So I was able to actually screen-shot and freeze-frame to make sure. And I'm following all the light kicks on this thing and making sure that as I'm holding the light in the same position, I'm getting the same type of reflection on it -- that's the level of detail I'm going into this thing. I ended up with this: my Maltese Falcon. And it's beautiful. And I can state with authority at this point in time, when I'd finished it, of all of the replicas out there -- and there is a few -- this is by far the most accurate representation of the original Maltese Falcon than anyone has sculpted. Now the original one, I should tell you, is sculpted by a guy named Fred Sexton. This is where it gets weird. Fred Sexton was a friend of this guy, George Hodel. Terrifying guy -- agreed by many to be the killer of the Black Dahlia. Now, James Ellroy believes that Fred Sexton, the sculptor of the Maltese Falcon, killed James Elroy's mother. I'll go you one stranger than that: In 1974, during the production of a weird comedy sequel to "The Maltese Falcon," called "The Black Bird," starring George Segal, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art had a plaster original of the Maltese Falcon -- one of the original six plasters, I think, made for the movie -- stolen out of the museum. A lot of people thought it was a publicity stunt for the movie. John's Grill, which actually is seen briefly in "The Maltese Falcon," is still a viable San Francisco eatery, counted amongst its regular customers Elisha Cook, who played Wilmer Cook in the movie, and he gave them one of his original plasters of the Maltese Falcon. And they had it in their cabinet for about 15 years, until it got stolen in January of 2007. It would seem that the object of desire only comes into its own by disappearing repeatedly. So here I had this Falcon, and it was lovely. It looked really great, the light worked on it really well, it was better than anything that I could achieve or obtain out in the world. But there was a problem. And the problem was that: I wanted the entirety of the object, I wanted the weight behind the object. This thing was made of resin and it was too light. There's this group online that I frequent. It's a group of prop crazies just like me called the Replica Props Forum, and it's people who trade, make and travel in information about movie props. And it turned out that one of the guys there, a friend of mine that I never actually met, but befriended through some prop deals, was the manager of a local foundry. He took my master Falcon pattern, he actually did lost wax casting in bronze for me, and this is the bronze I got back. And this is, after some acid etching, the one that I ended up with. And this thing, it's deeply, deeply satisfying to me. Here, I'm going to put it out there, later on tonight, and I want you to pick it up and handle it. You want to know how obsessed I am. This project's only for me, and yet I went so far as to buy on eBay a 1941 Chinese San Francisco-based newspaper, in order so that the bird could properly be wrapped ... like it is in the movie. (Laughter) Yeah, I know! (Laughter) (Applause) There you can see, it's weighing in at 27 and a half pounds. That's half the weight of my dog, Huxley. But there's a problem. Now, here's the most recent progression of Falcons. On the far left is a piece of crap -- a replica I bought on eBay. There's my somewhat ruined Sculpey Falcon, because I had to get it back out of the mold. There's my first casting, there's my master and there's my bronze. There's a thing that happens when you mold and cast things, which is that every time you throw it into silicone and cast it in resin, you lose a little bit of volume, you lose a little bit of size. And when I held my bronze one up against my Sculpey one, it was shorter by three-quarters of an inch. Yeah, no, really, this was like aah -- why didn't I remember this? Why didn't I start and make it bigger? So what do I do? I figure I have two options. One, I can fire a freaking laser at it, which I have already done, to do a 3D scan -- there's a 3D scan of this Falcon. I had figured out the exact amount of shrinkage I achieved going from a wax master to a bronze master and blown this up big enough to make a 3D lithography master of this, which I will polish, then I will send to the mold maker and then I will have it done in bronze. Or: There are several people who own originals, and I have been attempting to contact them and reach them, hoping that they will let me spend a few minutes in the presence of one of the real birds, maybe to take a picture, or even to pull out the hand-held laser scanner that I happen to own that fits inside a cereal box, and could maybe, without even touching their bird, I swear, get a perfect 3D scan. And I'm even willing to sign pages saying that I'll never let anyone else have it, except for me in my office, I promise. I'll give them one if they want it. And then, maybe, then I'll achieve the end of this exercise. But really, if we're all going to be honest with ourselves, I have to admit that achieving the end of the exercise was never the point of the exercise to begin with, was it. Thank you.

I'm Rich Baraniuk. And what I'd like to talk a little bit about today are some ideas that I think have just tremendous resonance with all the things that have been talked about the last two days. In fact, so many different points of resonance that it's going to be difficult to bring them all up, but I'll try to do my best. Does anybody remember these? (Laughter) OK, so these are LP records and they've been replaced, right? They've been swept away over the last two decades by these types of world-flattening digitization technologies, right? And I think it was best witnessed when Thomas was playing the music as we came in the room today. What's happened in the music world is there's a culture or an ecosystem that's been created that, if you take some words from Apple, the catchphrase that we create, rip, mix and burn. What I mean by that is that anyone in the world is free and allowed to create new music and musical ideas. Anyone in the world is allowed to rip or copy musical ideas, use them in innovative ways. Anyone is allowed to mix them in different types of ways, draw connections between musical ideas and people can burn them or create final products and continue the circle. And what that's done is it's created, like I said, a vibrant community that's very inclusive with people continually working to connect musical ideas, innovate them and keep things constantly up to date. Today's hit single is not last year's hit single. But, I'm not here to talk about music today. I'm here to talk about books. In particular, textbooks and the kind of educational materials that we use every day in school. Has anyone here ever been to school? (Laughter) OK, does anybody realize there's a crisis in our schools, around the world? OK, I'm not going to spend too much time on that, but what I want to talk about is some of the disconnects that appear when an author publishes a book that in fact, the publishing process -- just because of the fact that it's complicated, it's heavy, books are expensive -- creates a sort of a wall between authors of books and the ultimate users of books, be they teachers, students or just general readers. And this is even more true if you happen to speak a language other than one of the world's major languages, and especially English. And I'm going to call these people below the barrier Shut-outs, because they're really shut out of the process of being able to share their knowledge with the world. And so what I want to talk about today is trying to take these ideas that we've seen in the musical culture and try to bring these towards reinventing the way we think about writing books, using them and teaching from them. So, that's what I'd like to talk about and really, how do we get from where we are now to where we need to go? So, the first thing I'd like you to do is a little thought experiment. So, imagine taking all the world's books. OK, everybody imagine books and imagine just tearing out the pages. So, liberating these pages and imagine digitizing them and then storing them in a vast, interconnected, global repository. Think of it as a massive iTunes for book type content. And then take that material and imagine making it all open, so that people can modify it, play with it, improve it. Imagine making it free, so that anyone in the world can have access to all of this knowledge, and imagine using information technology so that you can update this content, improve it, play with it, on a timescale that's more on the order of seconds instead of years. Instead of editions coming out every two years, of a book, imagine it coming out every 25 seconds. So, imagine we could do that and imagine we could put people into this. So that we could truly build an ecosystem with not just authors, but all the people who could be or want to be authors in all the different languages of the world, and I think if you could do this, it would be called, well, I'm just going to refer to it as a knowledge ecosystem. So, really, this is the dream and in a sense what you can think of it is we are trying to enable anyone in the world, I mean anyone in the world, to be their own educational DJ, creating educational materials, sharing them with the world, constantly innovating on them. So, this is the dream. In fact, this dream is actually being realized. Over the last six-and-a-half years, we've been working really hard at Rice University on a project called Connexions, and so what I'd like to do for the rest of the talk is just tell you a little bit about what people are doing with Connexions, which you can kind of think of as the counterpoint to Nicholas Negroponte's talk yesterday, where they're working on the hardware of bringing education to the world. We're working on the open-source tools and the content. So, that's sort of to put it in perspective here. So, create. So what are some of the people that are using these kind of tools? Well, the first thing is there's a community of engineering professors, from Cambridge to Kyoto, who are developing engineering content in electrical engineering to develop what you can think of as a massive, super textbook that covers the entire area of electrical engineering -- and not only that, it can be customized for use in each of their own individual institutions. If people like Kitty Jones -- right, a shut-out -- a private music teacher and mom from Champagne, Illinois, who wanted to share her fantastic music content with the world, on how to teach kids how to play music. Her material is now used over 600,000 times per month. Tremendous, tremendous use. In fact, a lot of this use coming from Unites States, K-through-12 schools because anyone who's involved in a school scale back, the first thing that's cut is the music curriculum and so this is just indicating the tremendous thirst for this kind of open, free content. A lot of teachers are using this stuff. OK, what about ripping? What about copying, reusing, right? A team of volunteers at the University of Texas El Paso, graduate students translating this engineering super textbook ideas and within about a week, having this be some of our most popular material in widespread use all over Latin America and in particular in Mexico, because of the open extensible nature of this. People, volunteers and even companies that are translating material into Asian languages like Chinese, Japanese and Thai, to spread the knowledge even further. OK, what about people who are mixing? What does "mixing" mean? "Mixing" means building customized courses, means building customized books. Companies like National Instruments, who are embedding very powerful, interactive simulations into the materials, so that we can go way beyond our regular kind of textbook to an experience that all the teaching materials are things you can actually interact with and play around with and actually learn as you do. We've been working with Teachers Without Borders who are very interested in mixing our materials. They're going to be using Connexions as their platform to develop and deliver teaching materials for teaching teachers how to teach in 84 countries that are around the world. TWB is currently in Iraq training 20,000 teachers supported by USAID and to them, this idea of being able to remix and customize to the local context is extraordinarily important, because just providing free content to people has actually been likened by people in the developing world to a kind of cultural imperialism, that if you don't empower people with the ability to re-contextualize the material, translate it into their own language and take ownership of it, it's not good. OK, other organizations we've been working with, UC Merced, people know about UC Merced. It's a new university in California, in the Central Valley, working very closely with community colleges. They're actually developing a lot of their science and engineering curriculum to spread widely around the world in our system and they're also trying to develop all of their software tools completely open-source. We've been working with AMD, which has a project called 50 by '15, which is trying to bring Internet connectivity to 50 percent of the world's population by 2015. We're going to be providing content to them in a whole range of different languages. And we've also been working with a number of other organizations. In particular, a bunch of the projects that are funded by Hewlett Foundation, who have taken a real leadership role in this area of open content. OK, burn, I think this is sort of, quite interesting. "Burn" is the idea of trying to create the physical instantiation of one of these courses. And I think a lot of you received, I think all of you received one of these music books in your gift pack. A little present for you. Just to tell you quickly about it: this is an engineering textbook. It's about 300 pages long, hardbound. This costs, anybody guess? How much would it cost in a bookstore? Audience: 65 dollars. Richard Baraniuk: This costs 22 dollars to the student. Why does it cost 22 dollars? Because it's published on demand and it's developed from this repository of open materials. If this book were to be published by a regular publisher, it would cost at least 122 dollars. So what we're seeing is moving this burning or publication process from the regular sort of single-authored book towards community-authored materials that are modular, that are customized to each individual class and published on demand very inexpensively, either pushed out through Amazon, or published directly through an on-demand press, like Coop. And I think that this is an extraordinarily interesting area because there is tremendous area under this long tail in publishing. We're not talking about the Harry Potter end, right at the left side. We're talking about books on hyper geometric partial differential equations. Right, books that might sell 100 copies a year, 1,000 copies a year. There is tremendous sustaining revenue under this long tail to sustain open projects like ours, but also to sustain this new emergence of on-demand publishers, like Coop, who produced these two books. And I think one of the things that you should take away from this talk, is that there's an impending cut-out-the-middle-man, disintermediation, that's going to be happening in the publishing industry, and it's going to reach a crescendo over the next few years, and I think that it's for our benefit, really, and for the world's benefit. OK, so what are the enablers? What's really making all of this happen? There's tons of technology, and the only piece of technology that I really want to talk about is XML. How many people know about XML? Oh, great, so it's the future of the web, right? It's semantic representation of comment, content, and what you can really think of XML in this case, is it's the packaging that we're putting around these pages. Remember we took the book, tore the pages out? Well, what the XML is going to do is it's going to turn those pages into Lego blocks. XML are the nubs on the Lego that allow us to combine the content together in myriad different ways, and it provides us a framework to share content. So, it lets you take this ecosystem in its primordial state, right, of all this content, all the pages you've torn out of books, and create highly sophisticated learning machines: books, courses, course packs. It gives you the ability to personalize the learning experience to each individual student, so that every student can have a book or a course that's customized to their learning style, their context, their language and the things that excite them. It lets you reuse the same materials in multiple different ways and surprising new ways. It lets you interconnect ideas indicating how fields relate to each other, and I'll just give you my personal story. We came up with this six-and-a-half years ago because I teach the stuff in the red box. And my day job, as Chris said, I'm an electrical engineering professor. I teach signal processing and my challenge was to show that this math -- wow, about half of you have already fallen asleep just looking at the equation -- (Laughter) but this seemingly dry math is actually the center of this tremendously powerful web that links technology -- that links really cool applications like music synthesizers to tremendous economic opportunities, but also governed by intellectual property. And the thing that I realized is there was no way that I, as an engineer, could write this book that would get all of this across. We needed a community to do it and we needed new tools to be able to interconnect these ideas, and I think that really, in a sense, what we're trying to do is make Minsky's dream come to a reality, where you can imagine all the books in a library actually starting to talk to each other. And people who are teachers out here, whoever taught, you know this -- it's the interconnections between ideas that teaching is really all about. OK, back to math. Imagine this is possible -- that every single equation that you click on in one of your new e-texts is something that you're going to be able to explore and experiment with. So imagine your kid's algebra textbook in seventh grade. You can click on every single equation and bring up a little tool to be able to experiment with it, tinker with it, understand it, because we really don't understand until we do. The same type of mark-up, like mathML, for chemistry. Imagine chemistry textbooks that actually understand the structure of how molecules are formed. Imagine music XML that actually lets you delve into the semantic structure of music, play with it, understand it. It's no wonder that everybody's getting into it, right? Even the three wise men. (Laughter) OK, the second big enabler, and this is where I told a big lie. The second big enabler is intellectual property, because in fact I got up here and I talked about how great the music culture is. We can share and rip, mix and burn, but in fact that's all illegal. And we would be accused of pirates for doing that, because this music has been propertized. It's now owned, right, much of it by big industries. So, really, the key thing here is we can't let this happen. We can't let this Napster thing happen here. So, what we have to do is get it right from the very beginning and what we have to do is find an intellectual property framework that makes sharing safe, and makes it easily understandable, and the inspiration here is taken from open-source software, things like Linux and the GPL. And the ideas, the creative commons licenses. How many people have heard of creative commons? If you have not, you must learn about it. Creativecommons.org. At the bottom of every piece of material in Connexions and in lots of other projects, you can find their logo. Clicking on that logo takes you to an absolute no-nonsense, human-readable document, a deed, that tells you exactly what you can do with this content. In fact, you're free to share it, to do all of these things, to copy it, to change it, even to make commercial use of it as long as you attribute the author. Because in academic publishing and much of educational publishing, it's really this idea of sharing knowledge and making impact that's why people write, not necessarily making bucks. We're not talking about Harry Potter, right? We're at the long tail end here. Behind that is the legal code, so if you want to very carefully construct it, and creative commons is taking off -- over 43 million things out there, licensed with a creative commons license. Not just text, but music, images, video, and there's actually a tremendous uptake of the number of people that are actually licensing music to make it free for people who do this whole idea of re-sampling, rip, mixing, burning and sharing. So I'd like to conclude with just the last few points. So, we've built this idea of a commons. People are using it. We get over 500,000 unique visitors per month, just to our particular site. MIT open courseware, which is another large open-content site, gets a similar number of hits, but how do we protect this? How do we protect it into the future? And the first thing that people are probably thinking is quality control, right? Because we're saying that anybody can contribute things to this commons. Anybody can contribute anything. So that could be a problem. It didn't take long until people started contributing materials, for example, on lingerie, which is actually a pretty good module. The only problem is it's plagiarized from a major French feminist journal, and when you go to the supposed course website, it points to a lingerie-selling website. This is a little bit of a problem, so we clearly need some kind of idea of quality control, and this is really where the idea of review and peer review comes in. OK, you come to TED. Why do you come to TED? Because Chris and his team have ensured that things are very, very high quality, right, and so we need to be able to do the same thing. And we need to be able to design structures and what we're doing is designing social software to enable anyone to build their own peer review process, and we call these things "lenses." And basically what they allow is anyone out there to develop their own peer review process, so that they can focus on the content in the repository that they think is really important and you can think of TED as a potential lens. So I'd just like to end by saying, you can really view this as a call to action. Connexions and open content is all about sharing knowledge. All of you here are tremendously imbued with tremendous amounts of knowledge and what I'd like to do is invite each and every one of you to contribute to this project and other projects of its type, because I think together we can truly change the landscape of education and educational publishing. So, thanks very much.

Those of us who believe in heaven have some sort of idea of what heaven would be. And in my idea, heaven is satisfied curiosity. I think of heaven as a really comfortable cloud where I can just lie down with my belly down, like I was watching TV when I was a child, and my elbows up. And I can basically look everywhere I want, see every movie I've always wanted to see. And in the same kind of trance that you can feel sometimes in the subway in New York when you're reading, there's something really soothing and easy. Well, the funny thing is that I already have that kind of life, in a way, because I discovered ... it took me a while to understand it, but when I discovered around 24 years of age that I was much more comfortable with objects than with people, I finally decided to really embrace this passion. And I basically live my life in sort of a trance, and I look around and everything I see is just the beginning of a long story. Just to give you an example: this is the exhibition, Humble Masterpieces, as it was at MoMA in 2004. We were in Queens, we were building the big, big, big, big building in Midtown, so we were in the small, small, small boondocks. That was one of the funnest moments of my career. But it's not only that. The typeface -- the typeface is Helvetica; it's its 50th anniversary this year. And so I start thinking -- Max Miedinger and all those Swiss designers together, trying to outdo Akzidenz-Grotesk, and come up with a new sans-serif typeface -- and the movie starts playing in my head already. And of course, you can imagine, with Humble Masterpieces it was the same thing multiplied by a hundred. And I do hope, by the way, that the real goal of the exhibition is going to have the same effect on you. The exhibition was meant to be a way to have children think of doing ... you know when they do homeworks at home? Instead of having a tray with two peas, I was hoping that they would go into the kitchen cabinet or the mother's handbag and do their museum-quality design collection on a tray. So, everybody's always suggesting new humble masterpieces, and at MoMA we put out some books just for people to suggest their own humble masterpieces. And when you do that, usually you get 80 percent porn and 20 percent real suggestions, and instead it was all -- almost -- all good suggestions. And a lot of nationalism came in. For instance, I didn't know that the Spaniards invented the mop, but they were very proud so every Spaniard said "la frego." And Italians did the pizza. And I wanted to show you, also, the suggestions from Kentucky are pretty good -- they had moonshine, laundry detergents and liquid nails. And I keep it going, and I just got, (Laughter) also, this suggestion from Milan: it's our traffic divider, which we call "panettone," and it's painted; it's these beautiful concrete things that you use around Milan to define all the lanes of traffic. So, think of your own, send them on if you want to -- they're always welcome. But an exhibition like that made me understand even more what I've been thinking of for 13 years ever since I got to MoMA. I'm Italian. In Italy, design is normal. Different parts of the world have a knack for different things. I was just recently in Argentina and in Uruguay, and the default way of building homes in the country is a beautiful modernism that you don't see elsewhere, but the contemporary art was terrible. In Italy, in Milan especially, contemporary art really doesn't have that much of a place. But design -- oh, my God. What you find at the store at the corner, without going to any kind of fancy store, is the kind of refined design that makes everybody think that we are all so sophisticated. It's just what you find at the store. And New York has another kind of knack for contemporary art. I'm always amazed -- three-year-olds know who Richard Serra is and take you to the galleries. But design, for some reason, is still misunderstood for decoration. It's really interesting: what many people think when I say the word "design" is they think of this kind of overdesigned -- in this case, it's overdesigned on purpose, but -- decoration, interior decoration. They think of somebody choosing fabrics. Design can be that, of course, but it can also be this. It can be a school of design in Jerusalem that tries to find a better way to design gas masks for people, because, as you know, Israel deploys one gas mask per person including babies. So, what these designers do is they find a way to lower the neckline, so that instead of being completely strangled, a teenager can also sip a Coke. They tried to make a toddler's gas mask in such a way that the toddler can be held by the parent because proximity of the body is so important. And then they make a little tent for the baby. However cruel, however ruthless you can think this is it's a great design, and it is miles away from the fancy furniture, but still, it's part of my same field of passion. What I've been doing at MoMA since the beginning is to try to harness the power of MoMA because it's great to work there. You really have power in that people usually tend to know about your exhibition or see the exhibitions, and that is power because in a design museum I wouldn't have as many visitors. I'm very well aware that 80 percent of my public is there to see Picasso and Matisse, and then they stumble upon my show and I keep them there. But what I've been trying to do is something that the curators at MoMA in my department have been doing ever since the museum was founded in 1929, which is to try and see what's going on in the world and try to use that authority in order to make things better. There have been many episodes, and actually Eames Demetrius may be here in the audience, but in two instances, his great-grandfather, grandfather -- I'm always a little perplexed about the relation, exactly -- Charles Eames the first time and then Charles and Ray Eames the second time were involved in two competitions: one in 1940, it was about organic furniture, and the second one in 1948 was low-cost furniture for the GIs coming back from the war that then sparked a whole line of furniture. And then there was good design for very low price. There were a lot of programs in architecture and design that were about pointing people in the direction of a better design for a better life. So, I started out in '95 with this exhibition that was called Mutant Materials in Contemporary Design. It was about a new phase, in my opinion, in the world of design in that materials could be customized by the designers themselves. And that put me in touch with such diverse design examples as the aerogels from the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California; at that time, they were beginning to be brought into the civilian market. And at the same time, the gorgeous work of Takeshi Ishiguro, who did these beautiful salt-and-pepper containers that are made of rice dough. So you see, the range is really quite diverse. And then, for instance, this other exhibition that was entitled Workspheres in 2001, where I asked different designers to come up with ideas for the new type of work styles that were happening in the world at that time. And you see IDEO there. It was beautiful -- it was called Personal Skies. The idea was that if you had a cubicle, you could project a sky on top of your head and have your own "Cielo in Una Stanza" -- a sky in a room -- it's a very famous Italian song. And other examples: this was Marti Guixe about working on the go, and Hella Jongerius, my favorite, about how to work at home. And this lets me introduce a very important idea about design: designers are the biggest synthesizers in the world. What they do best is make a synthesis of human needs, current conditions in economy, in materials, in sustainability issues, and then what they do at the end -- if they are good -- is much more than the sum of its parts. Hella Jongerius is a person that is able to make a synthesis that is really quite amazing and also quite hilarious. The idea behind her work was that at that time, everybody was saying you have to really divide your life. Instead, she said, "No, no. Work and leisure can be together." Yeah, that's particularly gorgeous -- it's the TV dinner of 2001. There have been many other exhibitions in the meantime, but I don't want to focus on my shows. I would like, instead, to talk about how great some designers are. I've always had a hard time with the word "maverick." I came to the United States 13 years ago, and to this day I have to ask, "What does that mean?" So, this morning I went to see on the dictionary and it said that there was this gentleman that was not branding its cattle. Therefore, he was not following everybody's lead, and therefore, he was a maverick. So, designers do need to be mavericks, because the best way to design a successful object -- and also an object that we were missing before -- is to pretend that either it never existed or that people will be able to have a new behavior with it. So, Safe is the last exhibition that I did at MoMA and it ended at the beginning of last year. It was about design that deals with safety and deals with protection. It's a long story because it started before 2001 and it was called Emergency. And then when 9/11 happened, I had a shock and I canceled the exhibition until, slowly but surely, it came back -- as a half-full glass instead of half-empty -- and it was about protection and safety. But it ranged from such items as a complete de-mining equipment to these kind of water-sterilizing straws, so it was really wide-ranging. It also had ... you know, Cameron and I worked a little bit together, and some of the entries that you see in his website were actually in the exhibition. But what is interesting is that we don't need to talk about design and art anymore; design uses whatever tools it has at its disposal in order to make a point. It's a sense of economy and a sense, also, of humor. This is a beautiful project by Ralph Borland, who's South African. It's a suit for civil disobedience. The idea is that when you have a riot or a protest and the police comes towards you, you're wearing this thing -- it's like a big heart and it has a loudspeaker over your heart so your heartbeat is amplified -- and the police is reminded; it's like having a flower in front of the rifle. And also, you can imagine, a whole group of people with the same suit will have this mounting collective heartbeat that will be scary to the police. So, designers sometimes don't do things that are immediately functional, but they're functional to our understanding of issues. Tony Dunne and Fiona Raby did this series of objects that are about our anguish and our paranoia, like this hideaway furniture that's made in the same wood as your floor so it disappears completely and you can hide away; or even better, the huggable atomic mushroom, which got me an article on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists of the United States -- I don't think it ever happened before at MoMA; or this Faraday Chair that is supposed to protect you from radiations. But the interesting thing in the exhibition is the discovery that the ultimate shelter is your sense of self, and there are quite a few designers that are working on this particular topic. This is Cindy van den Bremen, who is a Dutch designer that's done this series of Capsters. They are athletic gear for Muslim women that enable them to ski, play tennis, do whatever they want to do without having to uncap themselves. And sometimes by doing this kind of research, you encounter such beautiful ideas of design. Twan Verdonck is really young, I think he's 27, and working together with some psychologist he did a series of toys that are for sensorial stimulation for children that have psychological impairments. They're quite beautiful. They range from this fluffy toy that is about hugging you -- because autistic children like to be hugged tight, so it has a spring inside -- all the way to this doll with a mirror so the child can see him or herself in the mirror and regain a sense of self. Design really looks upon the whole world and it considers the world in all of its different ranges. I was recently at a conference on luxury organized by the Herald Tribune in Istanbul. And it was really interesting because I was the last speaker and before me there were people that were really talking about luxury, and I didn't want to be a party pooper but at the same time I felt that I had to kind of bring back the discourse to reality. And the truth is that there are very different kinds of luxury, and there's luxury that is relative for people that don't have that much. I want to make this point by showing you two examples of design coming from a sense of economy -- very, very clear limits. This is Cuba, and this is the recycling of a squeaky toy as a bicycle bell, and this is a raincoat that is made out of rice sacks. So they're quite beautiful, but they're beautiful because they're so smart and economical. And here is the work of two brothers from Sao Paulo, Fernando and Humberto Campana, who got inspired by the poverty and smartness that they saw around them to do pieces of furniture that now are selling for an enormous amount of money. But that's because of the kind of strangeness of the market itself. So really, design takes everything into account, and the interesting thing is that as the technology advances, as we become more and more wireless and impalpable, designers, instead, want us to be hands-on. Sometimes hammer-on. This is a whole series of furniture that wants to engage you physically. Even this chair that you have to open up and then sit on so that it takes your imprint, all the way to this beautiful series of objects that are considered design by Ana Mir in Barcelona. From this kind of bijou made with human hair to these chocolate nipples to these intra-toe candies that your lover is supposed to suck from your toes. (Laughter) It's quite beautiful because somehow, this is a gorgeous moment for design. Many years ago I heard a mathematician from Vienna, whose name was Marchetti, explain how the innovation in the military industry -- therefore, secret innovation -- and the innovation in the civilian society are two sinusoids that are kind of opposed. And that makes sense. In moments of war there's great technological innovation, and in the world you have to do without -- well, during the Second World War, you had to do without steel, you had to do without aluminum. And then as peace comes, all of these technologies get all of a sudden available for the civilian market. Many of you might know that the Potato Chip Chair by Charles and Ray Eames comes exactly from that kind of instance: fiberglass was available for civilian use all of a sudden. I think that this is a strange moment. The rhythm of the sinusoids has changed tremendously, just like the rhythm of our life in the past 25 years, so I'm not sure anymore what the wavelength is. But it surely is a very important moment for design, because not only is the technology proceeding, not only is computing technology making open-source possible also in the world of design, but also the idea of sustainability -- which is not only sustainability from the viewpoint of CO2 emissions and footprint, but also sustainability of human interrelationships -- is very much part of the work of so many designers. And that's why designers, more and more, are working on behaviors rather than on objects. Especially the good ones, not all of them. I wanted to show you, for instance, the work of Mathieu Lehanneur, which is quite fantastic. He's another young designer from France who's working -- and at this point he's working, also, with pharmaceutical companies -- on new ways to engage patients, especially children, in taking their medicines with constancy and with certainty. For instance, this is a beautiful container for asthma medicine that kind of inflates itself when it's time for you to take the medicine, so the child has to go -- pffff! -- to release and relieve the container itself. And this other medicine is something that you can draw on your skin, so intradermal delivery enables you to joyfully be involved in this particular kind of delivery. Similarly, there's the work of people like Marti Guixe that tries to involve you in a way that is really about making everything pass through your mouth so that you learn from your mistakes or from your taste, orally. The next show that I'm going to work on -- and I've been bugging a lot of you about this here -- is about the relationship between design and science. I'm trying to find not the metaphors, but, rather, the points in common -- the common gripes, the common issues, the common preoccupations -- and I think that it will enable us to go a little further in this idea of design as an instruction, as a direction rather than a prescription of form. And I am hoping that many of you will respond to this. I've sent an email already to quite a few of you. But design and science and the possibility of visualizing different scales, and therefore, really work at the scale of the very small to make it very big and very meaningful. Thank you. (Applause)

"Yo napot, pacak!" Which, as somebody here must surely know, means "What's up, guys?" in Magyar, that peculiar non-Indo-European language spoken by Hungarians for which, given the fact that cognitive diversity is at least as threatened as biodiversity on this planet, few would have imagined much of a future even a century or two ago. But there it is: "Yo napot, pacak!" I said somebody here must surely know, because despite the fact that there aren't that many Hungarians to begin with, and the further fact that, so far as I know, there's not a drop of Hungarian blood in my veins, at every critical juncture of my life there has been a Hungarian friend or mentor there beside me. I even have dreams that take place in landscapes I recognize as the landscapes of Hungarian films, especially the early movies of Miklos Jancso. So, how do I explain this mysterious affinity? Maybe it's because my native state of South Carolina, which is not much smaller than present-day Hungary, once imagined a future for itself as an independent country. And as a consequence of that presumption, my hometown was burned to the ground by an invading army, an experience that has befallen many a Hungarian town and village throughout its long and troubled history. Or maybe it's because when I was a teenager back in the '50s, my uncle Henry -- having denounced the Ku Klux Klan and been bombed for his trouble and had crosses burned in his yard, living under death threat -- took his wife and children to Massachusetts for safety and went back to South Carolina to face down the Klan alone. That was a very Hungarian thing to do, as anyone will attest who remembers 1956. And of course, from time to time Hungarians have invented their own equivalent of the Klan. Well, it seems to me that this Hungarian presence in my life is difficult to account for, but ultimately I ascribe it to an admiration for people with a complex moral awareness, with a heritage of guilt and defeat matched by defiance and bravado. It's not a typical mindset for most Americans, but it is perforce typical of virtually all Hungarians. So, "Yo napot, pacak!" I went back to South Carolina after some 15 years amid the alien corn at the tail end of the 1960s, with the reckless condescension of that era thinking I would save my people. Never mind the fact that they were slow to acknowledge they needed saving. I labored in that vineyard for a quarter century before making my way to a little kingdom of the just in upstate South Carolina, a Methodist-affiliated institution of higher learning called Wofford College. I knew nothing about Wofford and even less about Methodism, but I was reassured on the first day that I taught at Wofford College to find, among the auditors in my classroom, a 90-year-old Hungarian, surrounded by a bevy of middle-aged European women who seemed to function as an entourage of Rhinemaidens. His name was Sandor Teszler. He was a puckish widower whose wife and children were dead and whose grandchildren lived far away. In appearance, he resembled Mahatma Gandhi, minus the loincloth, plus orthopedic boots. He had been born in 1903 in the provinces of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, in what later would become Yugoslavia. He was ostracized as a child, not because he was a Jew -- his parents weren't very religious anyhow -- but because he had been born with two club feet, a condition which, in those days, required institutionalization and a succession of painful operations between the ages of one and 11. He went to the commercial business high school as a young man in Budapest, and there he was as smart as he was modest and he enjoyed a considerable success. And after graduation when he went into textile engineering, the success continued. He built one plant after another. He married and had two sons. He had friends in high places who assured him that he was of great value to the economy. Once, as he had left instructions to have done, he was summoned in the middle of the night by the night watchman at one of his plants. The night watchman had caught an employee who was stealing socks -- it was a hosiery mill, and he simply backed a truck up to the loading dock and was shoveling in mountains of socks. Mr. Teszler went down to the plant and confronted the thief and said, "But why do you steal from me? If you need money you have only to ask." The night watchman, seeing how things were going and waxing indignant, said, "Well, we're going to call the police, aren't we?" But Mr. Teszler answered, "No, that will not be necessary. He will not steal from us again." Well, maybe he was too trusting, because he stayed where he was long after the Nazi Anschluss in Austria and even after the arrests and deportations began in Budapest. He took the simple precaution of having cyanide capsules placed in lockets that could be worn about the necks of himself and his family. And then one day, it happened: he and his family were arrested and they were taken to a death house on the Danube. In those early days of the Final Solution, it was handcrafted brutality; people were beaten to death and their bodies tossed into the river. But none who entered that death house had ever come out alive. And in a twist you would not believe in a Steven Spielberg film -- the Gauleiter who was overseeing this brutal beating was the very same thief who had stolen socks from Mr. Teszler's hosiery mill. It was a brutal beating. And midway through that brutality, one of Mr. Teszler's sons, Andrew, looked up and said, "Is it time to take the capsule now, Papa?" And the Gauleiter, who afterwards vanishes from this story, leaned down and whispered into Mr. Teszler's ear, "No, do not take the capsule. Help is on the way." And then resumed the beating. But help was on the way, and shortly afterwards a car arrived from the Swiss Embassy. They were spirited to safety. They were reclassified as Yugoslav citizens and they managed to stay one step ahead of their pursuers for the duration of the War, surviving burnings and bombings and, at the end of the War, arrest by the Soviets. Probably, Mr. Teszler had gotten some money into Swiss bank accounts because he managed to take his family first to Great Britain, then to Long Island and then to the center of the textile industry in the American South. Which, as chance would have it, was Spartanburg, South Carolina, the location of Wofford College. And there, Mr. Teszler began all over again and once again achieved immense success, especially after he invented the process for manufacturing a new fabric called double-knit. And then in the late 1950s, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, when the Klan was resurgent all over the South, Mr. Teszler said, "I have heard this talk before." And he called his top assistant to him and asked, "Where would you say, in this region, racism is most virulent?" "Well, I don't rightly know, Mr. Teszler. I reckon that would be Kings Mountain." "Good. Buy us some land in Kings Mountain and announce we are going to build a major plant there." The man did as he was told, and shortly afterwards, Mr. Teszler received a visit from the white mayor of Kings Mountain. Now, you should know that at that time, the textile industry in the South was notoriously segregated. The white mayor visited Mr. Teszler and said, "Mr. Teszler, I trust you’re going to be hiring a lot of white workers." Mr. Teszler told him, "You bring me the best workers that you can find, and if they are good enough, I will hire them." He also received a visit from the leader of the black community, a minister, who said, "Mr. Teszler, I sure hope you're going to hire some black workers for this new plant of yours." He got the same answer: "You bring the best workers that you can find, and if they are good enough, I will hire them." As it happens, the black minister did his job better than the white mayor, but that's neither here or there. Mr. Teszler hired 16 men: eight white, eight black. They were to be his seed group, his future foremen. He had installed the heavy equipment for his new process in an abandoned store in the vicinity of Kings Mountain, and for two months these 16 men would live and work together, mastering the new process. He gathered them together after an initial tour of that facility and he asked if there were any questions. There was hemming and hawing and shuffling of feet, and then one of the white workers stepped forward and said, "Well, yeah. We’ve looked at this place and there's only one place to sleep, there's only one place to eat, there's only one bathroom, there's only one water fountain. Is this plant going to be integrated or what?" Mr. Teszler said, "You are being paid twice the wages of any other textile workers in this region and this is how we do business. Do you have any other questions?" "No, I reckon I don't." And two months later when the main plant opened and hundreds of new workers, white and black, poured in to see the facility for the first time, they were met by the 16 foremen, white and black, standing shoulder to shoulder. They toured the facility and were asked if there were any questions, and inevitably the same question arose: "Is this plant integrated or what?" And one of the white foremen stepped forward and said, "You are being paid twice the wages of any other workers in this industry in this region and this is how we do business. Do you have any other questions?" And there were none. In one fell swoop, Mr. Teszler had integrated the textile industry in that part of the South. It was an achievement worthy of Mahatma Gandhi, conducted with the shrewdness of a lawyer and the idealism of a saint. In his eighties, Mr. Teszler, having retired from the textile industry, adopted Wofford College, auditing courses every semester, and because he had a tendency to kiss anything that moved, becoming affectionately known as "Opi" -- which is Magyar for grandfather -- by all and sundry. Before I got there, the library of the college had been named for Mr. Teszler, and after I arrived in 1993, the faculty decided to honor itself by naming Mr. Teszler Professor of the College -- partly because at that point he had already taken all of the courses in the catalog, but mainly because he was so conspicuously wiser than any one of us. To me, it was immensely reassuring that the presiding spirit of this little Methodist college in upstate South Carolina was a Holocaust survivor from Central Europe. Wise he was, indeed, but he also had a wonderful sense of humor. And once for an interdisciplinary class, I was screening the opening segment of Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal." As the medieval knight Antonius Block returns from the wild goose chase of the Crusades and arrives on the rocky shore of Sweden, only to find the specter of death waiting for him, Mr. Teszler sat in the dark with his fellow students. And as death opened his cloak to embrace the knight in a ghastly embrace, I heard Mr. Teszler's tremulous voice: "Uh oh," he said, "This doesn't look so good." (Laughter) But it was music that was his greatest passion, especially opera. And on the first occasion that I visited his house, he gave me honor of deciding what piece of music we would listen to. And I delighted him by rejecting "Cavalleria Rusticana" in favor of Bela Bartok's "Bluebeard's Castle." I love Bartok's music, as did Mr. Teszler, and he had virtually every recording of Bartok's music ever issued. And it was at his house that I heard for the first time Bartok's Third Piano Concerto and learned from Mr. Teszler that it had been composed in nearby Asheville, North Carolina in the last year of the composer's life. He was dying of leukemia and he knew it, and he dedicated this concerto to his wife, Dita, who was herself a concert pianist. And into the slow, second movement, marked "adagio religioso," he incorporated the sounds of birdsong that he heard outside his window in what he knew would be his last spring; he was imagining a future for her in which he would play no part. And clearly this composition is his final statement to her -- it was first performed after his death -- and through her to the world. And just as clearly, it is saying, "It's okay. It was all so beautiful. Whenever you hear this, I will be there." It was only after Mr. Teszler's death that I learned that the marker on the grave of Bela Bartok in Hartsdale, New York was paid for by Sandor Teszler. "Yo napot, Bela!" Not long before Mr. Teszler’s own death at the age of 97, he heard me hold forth on human iniquity. I delivered a lecture in which I described history as, on the whole, a tidal wave of human suffering and brutality, and Mr. Teszler came up to me afterwards with gentle reproach and said, "You know, Doctor, human beings are fundamentally good." And I made a vow to myself, then and there, that if this man who had such cause to think otherwise had reached that conclusion, I would not presume to differ until he released me from my vow. And now he's dead, so I'm stuck with my vow. "Yo napot, Sandor!" I thought my skein of Hungarian mentors had come to an end, but almost immediately I met Francis Robicsek, a Hungarian doctor -- actually a heart surgeon in Charlotte, North Carolina, then in his late seventies -- who had been a pioneer in open-heart surgery, and, tinkering away in his garage behind his house, had invented many of the devices that are standard parts of those procedures. He's also a prodigious art collector, beginning as an intern in Budapest by collecting 16th- and 17th-century Dutch art and Hungarian painting, and when he came to this country moving on to Spanish colonial art, Russian icons and finally Mayan ceramics. He's the author of seven books, six of them on Mayan ceramics. It was he who broke the Mayan codex, enabling scholars to relate the pictographs on Mayan ceramics to the hieroglyphs of the Mayan script. On the occasion of my first visit, we toured his house and we saw hundreds of works of museum quality, and then we paused in front of a closed door and Dr. Robicsek said, with obvious pride, "Now for the piece de resistance." And he opened the door and we walked into a windowless 20-by-20-foot room with shelves from floor to ceiling, and crammed on every shelf his collection of Mayan ceramics. Now, I know absolutely nothing about Mayan ceramics, but I wanted to be as ingratiating as possible so I said, "But Dr. Robicsek, this is absolutely dazzling." "Yes," he said. "That is what the Louvre said. They would not leave me alone until I let them have a piece, but it was not a good one." (Laughter) Well, it occurred to me that I should invite Dr. Robicsek to lecture at Wofford College on -- what else? -- Leonardo da Vinci. And further, I should invite him to meet my oldest trustee, who had majored in French history at Yale some 70-odd years before and, at 89, still ruled the world's largest privately owned textile empire with an iron hand. His name is Roger Milliken. And Mr. Milliken agreed, and Dr. Robicsek agreed. And Dr. Robicsek visited and delivered the lecture and it was a dazzling success. And afterwards we convened at the President's House with Dr. Robicsek on one hand, Mr. Milliken on the other. And it was only at that moment, as we were sitting down to dinner, that I recognized the enormity of the risk I had created, because to bring these two titans, these two masters of the universe together -- it was like introducing Mothra to Godzilla over the skyline of Tokyo. If they didn't like each other, we could all get trampled to death. But they did, they did like each other. They got along famously until the very end of the meal, and then they got into a furious argument. And what they were arguing about was this: whether the second Harry Potter movie was as good as the first. (Laughter) Mr. Milliken said it was not. Dr. Robicsek disagreed. I was still trying to take in the notion that these titans, these masters of the universe, in their spare time watch Harry Potter movies, when Mr. Milliken thought he would win the argument by saying, "You just think it's so good because you didn't read the book." And Dr. Robicsek reeled back in his chair, but quickly gathered his wits, leaned forward and said, "Well, that is true, but I'll bet you went to the movie with a grandchild." "Well, yes, I did," conceded Mr. Milliken. "Aha!" said Dr. Robicsek. "I went to the movie all by myself." (Laughter) (Applause) And I realized, in this moment of revelation, that what these two men were revealing was the secret of their extraordinary success, each in his own right. And it lay precisely in that insatiable curiosity, that irrepressible desire to know, no matter what the subject, no matter what the cost, even at a time when the keepers of the Doomsday Clock are willing to bet even money that the human race won't be around to imagine anything in the year 2100, a scant 93 years from now. "Live each day as if it is your last," said Mahatma Gandhi. "Learn as if you'll live forever." This is what I'm passionate about. It is precisely this. It is this inextinguishable, undaunted appetite for learning and experience, no matter how risible, no matter how esoteric, no matter how seditious it might seem. This defines the imagined futures of our fellow Hungarians -- Robicsek, Teszler and Bartok -- as it does my own. As it does, I suspect, that of everybody here. To which I need only add, "Ez a mi munkank; es nem is keves." This is our task; we know it will be hard. "Ez a mi munkank; es nem is keves. Yo napot, pacak!" (Applause)

"Jó napot, pacák" Which, as somebody here must surely know, means "What's up, guys?" in Magyar, that peculiar non-Indo-European language spoken by Hungarians for which, given the fact that cognitive diversity is at least as threatened as biodiversity on this planet, few would have imagined much of a future even a century or two ago. But there it is: "Jó napot, pacák" I said somebody here must surely know, because despite the fact that there aren't that many Hungarians to begin with, and the further fact that, so far as I know, there's not a drop of Hungarian blood in my veins, at every critical juncture of my life there has been a Hungarian friend or mentor there beside me. I even have dreams that take place in landscapes I recognize as the landscapes of Hungarian films, especially the early movies of Miklos Jancso. So, how do I explain this mysterious affinity? Maybe it's because my native state of South Carolina, which is not much smaller than present-day Hungary, once imagined a future for itself as an independent country. And as a consequence of that presumption, my hometown was burned to the ground by an invading army, an experience that has befallen many a Hungarian town and village throughout its long and troubled history. Or maybe it's because when I was a teenager back in the '50s, my uncle Henry -- having denounced the Ku Klux Klan and been bombed for his trouble and had crosses burned in his yard, living under death threat -- took his wife and children to Massachusetts for safety and went back to South Carolina to face down the Klan alone. That was a very Hungarian thing to do, as anyone will attest who remembers 1956. And of course, from time to time Hungarians have invented their own equivalent of the Klan. Well, it seems to me that this Hungarian presence in my life is difficult to account for, but ultimately I ascribe it to an admiration for people with a complex moral awareness, with a heritage of guilt and defeat matched by defiance and bravado. It's not a typical mindset for most Americans, but it is perforce typical of virtually all Hungarians. So, "Jó napot, pacák!" I went back to South Carolina after some 15 years amid the alien corn at the tail end of the 1960s, with the reckless condescension of that era thinking I would save my people. Never mind the fact that they were slow to acknowledge they needed saving. I labored in that vineyard for a quarter century before making my way to a little kingdom of the just in upstate South Carolina, a Methodist-affiliated institution of higher learning called Wofford College. I knew nothing about Wofford and even less about Methodism, but I was reassured on the first day that I taught at Wofford College to find, among the auditors in my classroom, a 90-year-old Hungarian, surrounded by a bevy of middle-aged European women who seemed to function as an entourage of Rhinemaidens. His name was Sandor Teszler. He was a puckish widower whose wife and children were dead and whose grandchildren lived far away. In appearance, he resembled Mahatma Gandhi, minus the loincloth, plus orthopedic boots. He had been born in 1903 in the provinces of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, in what later would become Yugoslavia. He was ostracized as a child, not because he was a Jew -- his parents weren't very religious anyhow -- but because he had been born with two club feet, a condition which, in those days, required institutionalization and a succession of painful operations between the ages of one and 11. He went to the commercial business high school as a young man in Budapest, and there he was as smart as he was modest and he enjoyed a considerable success. And after graduation when he went into textile engineering, the success continued. He built one plant after another. He married and had two sons. He had friends in high places who assured him that he was of great value to the economy. Once, as he had left instructions to have done, he was summoned in the middle of the night by the night watchman at one of his plants. The night watchman had caught an employee who was stealing socks -- it was a hosiery mill, and he simply backed a truck up to the loading dock and was shoveling in mountains of socks. Mr. Teszler went down to the plant and confronted the thief and said, "But why do you steal from me? If you need money you have only to ask." The night watchman, seeing how things were going and waxing indignant, said, "Well, we're going to call the police, aren't we?" But Mr. Teszler answered, "No, that will not be necessary. He will not steal from us again." Well, maybe he was too trusting, because he stayed where he was long after the Nazi Anschluss in Austria and even after the arrests and deportations began in Budapest. He took the simple precaution of having cyanide capsules placed in lockets that could be worn about the necks of himself and his family. And then one day, it happened: he and his family were arrested and they were taken to a death house on the Danube. In those early days of the Final Solution, it was handcrafted brutality; people were beaten to death and their bodies tossed into the river. But none who entered that death house had ever come out alive. And in a twist you would not believe in a Steven Spielberg film -- the Gauleiter who was overseeing this brutal beating was the very same thief who had stolen socks from Mr. Teszler's hosiery mill. It was a brutal beating. And midway through that brutality, one of Mr. Teszler's sons, Andrew, looked up and said, "Is it time to take the capsule now, Papa?" And the Gauleiter, who afterwards vanishes from this story, leaned down and whispered into Mr. Teszler's ear, "No, do not take the capsule. Help is on the way." And then resumed the beating. But help was on the way, and shortly afterwards a car arrived from the Swiss Embassy. They were spirited to safety. They were reclassified as Yugoslav citizens and they managed to stay one step ahead of their pursuers for the duration of the War, surviving burnings and bombings and, at the end of the War, arrest by the Soviets. Probably, Mr. Teszler had gotten some money into Swiss bank accounts because he managed to take his family first to Great Britain, then to Long Island and then to the center of the textile industry in the American South. Which, as chance would have it, was Spartanburg, South Carolina, the location of Wofford College. And there, Mr. Teszler began all over again and once again achieved immense success, especially after he invented the process for manufacturing a new fabric called double-knit. And then in the late 1950s, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, when the Klan was resurgent all over the South, Mr. Teszler said, "I have heard this talk before." And he called his top assistant to him and asked, "Where would you say, in this region, racism is most virulent?" "Well, I don't rightly know, Mr. Teszler. I reckon that would be Kings Mountain." "Good. Buy us some land in Kings Mountain and announce we are going to build a major plant there." The man did as he was told, and shortly afterwards, Mr. Teszler received a visit from the white mayor of Kings Mountain. Now, you should know that at that time, the textile industry in the South was notoriously segregated. The white mayor visited Mr. Teszler and said, "Mr. Teszler, I trust you’re going to be hiring a lot of white workers." Mr. Teszler told him, "You bring me the best workers that you can find, and if they are good enough, I will hire them." He also received a visit from the leader of the black community, a minister, who said, "Mr. Teszler, I sure hope you're going to hire some black workers for this new plant of yours." He got the same answer: "You bring the best workers that you can find, and if they are good enough, I will hire them." As it happens, the black minister did his job better than the white mayor, but that's neither here or there. Mr. Teszler hired 16 men: eight white, eight black. They were to be his seed group, his future foremen. He had installed the heavy equipment for his new process in an abandoned store in the vicinity of Kings Mountain, and for two months these 16 men would live and work together, mastering the new process. He gathered them together after an initial tour of that facility and he asked if there were any questions. There was hemming and hawing and shuffling of feet, and then one of the white workers stepped forward and said, "Well, yeah. We’ve looked at this place and there's only one place to sleep, there's only one place to eat, there's only one bathroom, there's only one water fountain. Is this plant going to be integrated or what?" Mr. Teszler said, "You are being paid twice the wages of any other textile workers in this region and this is how we do business. Do you have any other questions?" "No, I reckon I don't." And two months later when the main plant opened and hundreds of new workers, white and black, poured in to see the facility for the first time, they were met by the 16 foremen, white and black, standing shoulder to shoulder. They toured the facility and were asked if there were any questions, and inevitably the same question arose: "Is this plant integrated or what?" And one of the white foremen stepped forward and said, "You are being paid twice the wages of any other workers in this industry in this region and this is how we do business. Do you have any other questions?" And there were none. In one fell swoop, Mr. Teszler had integrated the textile industry in that part of the South. It was an achievement worthy of Mahatma Gandhi, conducted with the shrewdness of a lawyer and the idealism of a saint. In his eighties, Mr. Teszler, having retired from the textile industry, adopted Wofford College, auditing courses every semester, and because he had a tendency to kiss anything that moved, becoming affectionately known as "Opi" -- which is Magyar for grandfather -- by all and sundry. Before I got there, the library of the college had been named for Mr. Teszler, and after I arrived in 1993, the faculty decided to honor itself by naming Mr. Teszler Professor of the College -- partly because at that point he had already taken all of the courses in the catalog, but mainly because he was so conspicuously wiser than any one of us. To me, it was immensely reassuring that the presiding spirit of this little Methodist college in upstate South Carolina was a Holocaust survivor from Central Europe. Wise he was, indeed, but he also had a wonderful sense of humor. And once for an interdisciplinary class, I was screening the opening segment of Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal." As the medieval knight Antonius Block returns from the wild goose chase of the Crusades and arrives on the rocky shore of Sweden, only to find the specter of death waiting for him, Mr. Teszler sat in the dark with his fellow students. And as death opened his cloak to embrace the knight in a ghastly embrace, I heard Mr. Teszler's tremulous voice: "Uh oh," he said, "This doesn't look so good." (Laughter) But it was music that was his greatest passion, especially opera. And on the first occasion that I visited his house, he gave me honor of deciding what piece of music we would listen to. And I delighted him by rejecting "Cavalleria Rusticana" in favor of Bela Bartok's "Bluebeard's Castle." I love Bartok's music, as did Mr. Teszler, and he had virtually every recording of Bartok's music ever issued. And it was at his house that I heard for the first time Bartok's Third Piano Concerto and learned from Mr. Teszler that it had been composed in nearby Asheville, North Carolina in the last year of the composer's life. He was dying of leukemia and he knew it, and he dedicated this concerto to his wife, Dita, who was herself a concert pianist. And into the slow, second movement, marked "adagio religioso," he incorporated the sounds of birdsong that he heard outside his window in what he knew would be his last spring; he was imagining a future for her in which he would play no part. And clearly this composition is his final statement to her -- it was first performed after his death -- and through her to the world. And just as clearly, it is saying, "It's okay. It was all so beautiful. Whenever you hear this, I will be there." It was only after Mr. Teszler's death that I learned that the marker on the grave of Bela Bartok in Hartsdale, New York was paid for by Sandor Teszler. "Jó napot, Bela!" Not long before Mr. Teszler’s own death at the age of 97, he heard me hold forth on human iniquity. I delivered a lecture in which I described history as, on the whole, a tidal wave of human suffering and brutality, and Mr. Teszler came up to me afterwards with gentle reproach and said, "You know, Doctor, human beings are fundamentally good." And I made a vow to myself, then and there, that if this man who had such cause to think otherwise had reached that conclusion, I would not presume to differ until he released me from my vow. And now he's dead, so I'm stuck with my vow. "Jó napot, Sandor!" I thought my skein of Hungarian mentors had come to an end, but almost immediately I met Francis Robicsek, a Hungarian doctor -- actually a heart surgeon in Charlotte, North Carolina, then in his late seventies -- who had been a pioneer in open-heart surgery, and, tinkering away in his garage behind his house, had invented many of the devices that are standard parts of those procedures. He's also a prodigious art collector, beginning as an intern in Budapest by collecting 16th- and 17th-century Dutch art and Hungarian painting, and when he came to this country moving on to Spanish colonial art, Russian icons and finally Mayan ceramics. He's the author of seven books, six of them on Mayan ceramics. It was he who broke the Mayan codex, enabling scholars to relate the pictographs on Mayan ceramics to the hieroglyphs of the Mayan script. On the occasion of my first visit, we toured his house and we saw hundreds of works of museum quality, and then we paused in front of a closed door and Dr. Robicsek said, with obvious pride, "Now for the piece De resistance." And he opened the door and we walked into a windowless 20-by-20-foot room with shelves from floor to ceiling, and crammed on every shelf his collection of Mayan ceramics. Now, I know absolutely nothing about Mayan ceramics, but I wanted to be as ingratiating as possible so I said, "But Dr. Robicsek, this is absolutely dazzling." "Yes," he said. "That is what the Louvre said. They would not leave me alone until I let them have a piece, but it was not a good one." (Laughter) Well, it occurred to me that I should invite Dr. Robicsek to lecture at Wofford College on -- what else? -- Leonardo da Vinci. And further, I should invite him to meet my oldest trustee, who had majored in French history at Yale some 70-odd years before and, at 89, still ruled the world's largest privately owned textile empire with an iron hand. His name is Roger Milliken. And Mr. Milliken agreed, and Dr. Robicsek agreed. And Dr. Robicsek visited and delivered the lecture and it was a dazzling success. And afterwards we convened at the President's House with Dr. Robicsek on one hand, Mr. Milliken on the other. And it was only at that moment, as we were sitting down to dinner, that I recognized the enormity of the risk I had created, because to bring these two titans, these two masters of the universe together -- it was like introducing Mothra to Godzilla over the skyline of Tokyo. If they didn't like each other, we could all get trampled to death. But they did, they did like each other. They got along famously until the very end of the meal, and then they got into a furious argument. And what they were arguing about was this: whether the second Harry Potter movie was as good as the first. (Laughter) Mr. Milliken said it was not. Dr. Robicsek disagreed. I was still trying to take in the notion that these titans, these masters of the universe, in their spare time watch Harry Potter movies, when Mr. Milliken thought he would win the argument by saying, "You just think it's so good because you didn't read the book." And Dr. Robicsek reeled back in his chair, but quickly gathered his wits, leaned forward and said, "Well, that is true, but I'll bet you went to the movie with a grandchild." "Well, yes, I did," conceded Mr. Milliken. "Aha!" said Dr. Robicsek. "I went to the movie all by myself." (Laughter) (Applause) And I realized, in this moment of revelation, that what these two men were revealing was the secret of their extraordinary success, each in his own right. And it lay precisely in that insatiable curiosity, that irrepressible desire to know, no matter what the subject, no matter what the cost, even at a time when the keepers of the Doomsday Clock are willing to bet even money that the human race won't be around to imagine anything in the year 2100, a scant 93 years from now. "Live each day as if it is your last," said Mahatma Gandhi. "Learn as if you'll live forever." This is what I'm passionate about. It is precisely this. It is this inextinguishable, undaunted appetite for learning and experience, no matter how risible, no matter how esoteric, no matter how seditious it might seem. This defines the imagined futures of our fellow Hungarians -- Robicsek, Teszler and Bartok -- as it does my own. As it does, I suspect, that of everybody here. To which I need only add, "Ez a mi munkank; es nem is keves." This is our task; we know it will be hard. "Ez a mi munkank; es nem is keves. Jó napot, pacák!" (Applause)

I'm a computer science professor, and my area of expertise is computer and information security. When I was in graduate school, I had the opportunity to overhear my grandmother describing to one of her fellow senior citizens what I did for a living. Apparently, I was in charge of making sure that no one stole the computers from the university. (Laughter) And, you know, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for her to think, because I told her I was working in computer security, and it was interesting to get her perspective. But that's not the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard anyone say about my work. The most ridiculous thing I ever heard is, I was at a dinner party, and a woman heard that I work in computer security, and she asked me if -- she said her computer had been infected by a virus, and she was very concerned that she might get sick from it, that she could get this virus. (Laughter) And I'm not a doctor, but I reassured her that it was very, very unlikely that this would happen, but if she felt more comfortable, she could be free to use latex gloves when she was on the computer, and there would be no harm whatsoever in that. I'm going to get back to this notion of being able to get a virus from your computer, in a serious way. What I'm going to talk to you about today are some hacks, some real world cyberattacks that people in my community, the academic research community, have performed, which I don't think most people know about, and I think they're very interesting and scary, and this talk is kind of a greatest hits of the academic security community's hacks. None of the work is my work. It's all work that my colleagues have done, and I actually asked them for their slides and incorporated them into this talk. So the first one I'm going to talk about are implanted medical devices. Now medical devices have come a long way technologically. You can see in 1926 the first pacemaker was invented. 1960, the first internal pacemaker was implanted, hopefully a little smaller than that one that you see there, and the technology has continued to move forward. In 2006, we hit an important milestone from the perspective of computer security. And why do I say that? Because that's when implanted devices inside of people started to have networking capabilities. One thing that brings us close to home is we look at Dick Cheney's device, he had a device that pumped blood from an aorta to another part of the heart, and as you can see at the bottom there, it was controlled by a computer controller, and if you ever thought that software liability was very important, get one of these inside of you. Now what a research team did was they got their hands on what's called an ICD. This is a defibrillator, and this is a device that goes into a person to control their heart rhythm, and these have saved many lives. Well, in order to not have to open up the person every time you want to reprogram their device or do some diagnostics on it, they made the thing be able to communicate wirelessly, and what this research team did is they reverse engineered the wireless protocol, and they built the device you see pictured here, with a little antenna, that could talk the protocol to the device, and thus control it. In order to make their experience real -- they were unable to find any volunteers, and so they went and they got some ground beef and some bacon and they wrapped it all up to about the size of a human being's area where the device would go, and they stuck the device inside it to perform their experiment somewhat realistically. They launched many, many successful attacks. One that I'll highlight here is changing the patient's name. I don't know why you would want to do that, but I sure wouldn't want that done to me. And they were able to change therapies, including disabling the device -- and this is with a real, commercial, off-the-shelf device -- simply by performing reverse engineering and sending wireless signals to it. There was a piece on NPR that some of these ICDs could actually have their performance disrupted simply by holding a pair of headphones onto them. Now, wireless and the Internet can improve health care greatly. There's several examples up on the screen of situations where doctors are looking to implant devices inside of people, and all of these devices now, it's standard that they communicate wirelessly, and I think this is great, but without a full understanding of trustworthy computing, and without understanding what attackers can do and the security risks from the beginning, there's a lot of danger in this. Okay, let me shift gears and show you another target. I'm going to show you a few different targets like this, and that's my talk. So we'll look at automobiles. This is a car, and it has a lot of components, a lot of electronics in it today. In fact, it's got many, many different computers inside of it, more Pentiums than my lab did when I was in college, and they're connected by a wired network. There's also a wireless network in the car, which can be reached from many different ways. So there's Bluetooth, there's the FM and XM radio, there's actually wi-fi, there's sensors in the wheels that wirelessly communicate the tire pressure to a controller on board. The modern car is a sophisticated multi-computer device. And what happens if somebody wanted to attack this? Well, that's what the researchers that I'm going to talk about today did. They basically stuck an attacker on the wired network and on the wireless network. Now, they have two areas they can attack. One is short-range wireless, where you can actually communicate with the device from nearby, either through Bluetooth or wi-fi, and the other is long-range, where you can communicate with the car through the cellular network, or through one of the radio stations. Think about it. When a car receives a radio signal, it's processed by software. That software has to receive and decode the radio signal, and then figure out what to do with it, even if it's just music that it needs to play on the radio, and that software that does that decoding, if it has any bugs in it, could create a vulnerability for somebody to hack the car. The way that the researchers did this work is, they read the software in the computer chips that were in the car, and then they used sophisticated reverse engineering tools to figure out what that software did, and then they found vulnerabilities in that software, and then they built exploits to exploit those. They actually carried out their attack in real life. They bought two cars, and I guess they have better budgets than I do. The first threat model was to see what someone could do if an attacker actually got access to the internal network on the car. Okay, so think of that as, someone gets to go to your car, they get to mess around with it, and then they leave, and now, what kind of trouble are you in? The other threat model is that they contact you in real time over one of the wireless networks like the cellular, or something like that, never having actually gotten physical access to your car. This is what their setup looks like for the first model, where you get to have access to the car. They put a laptop, and they connected to the diagnostic unit on the in-car network, and they did all kinds of silly things, like here's a picture of the speedometer showing 140 miles an hour when the car's in park. Once you have control of the car's computers, you can do anything. Now you might say, "Okay, that's silly." Well, what if you make the car always say it's going 20 miles an hour slower than it's actually going? You might produce a lot of speeding tickets. Then they went out to an abandoned airstrip with two cars, the target victim car and the chase car, and they launched a bunch of other attacks. One of the things they were able to do from the chase car is apply the brakes on the other car, simply by hacking the computer. They were able to disable the brakes. They also were able to install malware that wouldn't kick in and wouldn't trigger until the car was doing something like going over 20 miles an hour, or something like that. The results are astonishing, and when they gave this talk, even though they gave this talk at a conference to a bunch of computer security researchers, everybody was gasping. They were able to take over a bunch of critical computers inside the car: the brakes computer, the lighting computer, the engine, the dash, the radio, etc., and they were able to perform these on real commercial cars that they purchased using the radio network. They were able to compromise every single one of the pieces of software that controlled every single one of the wireless capabilities of the car. All of these were implemented successfully. How would you steal a car in this model? Well, you compromise the car by a buffer overflow of vulnerability in the software, something like that. You use the GPS in the car to locate it. You remotely unlock the doors through the computer that controls that, start the engine, bypass anti-theft, and you've got yourself a car. Surveillance was really interesting. The authors of the study have a video where they show themselves taking over a car and then turning on the microphone in the car, and listening in on the car while tracking it via GPS on a map, and so that's something that the drivers of the car would never know was happening. Am I scaring you yet? I've got a few more of these interesting ones. These are ones where I went to a conference, and my mind was just blown, and I said, "I have to share this with other people." This was Fabian Monrose's lab at the University of North Carolina, and what they did was something intuitive once you see it, but kind of surprising. They videotaped people on a bus, and then they post-processed the video. What you see here in number one is a reflection in somebody's glasses of the smartphone that they're typing in. They wrote software to stabilize -- even though they were on a bus and maybe someone's holding their phone at an angle -- to stabilize the phone, process it, and you may know on your smartphone, when you type a password, the keys pop out a little bit, and they were able to use that to reconstruct what the person was typing, and had a language model for detecting typing. What was interesting is, by videotaping on a bus, they were able to produce exactly what people on their smartphones were typing, and then they had a surprising result, which is that their software had not only done it for their target, but other people who accidentally happened to be in the picture, they were able to produce what those people had been typing, and that was kind of an accidental artifact of what their software was doing. I'll show you two more. One is P25 radios. P25 radios are used by law enforcement and all kinds of government agencies and people in combat to communicate, and there's an encryption option on these phones. This is what the phone looks like. It's not really a phone. It's more of a two-way radio. Motorola makes the most widely used one, and you can see that they're used by Secret Service, they're used in combat, it's a very, very common standard in the U.S. and elsewhere. So one question the researchers asked themselves is, could you block this thing, right? Could you run a denial-of-service, because these are first responders? So, would a terrorist organization want to black out the ability of police and fire to communicate at an emergency? They found that there's this GirlTech device used for texting that happens to operate at the same exact frequency as the P25, and they built what they called My First Jammer. (Laughter) If you look closely at this device, it's got a switch for encryption or cleartext. Let me advance the slide, and now I'll go back. You see the difference? This is plain text. This is encrypted. There's one little dot that shows up on the screen, and one little tiny turn of the switch. And so the researchers asked themselves, "I wonder how many times very secure, important, sensitive conversations are happening on these two-way radios where they forget to encrypt and they don't notice that they didn't encrypt?" So they bought a scanner. These are perfectly legal and they run at the frequency of the P25, and what they did is they hopped around frequencies and they wrote software to listen in. If they found encrypted communication, they stayed on that channel and they wrote down, that's a channel that these people communicate in, these law enforcement agencies, and they went to 20 metropolitan areas and listened in on conversations that were happening at those frequencies. They found that in every metropolitan area, they would capture over 20 minutes a day of cleartext communication. And what kind of things were people talking about? Well, they found the names and information about confidential informants. They found information that was being recorded in wiretaps, a bunch of crimes that were being discussed, sensitive information. It was mostly law enforcement and criminal. They went and reported this to the law enforcement agencies, after anonymizing it, and the vulnerability here is simply the user interface wasn't good enough. If you're talking about something really secure and sensitive, it should be really clear to you that this conversation is encrypted. That one's pretty easy to fix. The last one I thought was really, really cool, and I just had to show it to you, it's probably not something that you're going to lose sleep over like the cars or the defibrillators, but it's stealing keystrokes. Now, we've all looked at smartphones upside down. Every security expert wants to hack a smartphone, and we tend to look at the USB port, the GPS for tracking, the camera, the microphone, but no one up till this point had looked at the accelerometer. The accelerometer is the thing that determines the vertical orientation of the smartphone. And so they had a simple setup. They put a smartphone next to a keyboard, and they had people type, and then their goal was to use the vibrations that were created by typing to measure the change in the accelerometer reading to determine what the person had been typing. Now, when they tried this on an iPhone 3GS, this is a graph of the perturbations that were created by the typing, and you can see that it's very difficult to tell when somebody was typing or what they were typing, but the iPhone 4 greatly improved the accelerometer, and so the same measurement produced this graph. Now that gave you a lot of information while someone was typing, and what they did then is used advanced artificial intelligence techniques called machine learning to have a training phase, and so they got most likely grad students to type in a whole lot of things, and to learn, to have the system use the machine learning tools that were available to learn what it is that the people were typing and to match that up with the measurements in the accelerometer. And then there's the attack phase, where you get somebody to type something in, you don't know what it was, but you use your model that you created in the training phase to figure out what they were typing. They had pretty good success. This is an article from the USA Today. They typed in, "The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that Rahm Emanuel is eligible to run for Mayor of Chicago" — see, I tied it in to the last talk — "and ordered him to stay on the ballot." Now, the system is interesting, because it produced "Illinois Supreme" and then it wasn't sure. The model produced a bunch of options, and this is the beauty of some of the A.I. techniques, is that computers are good at some things, humans are good at other things, take the best of both and let the humans solve this one. Don't waste computer cycles. A human's not going to think it's the Supreme might. It's the Supreme Court, right? And so, together we're able to reproduce typing simply by measuring the accelerometer. Why does this matter? Well, in the Android platform, for example, the developers have a manifest where every device on there, the microphone, etc., has to register if you're going to use it so that hackers can't take over it, but nobody controls the accelerometer. So what's the point? You can leave your iPhone next to someone's keyboard, and just leave the room, and then later recover what they did, even without using the microphone. If someone is able to put malware on your iPhone, they could then maybe get the typing that you do whenever you put your iPhone next to your keyboard. There's several other notable attacks that unfortunately I don't have time to go into, but the one that I wanted to point out was a group from the University of Michigan which was able to take voting machines, the Sequoia AVC Edge DREs that were going to be used in New Jersey in the election that were left in a hallway, and put Pac-Man on it. So they ran the Pac-Man game. What does this all mean? Well, I think that society tends to adopt technology really quickly. I love the next coolest gadget. But it's very important, and these researchers are showing, that the developers of these things need to take security into account from the very beginning, and need to realize that they may have a threat model, but the attackers may not be nice enough to limit themselves to that threat model, and so you need to think outside of the box. What we can do is be aware that devices can be compromised, and anything that has software in it is going to be vulnerable. It's going to have bugs. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I think I was supposed to talk about my new book, which is called "Blink," and it's about snap judgments and first impressions. And it comes out in January, and I hope you all buy it in triplicate. But I was thinking about this, and I realized that although my new book makes me happy, and I think would make my mother happy, it's not really about happiness. So I decided instead, I would talk about someone who I think has done as much to make Americans happy as perhaps anyone over the last 20 years, a man who is a great personal hero of mine: someone by the name of Howard Moskowitz, who is most famous for reinventing spaghetti sauce. Howard's about this high, and he's round, and he's in his 60s, and he has big huge glasses and thinning grey hair, and he has a kind of wonderful exuberance and vitality, and he has a parrot, and he loves the opera, and he's a great aficionado of medieval history. And by profession, he's a psychophysicist. Now, I should tell you that I have no idea what psychophysics is, although at some point in my life, I dated a girl for two years who was getting her doctorate in psychophysics. Which should tell you something about that relationship. (Laughter) As far as I know, psychophysics is about measuring things. And Howard is very interested in measuring things. And he graduated with his doctorate from Harvard, and he set up a little consulting shop in White Plains, New York. And one of his first clients was -- this is many years ago, back in the early '70s -- one of his first clients was Pepsi. And Pepsi came to Howard and they said, "You know, there's this new thing called aspartame, and we would like to make Diet Pepsi. We'd like you to figure out how much aspartame we should put in each can of Diet Pepsi, in order to have the perfect drink." Right? Now that sounds like an incredibly straightforward question to answer, and that's what Howard thought. Because Pepsi told him, "Look, we're working with a band between eight and 12 percent. Anything below eight percent sweetness is not sweet enough; anything above 12 percent sweetness is too sweet. We want to know: what's the sweet spot between eight and 12?" Now, if I gave you this problem to do, you would all say, it's very simple. What we do is you make up a big experimental batch of Pepsi, at every degree of sweetness -- eight percent, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, all the way up to 12 -- and we try this out with thousands of people, and we plot the results on a curve, and we take the most popular concentration. Right? Really simple. Howard does the experiment, and he gets the data back, and he plots it on a curve, and all of a sudden he realizes it's not a nice bell curve. In fact, the data doesn't make any sense. It's a mess. It's all over the place. Now, most people in that business, in the world of testing food and such, are not dismayed when the data comes back a mess. They think, well, you know, figuring out what people think about cola's not that easy. You know, maybe we made an error somewhere along the way. You know, let's just make an educated guess, and they simply point and they go for 10 percent, right in the middle. Howard is not so easily placated. Howard is a man of a certain degree of intellectual standards. And this was not good enough for him, and this question bedeviled him for years. And he would think it through and say, what was wrong? Why could we not make sense of this experiment with Diet Pepsi? And one day, he was sitting in a diner in White Plains, about to go trying to dream up some work for Nescafe. And suddenly, like a bolt of lightning, the answer came to him. And that is, that when they analyzed the Diet Pepsi data, they were asking the wrong question. They were looking for the perfect Pepsi, and they should have been looking for the perfect Pepsis. Trust me. This was an enormous revelation. This was one of the most brilliant breakthroughs in all of food science. And Howard immediately went on the road, and he would go to conferences around the country, and he would stand up and he would say, "You had been looking for the perfect Pepsi. You're wrong. You should be looking for the perfect Pepsis." And people would look at him with a blank look, and they would say, "What are you talking about? This is craziness." And they would say, you know, "Move! Next!" Tried to get business, nobody would hire him -- he was obsessed, though, and he talked about it and talked about it and talked about it. Howard loves the Yiddish expression "To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish." This was his horseradish. (Laughter) He was obsessed with it! And finally, he had a breakthrough. Vlasic Pickles came to him, and they said, "Mr. Moskowitz -- Doctor Moskowitz -- we want to make the perfect pickle." And he said, "There is no perfect pickle; there are only perfect pickles." And he came back to them and he said, "You don't just need to improve your regular; you need to create zesty." And that's where we got zesty pickles. Then the next person came to him, and that was Campbell's Soup. And this was even more important. In fact, Campbell's Soup is where Howard made his reputation. Campbell's made Prego, and Prego, in the early '80s, was struggling next to Ragu, which was the dominant spaghetti sauce of the '70s and '80s. Now in the industry -- I don't know whether you care about this, or how much time I have to go into this. But it was, technically speaking -- this is an aside -- Prego is a better tomato sauce than Ragu. The quality of the tomato paste is much better; the spice mix is far superior; it adheres to the pasta in a much more pleasing way. In fact, they would do the famous bowl test back in the '70s with Ragu and Prego. You'd have a plate of spaghetti, and you would pour it on, right? And the Ragu would all go to the bottom, and the Prego would sit on top. That's called "adherence." And, anyway, despite the fact that they were far superior in adherence, and the quality of their tomato paste, Prego was struggling. So they came to Howard, and they said, fix us. And Howard looked at their product line, and he said, what you have is a dead tomato society. So he said, this is what I want to do. And he got together with the Campbell's soup kitchen, and he made 45 varieties of spaghetti sauce. And he varied them according to every conceivable way that you can vary tomato sauce: by sweetness, by level of garlic, by tartness, by sourness, by tomatoey-ness, by visible solids -- my favorite term in the spaghetti sauce business. (Laughter) Every conceivable way you can vary spaghetti sauce, he varied spaghetti sauce. And then he took this whole raft of 45 spaghetti sauces, and he went on the road. He went to New York; he went to Chicago; he went to Jacksonville; he went to Los Angeles. And he brought in people by the truckload. Into big halls. And he sat them down for two hours, and he gave them, over the course of that two hours, ten bowls. Ten small bowls of pasta, with a different spaghetti sauce on each one. And after they ate each bowl, they had to rate, from 0 to 100, how good they thought the spaghetti sauce was. At the end of that process, after doing it for months and months, he had a mountain of data about how the American people feel about spaghetti sauce. And then he analyzed the data. Now, did he look for the most popular brand variety of spaghetti sauce? No! Howard doesn't believe that there is such a thing. Instead, he looked at the data, and he said, let's see if we can group all these different data points into clusters. Let's see if they congregate around certain ideas. And sure enough, if you sit down, and you analyze all this data on spaghetti sauce, you realize that all Americans fall into one of three groups. There are people who like their spaghetti sauce plain; there are people who like their spaghetti sauce spicy; and there are people who like it extra chunky. And of those three facts, the third one was the most significant, because at the time, in the early 1980s, if you went to a supermarket, you would not find extra-chunky spaghetti sauce. And Prego turned to Howard, and they said, "You telling me that one third of Americans crave extra-chunky spaghetti sauce and yet no one is servicing their needs?" And he said yes! (Laughter) And Prego then went back, and completely reformulated their spaghetti sauce, and came out with a line of extra chunky that immediately and completely took over the spaghetti sauce business in this country. And over the next 10 years, they made 600 million dollars off their line of extra-chunky sauces. And everyone else in the industry looked at what Howard had done, and they said, "Oh my god! We've been thinking all wrong!" And that's when you started to get seven different kinds of vinegar, and 14 different kinds of mustard, and 71 different kinds of olive oil -- and then eventually even Ragu hired Howard, and Howard did the exact same thing for Ragu that he did for Prego. And today, if you go to the supermarket, a really good one, and you look at how many Ragus there are -- do you know how many they are? 36! In six varieties: Cheese, Light, Robusto, Rich & Hearty, Old World Traditional, Extra-Chunky Garden. (Laughter) That's Howard's doing. That is Howard's gift to the American people. Now why is that important? It is, in fact, enormously important. I'll explain to you why. What Howard did is he fundamentally changed the way the food industry thinks about making you happy. Assumption number one in the food industry used to be that the way to find out what people want to eat -- what will make people happy -- is to ask them. And for years and years and years and years, Ragu and Prego would have focus groups, and they would sit all you people down, and they would say, "What do you want in a spaghetti sauce? Tell us what you want in a spaghetti sauce." And for all those years -- 20, 30 years -- through all those focus group sessions, no one ever said they wanted extra-chunky. Even though at least a third of them, deep in their hearts, actually did. (Laughter) People don't know what they want! Right? As Howard loves to say, "The mind knows not what the tongue wants." It's a mystery! And a critically important step in understanding our own desires and tastes is to realize that we cannot always explain what we want deep down. If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what you'd say? Every one of you would say, "I want a dark, rich, hearty roast." It's what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want that "I want a milky, weak coffee." (Laughter) So that's number one thing that Howard did. Number two thing that Howard did is he made us realize -- it's another very critical point -- he made us realize in the importance of what he likes to call "horizontal segmentation." Why is this critical? It's critical because this is the way the food industry thought before Howard. Right? What were they obsessed with in the early '80s? They were obsessed with mustard. In particular, they were obsessed with the story of Grey Poupon. Right? Used to be, there were two mustards. French's and Gulden's. What were they? Yellow mustard. What's in yellow mustard? Yellow mustard seeds, turmeric, and paprika. That was mustard. Grey Poupon came along, with a Dijon. Right? Much more volatile brown mustard seed, some white wine, a nose hit, much more delicate aromatics. And what do they do? They put it in a little tiny glass jar, with a wonderful enameled label on it, made it look French, even though it's made in Oxnard, California. And instead of charging a dollar-fifty for the eight-ounce bottle, the way that French's and Gulden's did, they decided to charge four dollars. And then they had those ads, right? With the guy in the Rolls Royce, and he's eating the Grey Poupon. The other Rolls Royce pulls up, and he says, do you have any Grey Poupon? And the whole thing, after they did that, Grey Poupon takes off! Takes over the mustard business! And everyone's take-home lesson from that was that the way to get to make people happy is to give them something that is more expensive, something to aspire to. Right? It's to make them turn their back on what they think they like now, and reach out for something higher up the mustard hierarchy. A better mustard! A more expensive mustard! A mustard of more sophistication and culture and meaning. And Howard looked to that and said, that's wrong! Mustard does not exist on a hierarchy. Mustard exists, just like tomato sauce, on a horizontal plane. There is no good mustard or bad mustard. There is no perfect mustard or imperfect mustard. There are only different kinds of mustards that suit different kinds of people. He fundamentally democratized the way we think about taste. And for that, as well, we owe Howard Moskowitz a huge vote of thanks. Third thing that Howard did, and perhaps the most important, is Howard confronted the notion of the Platonic dish. (Laughter) What do I mean by that? For the longest time in the food industry, there was a sense that there was one way, a perfect way, to make a dish. You go to Chez Panisse, they give you the red-tail sashimi with roasted pumpkin seeds in a something something reduction. They don't give you five options on the reduction, right? They don't say, do you want the extra-chunky reduction, or do you want the -- no! You just get the reduction. Why? Because the chef at Chez Panisse has a Platonic notion about red-tail sashimi. This is the way it ought to be. And she serves it that way time and time again, and if you quarrel with her, she will say, "You know what? You're wrong! This is the best way it ought to be in this restaurant." Now that same idea fueled the commercial food industry as well. They had a notion, a Platonic notion, of what tomato sauce was. And where did that come from? It came from Italy. Italian tomato sauce is what? It's blended; it's thin. The culture of tomato sauce was thin. When we talked about authentic tomato sauce in the 1970s, we talked about Italian tomato sauce. We talked about the earliest ragus, which had no visible solids, right? Which were thin, and you just put a little bit over it and it sunk down to the bottom of the pasta. That's what it was. And why were we attached to that? Because we thought that what it took to make people happy was to provide them with the most culturally authentic tomato sauce, A; and B, we thought that if we gave them the culturally authentic tomato sauce, then they would embrace it. And that's what would please the maximum number of people. And the reason we thought that -- in other words, people in the cooking world were looking for cooking universals. They were looking for one way to treat all of us. And it's good reason for them to be obsessed with the idea of universals, because all of science, through the 19th century and much of the 20th, was obsessed with universals. Psychologists, medical scientists, economists were all interested in finding out the rules that govern the way all of us behave. But that changed, right? What is the great revolution in science of the last 10, 15 years? It is the movement from the search for universals to the understanding of variability. Now in medical science, we don't want to know how necessarily -- just how cancer works, we want to know how your cancer is different from my cancer. I guess my cancer different from your cancer. Genetics has opened the door to the study of human variability. What Howard Moskowitz was doing was saying, this same revolution needs to happen in the world of tomato sauce. And for that, we owe him a great vote of thanks. I'll give you one last illustration of variability, and that is -- oh, I'm sorry. Howard not only believed that, but he took it a second step, which was to say that when we pursue universal principles in food, we aren't just making an error; we are actually doing ourselves a massive disservice. And the example he used was coffee. And coffee is something he did a lot of work with, with Nescafe. If I were to ask all of you to try and come up with a brand of coffee -- a type of coffee, a brew -- that made all of you happy, and then I asked you to rate that coffee, the average score in this room for coffee would be about 60 on a scale of 0 to 100. If, however, you allowed me to break you into coffee clusters, maybe three or four coffee clusters, and I could make coffee just for each of those individual clusters, your scores would go from 60 to 75 or 78. The difference between coffee at 60 and coffee at 78 is a difference between coffee that makes you wince, and coffee that makes you deliriously happy. That is the final, and I think most beautiful lesson, of Howard Moskowitz: that in embracing the diversity of human beings, we will find a surer way to true happiness. Thank you.

Cultural evolution is a dangerous child for any species to let loose on its planet. By the time you realize what's happening, the child is a toddler, up and causing havoc, and it's too late to put it back. We humans are Earth's Pandoran species. We're the ones who let the second replicator out of its box, and we can't push it back in. We're seeing the consequences all around us. Now that, I suggest, is the view that comes out of taking memetics seriously. And it gives us a new way of thinking about not only what's going on on our planet, but what might be going on elsewhere in the cosmos. So first of all, I'd like to say something about memetics and the theory of memes, and secondly, how this might answer questions about who's out there, if indeed anyone is. So, memetics: memetics is founded on the principle of Universal Darwinism. Darwin had this amazing idea. Indeed, some people say it's the best idea anybody ever had. Isn't that a wonderful thought, that there could be such a thing as a best idea anybody ever had? Do you think there could? Audience: No. (Laughter) Susan Blackmore: Someone says no, very loudly, from over there. Well, I say yes, and if there is, I give the prize to Darwin. Why? Because the idea was so simple, and yet it explains all design in the universe. I would say not just biological design, but all of the design that we think of as human design. It's all just the same thing happening. What did Darwin say? I know you know the idea, natural selection, but let me just paraphrase "The Origin of Species," 1859, in a few sentences. What Darwin said was something like this: if you have creatures that vary, and that can't be doubted -- I've been to the Galapagos, and I've measured the size of the beaks and the size of the turtle shells and so on, and so on. And 100 pages later. (Laughter) And if there is a struggle for life, such that nearly all of these creatures die -- and this can't be doubted, I've read Malthus and I've calculated how long it would take for elephants to cover the whole world if they bred unrestricted, and so on and so on. And another 100 pages later. And if the very few that survive pass onto their offspring whatever it was that helped them survive, then those offspring must be better adapted to the circumstances in which all this happened than their parents were. You see the idea? If, if, if, then. He had no concept of the idea of an algorithm, but that's what he described in that book, and this is what we now know as the evolutionary algorithm. The principle is you just need those three things -- variation, selection and heredity. And as Dan Dennett puts it, if you have those, then you must get evolution. Or design out of chaos, without the aid of mind. There's one word I love on that slide. What do you think my favorite word is? Audience: Chaos. SB: Chaos? No. What? Mind? No. Audience: Without. SB: No, not without. (Laughter) You try them all in order: Mmm...? Audience: Must. SB: Must, at must. Must, must. This is what makes it so amazing. You don't need a designer, or a plan, or foresight, or anything else. If there's something that is copied with variation and it's selected, then you must get design appearing out of nowhere. You can't stop it. Must is my favorite word there. Now, what's this to do with memes? Well, the principle here applies to anything that is copied with variation and selection. We're so used to thinking in terms of biology, we think about genes this way. Darwin didn't, of course; he didn't know about genes. He talked mostly about animals and plants, but also about languages evolving and becoming extinct. But the principle of Universal Darwinism is that any information that is varied and selected will produce design. And this is what Richard Dawkins was on about in his 1976 bestseller, "The Selfish Gene." The information that is copied, he called the replicator. It selfishly copies. Not meaning it kind of sits around inside cells going, "I want to get copied." But that it will get copied if it can, regardless of the consequences. It doesn't care about the consequences because it can't, because it's just information being copied. And he wanted to get away from everybody thinking all the time about genes, and so he said, "Is there another replicator out there on the planet?" Ah, yes, there is. Look around you -- here will do, in this room. All around us, still clumsily drifting about in its primeval soup of culture, is another replicator. Information that we copy from person to person, by imitation, by language, by talking, by telling stories, by wearing clothes, by doing things. This is information copied with variation and selection. This is design process going on. He wanted a name for the new replicator. So, he took the Greek word "mimeme," which means that which is imitated. Remember that, that's the core definition: that which is imitated. And abbreviated it to meme, just because it sounds good and made a good meme, an effective spreading meme. So that's how the idea came about. It's important to stick with that definition. The whole science of memetics is much maligned, much misunderstood, much feared. But a lot of these problems can be avoided by remembering the definition. A meme is not equivalent to an idea. It's not an idea. It's not equivalent to anything else, really. Stick with the definition. It's that which is imitated, or information which is copied from person to person. So, let's see some memes. Well, you sir, you've got those glasses hung around your neck in that particularly fetching way. I wonder whether you invented that idea for yourself, or copied it from someone else? If you copied it from someone else, it's a meme. And what about, oh, I can't see any interesting memes here. All right everyone, who's got some interesting memes for me? Oh, well, your earrings, I don't suppose you invented the idea of earrings. You probably went out and bought them. There are plenty more in the shops. That's something that's passed on from person to person. All the stories that we're telling -- well, of course, TED is a great meme-fest, masses of memes. The way to think about memes, though, is to think, why do they spread? They're selfish information, they will get copied, if they can. But some of them will be copied because they're good, or true, or useful, or beautiful. Some of them will be copied even though they're not. Some, it's quite hard to tell why. There's one particular curious meme which I rather enjoy. And I'm glad to say, as I expected, I found it when I came here, and I'm sure all of you found it, too. You go to your nice, posh, international hotel somewhere, and you come in and you put down your clothes and you go to the bathroom, and what do you see? Audience: Bathroom soap. SB: Pardon? Audience: Soap. SB: Soap, yeah. What else do you see? Audience: (Inaudible) SB: Mmm mmm. Audience: Sink, toilet! SB: Sink, toilet, yes, these are all memes, they're all memes, but they're sort of useful ones, and then there's this one. (Laughter) What is this one doing? (Laughter) This has spread all over the world. It's not surprising that you all found it when you arrived in your bathrooms here. But I took this photograph in a toilet at the back of a tent in the eco-camp in the jungle in Assam. (Laughter) Who folded that thing up there, and why? (Laughter) Some people get carried away. (Laughter) Other people are just lazy and make mistakes. Some hotels exploit the opportunity to put even more memes with a little sticker. (Laughter) What is this all about? I suppose it's there to tell you that somebody's cleaned the place, and it's all lovely. And you know, actually, all it tells you is that another person has potentially spread germs from place to place. (Laughter) So, think of it this way. Imagine a world full of brains and far more memes than can possibly find homes. The memes are all trying to get copied -- trying, in inverted commas -- i.e., that's the shorthand for, if they can get copied, they will. They're using you and me as their propagating, copying machinery, and we are the meme machines. Now, why is this important? Why is this useful, or what does it tell us? It gives us a completely new view of human origins and what it means to be human, all conventional theories of cultural evolution, of the origin of humans, and what makes us so different from other species. All other theories explaining the big brain, and language, and tool use and all these things that make us unique, are based upon genes. Language must have been useful for the genes. Tool use must have enhanced our survival, mating and so on. It always comes back, as Richard Dawkins complained all that long time ago, it always comes back to genes. The point of memetics is to say, "Oh no, it doesn't." There are two replicators now on this planet. From the moment that our ancestors, perhaps two and a half million years ago or so, began imitating, there was a new copying process. Copying with variation and selection. A new replicator was let loose, and it could never be -- right from the start -- it could never be that human beings who let loose this new creature, could just copy the useful, beautiful, true things, and not copy the other things. While their brains were having an advantage from being able to copy -- lighting fires, keeping fires going, new techniques of hunting, these kinds of things -- inevitably they were also copying putting feathers in their hair, or wearing strange clothes, or painting their faces, or whatever. So, you get an arms race between the genes which are trying to get the humans to have small economical brains and not waste their time copying all this stuff, and the memes themselves, like the sounds that people made and copied -- in other words, what turned out to be language -- competing to get the brains to get bigger and bigger. So, the big brain, on this theory, is driven by the memes. This is why, in "The Meme Machine," I called it memetic drive. As the memes evolve, as they inevitably must, they drive a bigger brain that is better at copying the memes that are doing the driving. This is why we've ended up with such peculiar brains, that we like religion, and music, and art. Language is a parasite that we've adapted to, not something that was there originally for our genes, on this view. And like most parasites, it can begin dangerous, but then it coevolves and adapts, and we end up with a symbiotic relationship with this new parasite. And so, from our perspective, we don't realize that that's how it began. So, this is a view of what humans are. All other species on this planet are gene machines only, they don't imitate at all well, hardly at all. We alone are gene machines and meme machines as well. The memes took a gene machine and turned it into a meme machine. But that's not all. We have a new kind of memes now. I've been wondering for a long time, since I've been thinking about memes a lot, is there a difference between the memes that we copy -- the words we speak to each other, the gestures we copy, the human things -- and all these technological things around us? I have always, until now, called them all memes, but I do honestly think now we need a new word for technological memes. Let's call them techno-memes or temes. Because the processes are getting different. We began, perhaps 5,000 years ago, with writing. We put the storage of memes out there on a clay tablet, but in order to get true temes and true teme machines, you need to get the variation, the selection and the copying, all done outside of humans. And we're getting there. We're at this extraordinary point where we're nearly there, that there are machines like that. And indeed, in the short time I've already been at TED, I see we're even closer than I thought we were before. So actually, now the temes are forcing our brains to become more like teme machines. Our children are growing up very quickly learning to read, learning to use machinery. We're going to have all kinds of implants, drugs that force us to stay awake all the time. We'll think we're choosing these things, but the temes are making us do it. So, we're at this cusp now of having a third replicator on our planet. Now, what about what else is going on out there in the universe? Is there anyone else out there? People have been asking this question for a long time. We've been asking it here at TED already. In 1961, Frank Drake made his famous equation, but I think he concentrated on the wrong things. It's been very productive, that equation. He wanted to estimate N, the number of communicative civilizations out there in our galaxy, and he included in there the rate of star formation, the rate of planets, but crucially, intelligence. I think that's the wrong way to think about it. Intelligence appears all over the place, in all kinds of guises. Human intelligence is only one kind of a thing. But what's really important is the replicators you have and the levels of replicators, one feeding on the one before. So, I would suggest that we don't think intelligence, we think replicators. And on that basis, I've suggested a different kind of equation. A very simple equation. N, the same thing, the number of communicative civilizations out there [that] we might expect in our galaxy. Just start with the number of planets there are in our galaxy. The fraction of those which get a first replicator. The fraction of those that get the second replicator. The fraction of those that get the third replicator. Because it's only the third replicator that's going to reach out -- sending information, sending probes, getting out there, and communicating with anywhere else. OK, so if we take that equation, why haven't we heard from anybody out there? Because every step is dangerous. Getting a new replicator is dangerous. You can pull through, we have pulled through, but it's dangerous. Take the first step, as soon as life appeared on this earth. We may take the Gaian view. I loved Peter Ward's talk yesterday -- it's not Gaian all the time. Actually, life forms produce things that kill themselves. Well, we did pull through on this planet. But then, a long time later, billions of years later, we got the second replicator, the memes. That was dangerous, all right. Think of the big brain. How many mothers do we have here? You know all about big brains. They are dangerous to give birth to, are agonizing to give birth to. (Laughter) My cat gave birth to four kittens, purring all the time. Ah, mm -- slightly different. (Laughter) But not only is it painful, it kills lots of babies, it kills lots of mothers, and it's very expensive to produce. The genes are forced into producing all this myelin, all the fat to myelinate the brain. Do you know, sitting here, your brain is using about 20 percent of your body's energy output for two percent of your body weight? It's a really expensive organ to run. Why? Because it's producing the memes. Now, it could have killed us off. It could have killed us off, and maybe it nearly did, but you see, we don't know. But maybe it nearly did. Has it been tried before? What about all those other species? Louise Leakey talked yesterday about how we're the only one in this branch left. What happened to the others? Could it be that this experiment in imitation, this experiment in a second replicator, is dangerous enough to kill people off? Well, we did pull through, and we adapted. But now, we're hitting, as I've just described, we're hitting the third replicator point. And this is even more dangerous -- well, it's dangerous again. Why? Because the temes are selfish replicators and they don't care about us, or our planet, or anything else. They're just information, why would they? They are using us to suck up the planet's resources to produce more computers, and more of all these amazing things we're hearing about here at TED. Don't think, "Oh, we created the Internet for our own benefit." That's how it seems to us. Think, temes spreading because they must. We are the old machines. Now, are we going to pull through? What's going to happen? What does it mean to pull through? Well, there are kind of two ways of pulling through. One that is obviously happening all around us now, is that the temes turn us into teme machines, with these implants, with the drugs, with us merging with the technology. And why would they do that? Because we are self-replicating. We have babies. We make new ones, and so it's convenient to piggyback on us, because we're not yet at the stage on this planet where the other option is viable. Although it's closer, I heard this morning, it's closer than I thought it was. Where the teme machines themselves will replicate themselves. That way, it wouldn't matter if the planet's climate was utterly destabilized, and it was no longer possible for humans to live here. Because those teme machines, they wouldn't need -- they're not squishy, wet, oxygen-breathing, warmth-requiring creatures. They could carry on without us. So, those are the two possibilities. The second, I don't think we're that close. It's coming, but we're not there yet. The first, it's coming too. But the damage that is already being done to the planet is showing us how dangerous the third point is, that third danger point, getting a third replicator. And will we get through this third danger point, like we got through the second and like we got through the first? Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I have no idea. (Applause) Chris Anderson: That was an incredible talk. SB: Thank you. I scared myself. CA: (Laughter)

How can we investigate this flora of viruses that surround us, and aid medicine? How can we turn our cumulative knowledge of virology into a simple, hand-held, single diagnostic assay? I want to turn everything we know right now about detecting viruses and the spectrum of viruses that are out there into, let's say, a small chip. When we started thinking about this project -- how we would make a single diagnostic assay to screen for all pathogens simultaneously -- well, there's some problems with this idea. First of all, viruses are pretty complex, but they're also evolving very fast. This is a picornavirus. Picornaviruses -- these are things that include the common cold and polio, things like this. You're looking at the outside shell of the virus, and the yellow color here are those parts of the virus that are evolving very, very fast, and the blue parts are not evolving very fast. When people think about making pan-viral detection reagents, usually it's the fast-evolving problem that's an issue, because how can we detect things if they're always changing? But evolution is a balance: where you have fast change, you also have ultra-conservation -- things that almost never change. And so we looked into this a little more carefully, and I'm going to show you data now. This is just some stuff you can do on the computer from the desktop. I took a bunch of these small picornaviruses, like the common cold, like polio and so on, and I just broke them down into small segments. And so took this first example, which is called coxsackievirus, and just break it into small windows. And I'm coloring these small windows blue if another virus shares an identical sequence in its genome to that virus. These sequences right up here -- which don't even code for protein, by the way -- are almost absolutely identical across all of these, so I could use this sequence as a marker to detect a wide spectrum of viruses, without having to make something individual. Now, over here there's great diversity: that's where things are evolving fast. Down here you can see slower evolution: less diversity. Now, by the time we get out here to, let's say, acute bee paralysis virus -- probably a bad one to have if you're a bee --- this virus shares almost no similarity to coxsackievirus, but I can guarantee you that the sequences that are most conserved among these viruses on the right-hand of the screen are in identical regions right up here. And so we can encapsulate these regions of ultra-conservation through evolution -- how these viruses evolved -- by just choosing DNA elements or RNA elements in these regions to represent on our chip as detection reagents. OK, so that's what we did, but how are we going to do that? Well, for a long time, since I was in graduate school, I've been messing around making DNA chips -- that is, printing DNA on glass. And that's what you see here: These little salt spots are just DNA tacked onto glass, and so I can put thousands of these on our glass chip and use them as a detection reagent. We took our chip over to Hewlett-Packard and used their atomic force microscope on one of these spots, and this is what you see: you can actually see the strands of DNA lying flat on the glass here. So, what we're doing is just printing DNA on glass -- little flat things -- and these are going to be markers for pathogens. OK, I make little robots in lab to make these chips, and I'm really big on disseminating technology. If you've got enough money to buy just a Camry, you can build one of these too, and so we put a deep how-to guide on the Web, totally free, with basically order-off-the-shelf parts. You can build a DNA array machine in your garage. Here's the section on the all-important emergency stop switch. (Laughter) Every important machine's got to have a big red button. But really, it's pretty robust. You can actually be making DNA chips in your garage and decoding some genetic programs pretty rapidly. It's a lot of fun. (Laughter) And so what we did -- and this is a really cool project -- we just started by making a respiratory virus chip. I talked about that -- you know, that situation where you go into the clinic and you don't get diagnosed? Well, we just put basically all the human respiratory viruses on one chip, and we threw in herpes virus for good measure -- I mean, why not? The first thing you do as a scientist is, you make sure stuff works. And so what we did is, we take tissue culture cells and infect them with various viruses, and we take the stuff and fluorescently label the nucleic acid, the genetic material that comes out of these tissue culture cells -- mostly viral stuff -- and stick it on the array to see where it sticks. Now, if the DNA sequences match, they'll stick together, and so we can look at spots. And if spots light up, we know there's a certain virus in there. That's what one of these chips really looks like, and these red spots are, in fact, signals coming from the virus. And each spot represents a different family of virus or species of virus. And so, that's a hard way to look at things, so I'm just going to encode things as a little barcode, grouped by family, so you can see the results in a very intuitive way. What we did is, we took tissue culture cells and infected them with adenovirus, and you can see this little yellow barcode next to adenovirus. And, likewise, we infected them with parainfluenza-3 -- that's a paramyxovirus -- and you see a little barcode here. And then we did respiratory syncytial virus. That's the scourge of daycare centers everywhere -- it's like boogeremia, basically. (Laughter) You can see that this barcode is the same family, but it's distinct from parainfluenza-3, which gives you a very bad cold. And so we're getting unique signatures, a fingerprint for each virus. Polio and rhino: they're in the same family, very close to each other. Rhino's the common cold, and you all know what polio is, and you can see that these signatures are distinct. And Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus gives a nice signature down here. And so it is not any one stripe or something that tells me I have a virus of a particular type here; it's the barcode that in bulk represents the whole thing. All right, I can see a rhinovirus -- and here's the blow-up of the rhinovirus's little barcode -- but what about different rhinoviruses? How do I know which rhinovirus I have? There're 102 known variants of the common cold, and there're only 102 because people got bored collecting them: there are just new ones every year. And so, here are four different rhinoviruses, and you can see, even with your eye, without any fancy computer pattern-matching recognition software algorithms, that you can distinguish each one of these barcodes from each other. Now, this is kind of a cheap shot, because I know what the genetic sequence of all these rhinoviruses is, and I in fact designed the chip expressly to be able to tell them apart, but what about rhinoviruses that have never seen a genetic sequencer? We don't know what the sequence is; just pull them out of the field. So, here are four rhinoviruses we never knew anything about -- no one's ever sequenced them -- and you can also see that you get unique and distinguishable patterns. You can imagine building up some library, whether real or virtual, of fingerprints of essentially every virus. But that's, again, shooting fish in a barrel, you know, right? You have tissue culture cells. There are a ton of viruses. What about real people? You can't control real people, as you probably know. You have no idea what someone's going to cough into a cup, and it's probably really complex, right? It could have lots of bacteria, it could have more than one virus, and it certainly has host genetic material. So how do we deal with this? And how do we do the positive control here? Well, it's pretty simple. That's me, getting a nasal lavage. And the idea is, let's experimentally inoculate people with virus. This is all IRB-approved, by the way; they got paid. And basically we experimentally inoculate people with the common cold virus. Or, even better, let's just take people right out of the emergency room -- undefined, community-acquired respiratory tract infections. You have no idea what walks in through the door. So, let's start off with the positive control first, where we know the person was healthy. They got a shot of virus up the nose, let's see what happens. Day zero: nothing happening. They're healthy; they're clean -- it's amazing. Actually, we thought the nasal tract might be full of viruses even when you're walking around healthy. It's pretty clean. If you're healthy, you're pretty healthy. Day two: we get a very robust rhinovirus pattern, and it's very similar to what we get in the lab doing our tissue culture experiment. So that's great, but again, cheap shot, right? We put a ton of virus up this guy's nose. So -- (Laughter) -- I mean, we wanted it to work. He really had a cold. So, how about the people who walk in off the street? Here are two individuals represented by their anonymous ID codes. They both have rhinoviruses; we've never seen this pattern in lab. We sequenced part of their viruses; they're new rhinoviruses no one's actually even seen. Remember, our evolutionary-conserved sequences we're using on this array allow us to detect even novel or uncharacterized viruses, because we pick what is conserved throughout evolution. Here's another guy. You can play the diagnosis game yourself here. These different blocks represent the different viruses in this paramyxovirus family, so you can kind of go down the blocks and see where the signal is. Well, doesn't have canine distemper; that's probably good. (Laughter) But by the time you get to block nine, you see that respiratory syncytial virus. Maybe they have kids. And then you can see, also, the family member that's related: RSVB is showing up here. So, that's great. Here's another individual, sampled on two separate days -- repeat visits to the clinic. This individual has parainfluenza-1, and you can see that there's a little stripe over here for Sendai virus: that's mouse parainfluenza. The genetic relationships are very close there. That's a lot of fun. So, we built out the chip. We made a chip that has every known virus ever discovered on it. Why not? Every plant virus, every insect virus, every marine virus. Everything that we could get out of GenBank -- that is, the national repository of sequences. Now we're using this chip. And what are we using it for? Well, first of all, when you have a big chip like this, you need a little bit more informatics, so we designed the system to do automatic diagnosis. And the idea is that we simply have virtual patterns, because we're never going to get samples of every virus -- it would be virtually impossible. But we can get virtual patterns, and compare them to our observed result -- which is a very complex mixture -- and come up with some sort of score of how likely it is this is a rhinovirus or something. And this is what this looks like. If, for example, you used a cell culture that's chronically infected with papilloma, you get a little computer readout here, and our algorithm says it's probably papilloma type 18. And that is, in fact, what these particular cell cultures are chronically infected with. So let's do something a little bit harder. We put the beeper in the clinic. When somebody shows up, and the hospital doesn't know what to do because they can't diagnose it, they call us. That's the idea, and we're setting this up in the Bay Area. And so, this case report happened three weeks ago. We have a 28-year-old healthy woman, no travel history, [unclear], doesn't smoke, doesn't drink. 10-day history of fevers, night sweats, bloody sputum -- she's coughing up blood -- muscle pain. She went to the clinic, and they gave her antibiotics and then sent her home. She came back after ten days of fever, right? Still has the fever, and she's hypoxic -- she doesn't have much oxygen in her lungs. They did a CT scan. A normal lung is all sort of dark and black here. All this white stuff -- it's not good. This sort of tree and bud formation indicates there's inflammation; there's likely to be infection. OK. So, the patient was treated then with a third-generation cephalosporin antibiotic and doxycycline, and on day three, it didn't help: she had progressed to acute failure. They had to intubate her, so they put a tube down her throat and they began to mechanically ventilate her. She could no longer breathe for herself. What to do next? Don't know. Switch antibiotics: so they switched to another antibiotic, Tamiflu. It's not clear why they thought she had the flu, but they switched to Tamiflu. And on day six, they basically threw in the towel. You do an open lung biopsy when you've got no other options. There's an eight percent mortality rate with just doing this procedure, and so basically -- and what do they learn from it? You're looking at her open lung biopsy. And I'm no pathologist, but you can't tell much from this. All you can tell is, there's a lot of swelling: bronchiolitis. It was "unrevealing": that's the pathologist's report. And so, what did they test her for? They have their own tests, of course, and so they tested her for over 70 different assays, for every sort of bacteria and fungus and viral assay you can buy off the shelf: SARS, metapneumovirus, HIV, RSV -- all these. Everything came back negative, over 100,000 dollars worth of tests. I mean, they went to the max for this woman. And basically on hospital day eight, that's when they called us. They gave us endotracheal aspirate -- you know, a little fluid from the throat, from this tube that they got down there -- and they gave us this. We put it on the chip; what do we see? Well, we saw parainfluenza-4. Well, what the hell's parainfluenza-4? No one tests for parainfluenza-4. No one cares about it. In fact, it's not even really sequenced that much. There's just a little bit of it sequenced. There's almost no epidemiology or studies on it. No one would even consider it, because no one had a clue that it could cause respiratory failure. And why is that? Just lore. There's no data -- no data to support whether it causes severe or mild disease. Clearly, we have a case of a healthy person that's going down. OK, that's one case report. I'm going to tell you one last thing in the last two minutes that's unpublished -- it's going to come out tomorrow -- and it's an interesting case of how you might use this chip to find something new and open a new door. Prostate cancer. I don't need to give you many statistics about prostate cancer. Most of you already know it: third leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S. Lots of risk factors, but there is a genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. For maybe about 10 percent of prostate cancer, there are folks that are predisposed to it. And the first gene that was mapped in association studies for this, early-onset prostate cancer, was this gene called RNASEL. What is that? It's an antiviral defense enzyme. So, we're sitting around and thinking, "Why would men who have the mutation -- a defect in an antiviral defense system -- get prostate cancer? It doesn't make sense -- unless, maybe, there's a virus?" So, we put tumors --- and now we have over 100 tumors -- on our array. And we know who's got defects in RNASEL and who doesn't. And I'm showing you the signal from the chip here, and I'm showing you for the block of retroviral oligos. And what I'm telling you here from the signal, is that men who have a mutation in this antiviral defense enzyme, and have a tumor, often have -- 40 percent of the time -- a signature which reveals a new retrovirus. OK, that's pretty wild. What is it? So, we clone the whole virus. First of all, I'll tell you that a little automated prediction told us it was very similar to a mouse virus. But that doesn't tell us too much, so we actually clone the whole thing. And the viral genome I'm showing you right here? It's a classic gamma retrovirus, but it's totally new; no one's ever seen it before. Its closest relative is, in fact, from mice, and so we would call this a xenotropic retrovirus, because it's infecting a species other than mice. And this is a little phylogenetic tree to see how it's related to other viruses. We've done it for many patients now, and we can say that they're all independent infections. They all have the same virus, but they're different enough that there's reason to believe that they've been independently acquired. Is it really in the tissue? And I'll end up with this: yes. We take slices of these biopsies of tumor tissue and use material to actually locate the virus, and we find cells here with viral particles in them. These guys really do have this virus. Does this virus cause prostate cancer? Nothing I'm saying here implies causality. I don't know. Is it a link to oncogenesis? I don't know. Is it the case that these guys are just more susceptible to viruses? Could be. And it might have nothing to do with cancer. But now it's a door. We have a strong association between the presence of this virus and a genetic mutation that's been linked to cancer. That's where we're at. So, it opens up more questions than it answers, I'm afraid, but that's what, you know, science is really good at. This was all done by folks in the lab -- I cannot take credit for most of this. This is a collaboration between myself and Don. This is the guy who started the project in my lab, and this is the guy who's been doing prostate stuff. Thank you very much. (Applause)

There's a poem written by a very famous English poet at the end of the 19th century. It was said to echo in Churchill's brain in the 1930s. And the poem goes: "On the idle hill of summer, lazy with the flow of streams, hark I hear a distant drummer, drumming like a sound in dreams, far and near and low and louder on the roads of earth go by, dear to friend and food to powder, soldiers marching, soon to die." Those who are interested in poetry, the poem is "A Shropshire Lad" written by A.E. Housman. But what Housman understood, and you hear it in the symphonies of Nielsen too, was that the long, hot, silvan summers of stability of the 19th century were coming to a close, and that we were about to move into one of those terrifying periods of history when power changes. And these are always periods, ladies and gentlemen, accompanied by turbulence, and all too often by blood. And my message for you is that I believe we are condemned, if you like, to live at just one of those moments in history when the gimbals upon which the established order of power is beginning to change and the new look of the world, the new powers that exist in the world, are beginning to take form. And these are -- and we see it very clearly today -- nearly always highly turbulent times, highly difficult times, and all too often very bloody times. By the way, it happens about once every century. You might argue that the last time it happened -- and that's what Housman felt coming and what Churchill felt too -- was that when power passed from the old nations, the old powers of Europe, across the Atlantic to the new emerging power of the United States of America -- the beginning of the American century. And of course, into the vacuum where the too-old European powers used to be were played the two bloody catastrophes of the last century -- the one in the first part and the one in the second part: the two great World Wars. Mao Zedong used to refer to them as the European civil wars, and it's probably a more accurate way of describing them. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we live at one of those times. But for us, I want to talk about three factors today. And the first of these, the first two of these, is about a shift in power. And the second is about some new dimension which I want to refer to, which has never quite happened in the way it's happening now. But let's talk about the shifts of power that are occurring to the world. And what is happening today is, in one sense, frightening because it's never happened before. We have seen lateral shifts of power -- the power of Greece passed to Rome and the power shifts that occurred during the European civilizations -- but we are seeing something slightly different. For power is not just moving laterally from nation to nation. It's also moving vertically. What's happening today is that the power that was encased, held to accountability, held to the rule of law, within the institution of the nation state has now migrated in very large measure onto the global stage. The globalization of power -- we talk about the globalization of markets, but actually it's the globalization of real power. And where, at the nation state level that power is held to accountability subject to the rule of law, on the international stage it is not. The international stage and the global stage where power now resides: the power of the Internet, the power of the satellite broadcasters, the power of the money changers -- this vast money-go-round that circulates now 32 times the amount of money necessary for the trade it's supposed to be there to finance -- the money changers, if you like, the financial speculators that have brought us all to our knees quite recently, the power of the multinational corporations now developing budgets often bigger than medium-sized countries. These live in a global space which is largely unregulated, not subject to the rule of law, and in which people may act free of constraint. Now that suits the powerful up to a moment. It's always suitable for those who have the most power to operate in spaces without constraint, but the lesson of history is that, sooner or later, unregulated space -- space not subject to the rule of law -- becomes populated, not just by the things you wanted -- international trade, the Internet, etc. -- but also by the things you don't want -- international criminality, international terrorism. The revelation of 9/11 is that even if you are the most powerful nation on earth, nevertheless, those who inhabit that space can attack you even in your most iconic of cities one bright September morning. It's said that something like 60 percent of the four million dollars that was taken to fund 9/11 actually passed through the institutions of the Twin Towers which 9/11 destroyed. You see, our enemies also use this space -- the space of mass travel, the Internet, satellite broadcasters -- to be able to get around their poison, which is about destroying our systems and our ways. Sooner or later, sooner or later, the rule of history is that where power goes governance must follow. And if it is therefore the case, as I believe it is, that one of the phenomenon of our time is the globalization of power, then it follows that one of the challenges of our time is to bring governance to the global space. And I believe that the decades ahead of us now will be to a greater or lesser extent turbulent the more or less we are able to achieve that aim: to bring governance to the global space. Now notice, I'm not talking about government. I'm not talking about setting up some global democratic institution. My own view, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, is that this is unlikely to be done by spawning more U.N. institutions. If we didn't have the U.N., we'd have to invent it. The world needs an international forum. It needs a means by which you can legitimize international action. But when it comes to governance of the global space, my guess is this won't happen through the creation of more U.N. institutions. It will actually happen by the powerful coming together and making treaty-based systems, treaty-based agreements, to govern that global space. And if you look, you can see them happening, already beginning to emerge. The World Trade Organization: treaty-based organization, entirely treaty-based, and yet, powerful enough to hold even the most powerful, the United States, to account if necessary. Kyoto: the beginnings of struggling to create a treaty-based organization. The G20: we know now that we have to put together an institution which is capable of bringing governance to that financial space for financial speculation. And that's what the G20 is, a treaty-based institution. Now there's a problem there, and we'll come back to it in a minute, which is that if you bring the most powerful together to make the rules in treaty-based institutions, to fill that governance space, then what happens to the weak who are left out? And that's a big problem, and we'll return to it in just a second. So there's my first message, that if you are to pass through these turbulent times more or less turbulently, then our success in doing that will in large measure depend on our capacity to bring sensible governance to the global space. And watch that beginning to happen. My second point is, and I know I don't have to talk to an audience like this about such a thing, but power is not just shifting vertically, it's also shifting horizontally. You might argue that the story, the history of civilizations, has been civilizations gathered around seas -- with the first ones around the Mediterranean, the more recent ones in the ascendents of Western power around the Atlantic. Well it seems to me that we're now seeing a fundamental shift of power, broadly speaking, away from nations gathered around the Atlantic [seaboard] to the nations gathered around the Pacific rim. Now that begins with economic power, but that's the way it always begins. You already begin to see the development of foreign policies, the augmentation of military budgets occurring in the other growing powers in the world. I think actually this is not so much a shift from the West to the East; something different is happening. My guess is, for what it's worth, is that the United States will remain the most powerful nation on earth for the next 10 years, 15, but the context in which she holds her power has now radically altered; it has radically changed. We are coming out of 50 years, most unusual years, of history in which we have had a totally mono-polar world, in which every compass needle for or against has to be referenced by its position to Washington -- a world bestrode by a single colossus. But that's not a usual case in history. In fact, what's now emerging is the much more normal case of history. You're beginning to see the emergence of a multi-polar world. Up until now, the United States has been the dominant feature of our world. They will remain the most powerful nation, but they will be the most powerful nation in an increasingly multi-polar world. And you begin to see the alternative centers of power building up -- in China, of course, though my own guess is that China's ascent to greatness is not smooth. It's going to be quite grumpy as China begins to democratize her society after liberalizing her economy. But that's a subject of a different discussion. You see India, you see Brazil. You see increasingly that the world now looks actually, for us Europeans, much more like Europe in the 19th century. Europe in the 19th century: a great British foreign secretary, Lord Canning, used to describe it as the "European concert of powers." There was a balance, a five-sided balance. Britain always played to the balance. If Paris got together with Berlin, Britain got together with Vienna and Rome to provide a counterbalance. Now notice, in a period which is dominated by a mono-polar world, you have fixed alliances -- NATO, the Warsaw Pact. A fixed polarity of power means fixed alliances. But a multiple polarity of power means shifting and changing alliances. And that's the world we're coming into, in which we will increasingly see that our alliances are not fixed. Canning, the great British foreign secretary once said, "Britain has a common interest, but no common allies." And we will see increasingly that even we in the West will reach out, have to reach out, beyond the cozy circle of the Atlantic powers to make alliances with others if we want to get things done in the world. Note, that when we went into Libya, it was not good enough for the West to do it alone; we had to bring others in. We had to bring, in this case, the Arab League in. My guess is Iraq and Afghanistan are the last times when the West has tried to do it themselves, and we haven't succeeded. My guess is that we're reaching the beginning of the end of 400 years -- I say 400 years because it's the end of the Ottoman Empire -- of the hegemony of Western power, Western institutions and Western values. You know, up until now, if the West got its act together, it could propose and dispose in every corner of the world. But that's no longer true. Take the last financial crisis after the Second World War. The West got together -- the Bretton Woods Institution, World Bank, International Monetary Fund -- the problem solved. Now we have to call in others. Now we have to create the G20. Now we have to reach beyond the cozy circle of our Western friends. Let me make a prediction for you, which is probably even more startling. I suspect we are now reaching the end of 400 years when Western power was enough. People say to me, "The Chinese, of course, they'll never get themselves involved in peace-making, multilateral peace-making around the world." Oh yes? Why not? How many Chinese troops are serving under the blue beret, serving under the blue flag, serving under the U.N. command in the world today? 3,700. How many Americans? 11. What is the largest naval contingent tackling the issue of Somali pirates? The Chinese naval contingent. Of course they are, they are a mercantilist nation. They want to keep the sea lanes open. Increasingly, we are going to have to do business with people with whom we do not share values, but with whom, for the moment, we share common interests. It's a whole new different way of looking at the world that is now emerging. And here's the third factor, which is totally different. Today in our modern world, because of the Internet, because of the kinds of things people have been talking about here, everything is connected to everything. We are now interdependent. We are now interlocked, as nations, as individuals, in a way which has never been the case before, never been the case before. The interrelationship of nations, well it's always existed. Diplomacy is about managing the interrelationship of nations. But now we are intimately locked together. You get swine flu in Mexico, it's a problem for Charles de Gaulle Airport 24 hours later. Lehman Brothers goes down, the whole lot collapses. There are fires in the steppes of Russia, food riots in Africa. We are all now deeply, deeply, deeply interconnected. And what that means is the idea of a nation state acting alone, not connected with others, not working with others, is no longer a viable proposition. Because the actions of a nation state are neither confined to itself, nor is it sufficient for the nation state itself to control its own territory, because the effects outside the nation state are now beginning to affect what happens inside them. I was a young soldier in the last of the small empire wars of Britain. At that time, the defense of my country was about one thing and one thing only: how strong was our army, how strong was our air force, how strong was our navy and how strong were our allies. That was when the enemy was outside the walls. Now the enemy is inside the walls. Now if I want to talk about the defense of my country, I have to speak to the Minister of Health because pandemic disease is a threat to my security, I have to speak to the Minister of Agriculture because food security is a threat to my security, I have to speak to the Minister of Industry because the fragility of our hi-tech infrastructure is now a point of attack for our enemies -- as we see from cyber warfare -- I have to speak to the Minister of Home Affairs because who has entered my country, who lives in that terraced house in that inner city has a direct effect on what happens in my country -- as we in London saw in the 7/7 bombings. It's no longer the case that the security of a country is simply a matter for its soldiers and its ministry of defense. It's its capacity to lock together its institutions. And this tells you something very important. It tells you that, in fact, our governments, vertically constructed, constructed on the economic model of the Industrial Revolution -- vertical hierarchy, specialization of tasks, command structures -- have got the wrong structures completely. You in business know that the paradigm structure of our time, ladies and gentlemen, is the network. It's your capacity to network that matters, both within your governments and externally. So here is Ashdown's third law. By the way, don't ask me about Ashdown's first law and second law because I haven't invented those yet; it always sounds better if there's a third law, doesn't it? Ashdown's third law is that in the modern age, where everything is connected to everything, the most important thing about what you can do is what you can do with others. The most important bit about your structure -- whether you're a government, whether you're an army regiment, whether you're a business -- is your docking points, your interconnectors, your capacity to network with others. You understand that in industry; governments don't. But now one final thing. If it is the case, ladies and gentlemen -- and it is -- that we are now locked together in a way that has never been quite the same before, then it's also the case that we share a destiny with each other. Suddenly and for the very first time, collective defense, the thing that has dominated us as the concept of securing our nations, is no longer enough. It used to be the case that if my tribe was more powerful than their tribe, I was safe; if my country was more powerful than their country, I was safe; my alliance, like NATO, was more powerful than their alliance, I was safe. It is no longer the case. The advent of the interconnectedness and of the weapons of mass destruction means that, increasingly, I share a destiny with my enemy. When I was a diplomat negotiating the disarmament treaties with the Soviet Union in Geneva in the 1970s, we succeeded because we understood we shared a destiny with them. Collective security is not enough. Peace has come to Northern Ireland because both sides realized that the zero-sum game couldn't work. They shared a destiny with their enemies. One of the great barriers to peace in the Middle East is that both sides, both Israel and, I think, the Palestinians, do not understand that they share a collective destiny. And so suddenly, ladies and gentlemen, what has been the proposition of visionaries and poets down the ages becomes something we have to take seriously as a matter of public policy. I started with a poem, I'll end with one. The great poem of John Donne's. "Send not for whom the bell tolls." The poem is called "No Man is an Island." And it goes: "Every man's death affected me, for I am involved in mankind, send not to ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." For John Donne, a recommendation of morality. For us, I think, part of the equation for our survival. Thank you very much. (Applause)

What do you guys think? For those who watched Sir Ken's memorable TED Talk, I am a typical example of what he describes as "the body as a form of transport for the head," a university professor. You might think it was not fair that I've been lined up to speak after these first two talks to speak about science. I can't move my body to the beat, and after a scientist who became a philosopher, I have to talk about hard science. It could be a very dry subject. Yet, I feel honored. Never in my career, and it's been a long career, have I had the opportunity to start a talk feeling so inspired, like this one. Usually, talking about science is like exercising in a dry place. However, I've had the pleasure of being invited to come here to talk about water. The words "water" and "dry" do not match, right? It is even better to talk about water in the Amazon, which is the splendid cradle of life. Fresh life. So this is what inspired me. That's why I'm here, although I'm carrying my head over here. I am trying, or will try to convey this inspiration. I hope this story will inspire you and that you'll spread the word. We know that there is controversy. The Amazon is the "lung of the world," because of its massive power to have vital gases exchanged between the forest and the atmosphere. We also hear about the storehouse of biodiversity. While many believe it, few know it. If you go out there, in this marsh, you'll be amazed at the -- You can barely see the animals. The Indians say, "The forest has more eyes than leaves." That is true, and I will try to show you something. But today, I'm going to use a different approach, one that is inspired by these two initiatives here, a harmonic one and a philosophical one. I'll try to use an approach that's slightly materialistic, but it also attempts to convey that, in nature, there is extraordinary philosophy and harmony. There'll be no music in my presentation, but I hope you'll all notice the music of the reality I'm going to show you. I'm going to talk about physiology — not about lungs, but other analogies with human physiology, especially the heart. We'll start by thinking that water is like blood. The circulation in our body distributes fresh blood, which feeds, nurtures and supports us, and brings the used blood back to be renewed. In the Amazon, things happen similarly. We'll start by talking about the power of all these processes. This is an image of rain in motion. What you see there is the years passing in seconds. Rains all over the world. What do you see? The equatorial region, in general, and the Amazon specifically, is extremely important for the world's climate. It's a powerful engine. There is a frantic evaporation taking place here. If we take a look at this other image, which shows the water vapor flow, you have dry air in black, moist air in gray, and clouds in white. What you see there is an extraordinary resurgence in the Amazon. What phenomenon -- if it's not a desert, what phenomenon makes water gush from the ground into the atmosphere with such power that it can be seen from space? What phenomenon is this? It could be a geyser. A geyser is underground water heated by magma, exploding into the atmosphere and transferring this water into the atmosphere. There are no geysers in the Amazon, unless I am wrong. I don't know of any. But we have something that plays the same role, with much more elegance though: the trees, our good old friends that, like geysers, can transfer an enormous amount of water from the ground into the atmosphere. There are 600 billion trees in the Amazon forest, 600 billion geysers. That is done with an extraordinary sophistication. They don't need the heat of magma. They use sunlight to do this process. So, in a typical sunny day in the Amazon, a big tree manages to transfer 1,000 liters of water through its transpiration -- 1,000 liters. If we take all the Amazon, which is a very large area, and add it up to all that water that is released by transpiration, which is the sweat of the forest, we'll get to an incredible number: 20 billion metric tons of water. In one day. Do you know how much that is? The Amazon River, the largest river on Earth, one fifth of all the fresh water that leaves the continents of the whole world and ends up in the oceans, dumps 17 billion metric tons of water a day in the Atlantic Ocean. This river of vapor that comes up from the forest and goes into the atmosphere is greater than the Amazon River. Just to give you an idea. If we could take a gigantic kettle, the kind you could plug into a power socket, an electric one, and put those 20 billion metric tons of water in it, how much power would you need to have this water evaporated? Any idea? A really big kettle. A gigantic kettle, right? 50 thousand Itaipus. Itaipu is still the largest hydroelectric plant in the world. and Brazil is very proud of it because it provides more than 30 percent of the power that is consumed in Brazil. And the Amazon is here, doing this for free. It's a vivid and extremely powerful plant, providing environmental services. Related to this subject, we are going to talk about what I call the paradox of chance, which is curious. If you look at the world map -- it's easy to see this -- you'll see that there are forests in the equatorial zone, and deserts are organized at 30 degrees north latitude, 30 degrees south latitude, aligned. Look over there, in the southern hemisphere, the Atacama; Namibia and Kalahari in Africa; the Australian desert. In the northern hemisphere, the Sahara, Sonoran, etc. There is an exception, and it's curious: It's the quadrangle that ranges from Cuiabá to Buenos Aires, and from São Paulo to the Andes. This quadrangle was supposed to be a desert. It's on the line of deserts. Why isn't it? That's why I call it the paradox of chance. What do we have in South America that is different? If we could use the analogy of the blood circulating in our bodies, like the water circulating in the landscape, we see that rivers are veins, they drain the landscape, they drain the tissue of nature. Where are the arteries? Any guess? What takes -- How does water get to irrigate the tissues of nature and bring everything back through rivers? There is a new type of river, which originates in the blue sea, which flows through the green ocean -- it not only flows, but it is also pumped by the green ocean -- and then it falls on our land. All our economy, that quadrangle, 70 percent of South America's GDP comes from that area. It depends on this river. This river flows invisibly above us. We are floating here on this floating hotel, on one of the largest rivers on Earth, the Negro River. It's a bit dry and rough, but we are floating here, and there is this invisible river running above us. This river has a pulse. Here it is, pulsing. That's why we also talk about the heart. You can see the different seasons there. There's the rainy season. In the Amazon, we used to have two seasons, the humid season and the even more humid season. Now we have a dry season. You can see the river covering that region which, otherwise, would be a desert. And it is not. We, scientists -- You see that I'm struggling here to move my head from one side to the other. Scientists study how it works, why, etc. and these studies are generating a series of discoveries, which are absolutely fabulous, to raise our awareness of the wealth, the complexity, and the wonder that we have, the symphony we have in this process. One of them is: How is rain formed? Above the Amazon, there is clean air, as there is clean air above the ocean. The blue sea has clean air above it and forms pretty few clouds; there's almost no rain there. The green ocean has the same clean air, but forms a lot of rain. What is happening here that is different? The forest emits smells, and these smells are condensation nuclei, which form drops in the atmosphere. Then, clouds are formed and there is torrential rain. The sprinkler of the Garden of Eden. This relation between a living thing, which is the forest, and a nonliving thing, which is the atmosphere, is ingenious in the Amazon, because the forest provides water and seeds, and the atmosphere forms the rain and gives water back, guaranteeing the forest's survival. There are other factors as well. We've talked a little about the heart, and let's now talk about another function: the liver! When humid air, high humidity and radiation are combined with these organic compounds, which I call exogenous vitamin C, generous vitamin C in the form of gas, the plants release antioxidants which react with pollutants. You can rest assured that you are breathing the purest air on Earth, here in the Amazon, because the plants take care of this characteristic as well. This benefits the very way plants work, which is another ingenious cycle. Speaking of fractals, and their relation with the way we work, we can establish other comparisons. As in the upper airways of our lungs, the air in the Amazon gets cleaned up from the excess of dust. The dust in the air that we breathe is cleaned by our airways. This keeps the excess of dust from affecting the rainfall. When there are fires in the Amazon, the smoke stops the rain, it stops raining, the forest dries up and catches fire. There is another fractal analogy. Like in the veins and arteries, the rain water is a feedback. It returns to the atmosphere. Like endocrinal glands and hormones, there are those gases which I told you about before, that are formed and released into the atmosphere, like hormones, which help in the formation of rain. Like the liver and the kidneys, as I've said, cleaning the air. And, finally, like the heart: pumping water from outside, from the sea, into the forest. We call it the biotic moisture pump, a new theory that is explained in a very simple way. If there is a desert in the continent with a nearby sea, evaporation's greater on the sea, and it sucks the air above the desert. The desert is trapped in this condition. It will always be dry. If you have the opposite situation, a forest, the evaporation, as we showed, is much greater, because of the trees, and this relation is reversed. The air above the sea is sucked into the continent and humidity is imported. This satellite image was taken one month ago — that's Manaus down there, we're down there — and it shows this process. It's not a common little river that flows into a canal. It's a mighty river that irrigates South America, among other things. This image shows those paths, all the hurricanes that have been recorded. You can see that, in the red square, there hardly are any hurricanes. That is no accident. This pump that sucks the moisture into the continent also speeds up the air above the sea, and this prevents hurricane formations. To close this part and sum up, I'd like to talk about something a little different. I have several colleagues who worked in the development of these theories. They think, and so do I, that we can save planet Earth. I'm not talking only about the Amazon. The Amazon teaches us a lesson on how pristine nature works. We didn't understand these processes before because the rest of the world is messed up. We could understand it here, though. These colleagues propose that, yes, we can save other areas, including deserts. If we could establish forests in those other areas, we can reverse climate change, including global warming. I have a dear colleague in India, whose name is Suprabha Seshan, and she has a motto. Her motto is, "Gardening back the biosphere," "Reajardinando a biosfera" in Portuguese. She does a wonderful job rebuilding ecosystems. We need to do this. Having closed this quick introduction, we see the reality that we have out here, which is drought, this climate change, things that we already knew. I'd like to tell you a short story. Once, about four years ago, I attended a declamation, of a text by Davi Kopenawa, a wise representative of the Yanomami people, and it went more or less like this: "Doesn't the white man know that, if he destroys the forest, there will be no more rain? And that, if there's no more rain, there'll be nothing to drink, or to eat?" I heard that, and my eyes welled up and I went, "Oh, my! I've been studying this for 20 years, with a super computer, dozens, thousands of scientists, and we are starting to get to this conclusion, which he already knows!" A critical point is the Yanomami have never deforested. How could they know the rain would end? This bugged me and I was befuddled. How could he know that? Some months later, I met him at another event and said, "Davi, how did you know that if the forest was destroyed, there'd be no more rain?" He replied: "The spirit of the forest told us." For me, this was a game changer, a radical change. I said, "Gosh! Why am I doing all this science to get to a conclusion that he already knows?" Then, something absolutely critical hit me, which is, seeing is believing. Out of sight, out of mind. This is a need the previous speaker pointed out: We need to see things -- I mean, we, Western society, which is becoming global, civilized -- we need to see. If we don't see, we don't register the information. We live in ignorance. So, I propose the following -- of course, the astronomer wouldn't like the idea -- but let's turn the Hubble telescope upside down. And let's make it look down here, rather than to the far reaches of the universe. The universe is wonderful, but we have a practical reality, which is we live in an unknown cosmos, and we're ignorant about it. We're trampling on this wonderful cosmos that shelters us and houses us. Talk to any astrophysicist. The Earth is a statistical improbability. The stability and comfort that we enjoy, despite the droughts of the Negro River, and all the heat and cold and typhoons, etc., there is nothing like it in the universe, that we know of. Then, let's turn Hubble in our direction, and let's look at the Earth. Let's start with the Amazon! Let's dive, let's reach out the reality we live in every day, and look carefully at it, since that's what we need. Davi Kopenawa doesn't need this. He has something already that I think I missed. I was educated by television. I think that I missed this, an ancestral record, a valuation of what I don't know, what I haven't seen. He is not a doubting Thomas. He believes, with veneration and reverence, in what his ancestors and the spirits taught him. We can't do it, so let's look into the forest. Even with Hubble up there -- this is a bird's-eye view, right? Even when this happens, we also see something that we don't know. The Spanish called it the green inferno. If you go out there into the bushes and get lost, and, let's say, if you head west, it's 900 kilometers to Colombia, and another 1,000 to somewhere else. So, you can figure out why they called it the green inferno. But go and look at what is in there. It is a live carpet. Each color you see is a tree species. Each tree, each tree top, has up to 10,000 species of insects in it, let alone the millions of species of fungi, bacteria, etc. All invisible. All of it is an even stranger cosmos to us than the galaxies billions of light years away from the Earth, which Hubble brings to our newspapers everyday. I'm going to end my talk here -- I have a few seconds left -- by showing you this wonderful being. When we see the morpho butterfly in the forest, we feel like someone's left open the door to heaven, and this creature escaped from there, because it's so beautiful. However, I cannot finish without showing you a tech side. We are tech-arrogant. We deprive nature of its technology. A robotic hand is technological, mine is biological, and we don't think about it anymore. Let's then look at the morpho butterfly, an example of an invisible technological competence of life, which is at the very heart of our possibility of surviving on this planet, and let's zoom in on it. Again, Hubble is there. Let's get into the butterfly's wings. Scholars have tried to explain: Why is it blue? Let's zoom in on it. What you see is that the architecture of the invisible humiliates the best architects in the world. All of this on a tiny scale. Besides its beauty and functioning, there is another side to it. In nature, all that is organized in extraordinary structures has a function. This function of the morpho butterfly — it is not blue; it does not have blue pigments. It has photonic crystals on its surface, according to people who studied it, which are extremely sophisticated crystals. Our technology had nothing like that at the time. Hitachi has now made a monitor that uses this technology, and it is used in optical fibers to transmit -- Janine Benyus, who's been here several times, talks about it: biomimetics. My time's up. Then, I'll wrap it up with what is at the base of this capacity, of this competence of biodiversity, producing all these wonderful services: the living cell. It is a structure with a few microns, which is an internal wonder. There are TED Talks about it. I won't talk much longer, but each person in this room, including myself, has 100 trillion of these micromachines in their body, so that we can enjoy well-being. Imagine what is out there in the Amazon forest: 100 trillion. This is greater than the number of stars in the sky. And we are not aware of it. Thank you so much. (Applause)

What do you guys think? For those who watched Sir Ken's memorable TED Talk, I am a typical example of what he describes as "the body as a form of transport for the head," a university professor. You might think it was not fair that I've been lined up to speak after these first two talks to speak about science. I can't move my body to the beat, and after a scientist who became a philosopher, I have to talk about hard science. It could be a very dry subject. Yet, I feel honored. Never in my career, and it's been a long career, have I had the opportunity to start a talk feeling so inspired, like this one. Usually, talking about science is like exercising in a dry place. However, I've had the pleasure of being invited to come here to talk about water. The words "water" and "dry" do not match, right? It is even better to talk about water in the Amazon, which is the splendid cradle of life. Fresh life. So this is what inspired me. That's why I'm here, although I'm carrying my head over here. I am trying, or will try to convey this inspiration. I hope this story will inspire you and that you'll spread the word. We know that there is controversy. The Amazon is the "lung of the world," because of its massive power to have vital gases exchanged between the forest and the atmosphere. We also hear about the storehouse of biodiversity. While many believe it, few know it. If you go out there, in this marsh, you'll be amazed at the — You can barely see the animals. The Indians say, "The forest has more eyes than leaves." That is true, and I will try to show you something. But today, I'm going to use a different approach, one that is inspired by these two initiatives here, a harmonic one and a philosophical one. I'll try to use an approach that's slightly materialistic, but it also attempts to convey that, in nature, there is extraordinary philosophy and harmony. There'll be no music in my presentation, but I hope you'll all notice the music of the reality I'm going to show you. I'm going to talk about physiology — not about lungs, but other analogies with human physiology, especially the heart. We'll start by thinking that water is like blood. The circulation in our body distributes fresh blood, which feeds, nurtures and supports us, and brings the used blood back to be renewed. In the Amazon, things happen similarly. We'll start by talking about the power of all these processes. This is an image of rain in motion. What you see there is the years passing in seconds. Rains all over the world. What do you see? The equatorial region, in general, and the Amazon specifically, is extremely important for the world's climate. It's a powerful engine. There is a frantic evaporation taking place here. If we take a look at this other image, which shows the water vapor flow, you have dry air in black, moist air in gray, and clouds in white. What you see there is an extraordinary resurgence in the Amazon. What phenomenon — if it's not a desert, what phenomenon makes water gush from the ground into the atmosphere with such power that it can be seen from space? What phenomenon is this? It could be a geyser. A geyser is underground water heated by magma, exploding into the atmosphere and transferring this water into the atmosphere. There are no geysers in the Amazon, unless I am wrong. I don't know of any. But we have something that plays the same role, with much more elegance though: the trees, our good old friends that, like geysers, can transfer an enormous amount of water from the ground into the atmosphere. There are 600 billion trees in the Amazon forest, 600 billion geysers. That is done with an extraordinary sophistication. They don't need the heat of magma. They use sunlight to do this process. So, in a typical sunny day in the Amazon, a big tree manages to transfer 1,000 liters of water through its transpiration — 1,000 liters. If we take all the Amazon, which is a very large area, and add it up to all that water that is released by transpiration, which is the sweat of the forest, we'll get to an incredible number: 20 billion metric tons of water. In one day. Do you know how much that is? The Amazon River, the largest river on Earth, one fifth of all the fresh water that leaves the continents of the whole world and ends up in the oceans, dumps 17 billion metric tons of water a day in the Atlantic Ocean. This river of vapor that comes up from the forest and goes into the atmosphere is greater than the Amazon River. Just to give you an idea. If we could take a gigantic kettle, the kind you could plug into a power socket, an electric one, and put those 20 billion metric tons of water in it, how much power would you need to have this water evaporated? Any idea? A really big kettle. A gigantic kettle, right? 50 thousand Itaipus. Itaipu is still the largest hydroelectric plant in the world. and Brazil is very proud of it because it provides more than 30 percent of the power that is consumed in Brazil. And the Amazon is here, doing this for free. It's a vivid and extremely powerful plant, providing environmental services. Related to this subject, we are going to talk about what I call the paradox of chance, which is curious. If you look at the world map — it's easy to see this — you'll see that there are forests in the equatorial zone, and deserts are organized at 30 degrees north latitude, 30 degrees south latitude, aligned. Look over there, in the southern hemisphere, the Atacama; Namibia and Kalahari in Africa; the Australian desert. In the northern hemisphere, the Sahara, Sonoran, etc. There is an exception, and it's curious: It's the quadrangle that ranges from Cuiabá to Buenos Aires, and from São Paulo to the Andes. This quadrangle was supposed to be a desert. It's on the line of deserts. Why isn't it? That's why I call it the paradox of chance. What do we have in South America that is different? If we could use the analogy of the blood circulating in our bodies, like the water circulating in the landscape, we see that rivers are veins, they drain the landscape, they drain the tissue of nature. Where are the arteries? Any guess? What takes — How does water get to irrigate the tissues of nature and bring everything back through rivers? There is a new type of river, which originates in the blue sea, which flows through the green ocean — it not only flows, but it is also pumped by the green ocean — and then it falls on our land. All our economy, that quadrangle, 70 percent of South America's GDP comes from that area. It depends on this river. This river flows invisibly above us. We are floating here on this floating hotel, on one of the largest rivers on Earth, the Negro River. It's a bit dry and rough, but we are floating here, and there is this invisible river running above us. This river has a pulse. Here it is, pulsing. That's why we also talk about the heart. You can see the different seasons there. There's the rainy season. In the Amazon, we used to have two seasons, the humid season and the even more humid season. Now we have a dry season. You can see the river covering that region which, otherwise, would be a desert. And it is not. We, scientists — You see that I'm struggling here to move my head from one side to the other. Scientists study how it works, why, etc. and these studies are generating a series of discoveries, which are absolutely fabulous, to raise our awareness of the wealth, the complexity, and the wonder that we have, the symphony we have in this process. One of them is: How is rain formed? Above the Amazon, there is clean air, as there is clean air above the ocean. The blue sea has clean air above it and forms pretty few clouds; there's almost no rain there. The green ocean has the same clean air, but forms a lot of rain. What is happening here that is different? The forest emits smells, and these smells are condensation nuclei, which form drops in the atmosphere. Then, clouds are formed and there is torrential rain. The sprinkler of the Garden of Eden. This relation between a living thing, which is the forest, and a nonliving thing, which is the atmosphere, is ingenious in the Amazon, because the forest provides water and seeds, and the atmosphere forms the rain and gives water back, guaranteeing the forest's survival. There are other factors as well. We've talked a little about the heart, and let's now talk about another function: the liver! When humid air, high humidity and radiation are combined with these organic compounds, which I call exogenous vitamin C, generous vitamin C in the form of gas, the plants release antioxidants which react with pollutants. You can rest assured that you are breathing the purest air on Earth, here in the Amazon, because the plants take care of this characteristic as well. This benefits the very way plants work, which is another ingenious cycle. Speaking of fractals, and their relation with the way we work, we can establish other comparisons. As in the upper airways of our lungs, the air in the Amazon gets cleaned up from the excess of dust. The dust in the air that we breathe is cleaned by our airways. This keeps the excess of dust from affecting the rainfall. When there are fires in the Amazon, the smoke stops the rain, it stops raining, the forest dries up and catches fire. There is another fractal analogy. Like in the veins and arteries, the rain water is a feedback. It returns to the atmosphere. Like endocrinal glands and hormones, there are those gases which I told you about before, that are formed and released into the atmosphere, like hormones, which help in the formation of rain. Like the liver and the kidneys, as I've said, cleaning the air. And, finally, like the heart: pumping water from outside, from the sea, into the forest. We call it the biotic moisture pump, a new theory that is explained in a very simple way. If there is a desert in the continent with a nearby sea, evaporation's greater on the sea, and it sucks the air above the desert. The desert is trapped in this condition. It will always be dry. If you have the opposite situation, a forest, the evaporation, as we showed, is much greater, because of the trees, and this relation is reversed. The air above the sea is sucked into the continent and humidity is imported. This satellite image was taken one month ago — that's Manaus down there, we're down there — and it shows this process. It's not a common little river that flows into a canal. It's a mighty river that irrigates South America, among other things. This image shows those paths, all the hurricanes that have been recorded. You can see that, in the red square, there hardly are any hurricanes. That is no accident. This pump that sucks the moisture into the continent also speeds up the air above the sea, and this prevents hurricane formations. To close this part and sum up, I'd like to talk about something a little different. I have several colleagues who worked in the development of these theories. They think, and so do I, that we can save planet Earth. I'm not talking only about the Amazon. The Amazon teaches us a lesson on how pristine nature works. We didn't understand these processes before because the rest of the world is messed up. We could understand it here, though. These colleagues propose that, yes, we can save other areas, including deserts. If we could establish forests in those other areas, we can reverse climate change, including global warming. I have a dear colleague in India, whose name is Suprabha Seshan, and she has a motto. Her motto is, "Gardening back the biosphere," "Reajardinando a biosfera" in Portuguese. She does a wonderful job rebuilding ecosystems. We need to do this. Having closed this quick introduction, we see the reality that we have out here, which is drought, this climate change, things that we already knew. I'd like to tell you a short story. Once, about four years ago, I attended a declamation, of a text by Davi Kopenawa, a wise representative of the Yanomami people, and it went more or less like this: "Doesn't the white man know that, if he destroys the forest, there will be no more rain? And that, if there's no more rain, there'll be nothing to drink, or to eat?" I heard that, and my eyes welled up and I went, "Oh, my! I've been studying this for 20 years, with a super computer, dozens, thousands of scientists, and we are starting to get to this conclusion, which he already knows!" A critical point is the Yanomami have never deforested. How could they know the rain would end? This bugged me and I was befuddled. How could he know that? Some months later, I met him at another event and said, "Davi, how did you know that if the forest was destroyed, there'd be no more rain?" He replied: "The spirit of the forest told us." For me, this was a game changer, a radical change. I said, "Gosh! Why am I doing all this science to get to a conclusion that he already knows?" Then, something absolutely critical hit me, which is, seeing is believing. Out of sight, out of mind. This is a need the previous speaker pointed out: We need to see things — I mean, we, Western society, which is becoming global, civilized — we need to see. If we don't see, we don't register the information. We live in ignorance. So, I propose the following — of course, the astronomers wouldn't like the idea — but let's turn the Hubble telescope upside down. And let's make it look down here, rather than to the far reaches of the universe. The universe is wonderful, but we have a practical reality, which is we live in an unknown cosmos, and we're ignorant about it. We're trampling on this wonderful cosmos that shelters us and houses us. Talk to any astrophysicist. The Earth is a statistical improbability. The stability and comfort that we enjoy, despite the droughts of the Negro River, and all the heat and cold and typhoons, etc., there is nothing like it in the universe, that we know of. Then, let's turn Hubble in our direction, and let's look at the Earth. Let's start with the Amazon! Let's dive, let's reach out the reality we live in every day, and look carefully at it, since that's what we need. Davi Kopenawa doesn't need this. He has something already that I think I missed. I was educated by television. I think that I missed this, an ancestral record, a valuation of what I don't know, what I haven't seen. He is not a doubting Thomas. He believes, with veneration and reverence, in what his ancestors and the spirits taught him. We can't do it, so let's look into the forest. Even with Hubble up there — this is a bird's-eye view, right? Even when this happens, we also see something that we don't know. The Spanish called it the green inferno. If you go out there into the bushes and get lost, and, let's say, if you head west, it's 900 kilometers to Colombia, and another 1,000 to somewhere else. So, you can figure out why they called it the green inferno. But go and look at what is in there. It is a live carpet. Each color you see is a tree species. Each tree, each tree top, has up to 10,000 species of insects in it, let alone the millions of species of fungi, bacteria, etc. All invisible. All of it is an even stranger cosmos to us than the galaxies billions of light years away from the Earth, which Hubble brings to our newspapers everyday. I'm going to end my talk here — I have a few seconds left — by showing you this wonderful being. When we see the morpho butterfly in the forest, we feel like someone's left open the door to heaven, and this creature escaped from there, because it's so beautiful. However, I cannot finish without showing you a tech side. We are tech-arrogant. We deprive nature of its technology. A robotic hand is technological, mine is biological, and we don't think about it anymore. Let's then look at the morpho butterfly, an example of an invisible technological competence of life, which is at the very heart of our possibility of surviving on this planet, and let's zoom in on it. Again, Hubble is there. Let's get into the butterfly's wings. Scholars have tried to explain: Why is it blue? Let's zoom in on it. What you see is that the architecture of the invisible humiliates the best architects in the world. All of this on a tiny scale. Besides its beauty and functioning, there is another side to it. In nature, all that is organized in extraordinary structures has a function. This function of the morpho butterfly — it is not blue; it does not have blue pigments. It has photonic crystals on its surface, according to people who studied it, which are extremely sophisticated crystals. Our technology had nothing like that at the time. Hitachi has now made a monitor that uses this technology, and it is used in optical fibers to transmit — Janine Benyus, who's been here several times, talks about it: biomimetics. My time's up. Then, I'll wrap it up with what is at the base of this capacity, of this competence of biodiversity, producing all these wonderful services: the living cell. It is a structure with a few microns, which is an internal wonder. There are TED Talks about it. I won't talk much longer, but each person in this room, including myself, has 100 trillion of these micromachines in their body, so that we can enjoy well-being. Imagine what is out there in the Amazon forest: 100 trillion. This is greater than the number of stars in the sky. And we are not aware of it. Thank you so much. (Applause)

This is the ocean as I used to know it. And I find that since I've been in the Gulf a couple of times, I really kind of am traumatized because whenever I look at the ocean now, no matter where I am, even where I know none of the oil has gone, I sort of see slicks, and I'm finding that I'm very much haunted by it. But what I want to talk to you about today is a lot of things that try to put all of this in context, not just about the oil eruption, but what it means and why it has happened. First, just a little bit about me. I'm basically just a guy that likes to go fishing ever since I was a little kid, and because I did, I wound up studying sea birds to try to stay in the coastal habitats that I so loved. And now I mainly write books about how the ocean is changing, and the ocean is certainly changing very rapidly. Now we saw this kind of graphic earlier on, that we really live on a hard marble that has just a slight bit of wetness to it. It's like you dipped a marble in water. And the same thing with the atmosphere: If you took all the atmosphere and rolled it up in a ball, you would get that little sphere of gas on the right. So we live on the most fragile, little soap bubble you can imagine, a very sacred soap bubble, but one that is very, very easy to affect. And all the burning of oil and coal and gas, all the fossil fuels, have changed the atmosphere greatly. Carbon dioxide level has gone up and up and up. We're warming the climate. So the blowout in the Gulf is just a little piece of a much larger problem that we have with the energy that we use to run civilization. Beyond warming, we have the problem of the oceans getting more acidified -- and already measurably so, and already affecting animals. Now in the laboratory, if you take a clam and you put it in the pH that is -- not 8.1, which is the normal pH of seawater -- but 7.5, it dissolves in about three days. If you take a sea urchin larva from 8.1, put it in a pH of 7.7 -- not a huge change -- it becomes deformed and dies. And already, commercial oyster larvae are dying at large scales in some places. Coral reefs are growing slower in some places because of this problem. So this really matters. Now, let's take a little tour around the Gulf a little bit. One of the things that really impresses me about the people in the Gulf: They are really, really aquatic people. And they can handle water. They can handle a hurricane that comes and goes. When the water goes down, they know what to do. But when it's something other than water, and their water habitat changes, they don't have many options. In fact, those entire communities really don't have many options. They don't have another thing they can do. They can't go and work in the local hotel business because there isn't one in their community. If you go to the Gulf and you look around, you do see a lot of oil. You see a lot of oil on the ocean. You see a lot of oil on the shoreline. If you go to the site of the blowout, it looks pretty unbelievable. It looks like you just emptied the oil pan in your car, and you just dumped it in the ocean. And one of the really most incredible things, I think, is that there's nobody out there trying to collect it at the site where it is densest. Parts of the ocean there look just absolutely apocalyptic. You go in along the shore, you can find it everywhere. It's really messy. If you go to the places where it's just arriving, like the eastern part of the Gulf, in Alabama, there's still people using the beach while there are people cleaning up the beach. And they have a very strange way of cleaning up the beach. They're not allowed to put more than 10 pounds of sand in a 50-gallon plastic bag. They have thousands and thousands of plastic bags. I don't know what they're going to do with all that stuff. Meanwhile, there are still people trying to use the beach. They don't see the little, tiny sign that says: "Stay out of the water." Their kids are in the water; they're getting tar all over their clothes and their sandals. It's a mess. If you go to the place where the oil has been a while, it's an even bigger mess. And there's basically nobody there anymore, a few people trying to keep using it. You see people who are really shell-shocked. They are very hardworking people. All they know about life is they get up in the morning, and if their engine starts, they go to work. They always felt that they could rely on the assurances that nature brought them through the ecosystem of the Gulf. They're finding that their world is really collapsing. And so you can see, literally, signs of their shock, signs of their outrage, signs of their anger, and signs of their grief. These are the things that you can see. There's a lot you can't see, also, underwater. What's going on underwater? Well, some people say there are oil plumes. Some people say there are not oil plumes. And Congressman Markey asks, you know, "Is it going to take a submarine ride to see if there are really oil plumes?" But I couldn't take a submarine ride -- especially between the time I knew I was coming here and today -- so I had to do a little experiment myself to see if there was oil in the Gulf of Mexico. So this is the Gulf of Mexico, sparkling place full of fish. I created a little oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And I learned -- in fact, I confirmed -- the hypothesis that oil and water don't mix until you add a dispersant, and then they start mixing. And you add a little energy from the wind and the waves, and you get a big mess, a big mess that you can't possibly clean, you can't touch, you can't extract and, I think most importantly -- this is what I think -- you can't see it. I think it's being hidden on purpose. Now this is such a catastrophe and such a mess, that lots of stuff is leaking out on the edges of the information stream. But as many people have said, there's a large attempt to suppress what's going on. Personally, I think that the dispersants are a major strategy to hide the body, because we put the murderer in charge of the crime scene. But you can see it. You can see where the oil is concentrated at the surface, and then it is attacked, because they don't want the evidence, in my opinion. Okay. We heard that bacteria eat oil? So do sea turtles. When it breaks up, it has a long way to go before it gets down to bacteria. Turtles eat it. It gets in the gills of fish. These guys have to swim around through it. I heard the most incredible story today when I was on the train coming here. A writer named Ted Williams called me, and he was asking me a couple of questions about what I saw, because he's writing an article for Audubon magazine. He said that he had been in the Gulf a little while ago -- like about a week ago -- and a guy who had been a recreational fishing guide took him out to show him what's going on. That guide's entire calendar year is canceled bookings. He has no bookings left. Everybody wanted their deposit back. Everybody is fleeing. That's the story of thousands of people. But he told Ted that on the last day he went out, a bottlenose dolphin suddenly appeared next to the boat, and it was splattering oil out its blowhole. And he moved away because it was his last fishing trip, and he knew that the dolphins scare fish. So he moved away from it, turned around a few minutes later, it was right next to the side of the boat again. He said that in 30 years of fishing he had never seen a dolphin do that. And he felt that -- he felt that it was coming to ask for help. Sorry. Now, in the Exxon Valdez spill, about 30 percent of the killer whales died in the first few months. Their numbers have never recovered. So the recovery rate of all this stuff is going to be variable. It's going to take longer for some things. And some things, I think, will probably come back a little faster. The other thing about the Gulf that is important is that there are a lot of animals that concentrate in the Gulf at certain parts of the year. So the Gulf is a really important piece of water -- more important than a similar volume of water in the open Atlantic Ocean. These tuna swim the entire ocean. They get in the Gulf Stream. They go all the way to Europe. When it comes time to spawn, they come inside, and these two tuna that were tagged, you can see them on the spawning grounds very much right in the area of the slick. They're probably having, at the very least, a catastrophic spawning season this year. I'm hoping that maybe the adults are avoiding that dirty water. They don't usually like to go into water that is very cloudy anyway. But these are really high-performance athletic animals. I don't know what this kind of stuff will do in their gills. I don't know if it'll affect the adults. If it's not, it's certainly affecting their eggs and larvae, I would certainly think. But if you look at that graph that goes down and down and down, that's what we've done to this species through overfishing over many decades. So while the oil spill, the leak, the eruption, is a catastrophe, I think it's important to keep in mind that we've done a lot to affect what's in the ocean for a very, very long time. It's not like we're starting with something that's been okay. We're starting with something that's had a lot of stresses and a lot of problems to begin with. If you look around at the birds, there are a lot of birds in the Gulf that concentrate in the Gulf at certain times of the year, but then leave. And they populate much larger areas. So for instance, most of the birds in this picture are migratory birds. They were all on the Gulf in May, while oil was starting to come ashore in certain places. Down on the lower left there are Ruddy Turnstones and Sanderlings. They breed in the high arctic, and they winter down in southern South America. But they concentrate in the Gulf and then fan out all across the arctic. I saw birds that breed in Greenland in the Gulf, so this is a hemispheric issue. The economic effects go at least nationally in many ways. The biological effects are certainly hemispheric. I think that this is one of the most absolutely mind-boggling examples of total unpreparedness that I can even think of. Even when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, at least they shot back. And we just seem to be unable to figure out what to do. There was nothing ready, and, you know, as we can see by what they're doing. Mainly what they're doing is booms and dispersants. The booms are absolutely not made for open water. They don't even attempt to corral the oil where it is most concentrated. They get near shore. Look at these two boats. That one on the right is called Fishing Fool. And I think, you know, that's a great name for boats that think that they're going to do anything to make a dent in this by dragging a boom between them when there are literally hundreds of thousands of square miles in the Gulf right now with oil at the surface. The dispersants make the oil go right under the booms. The booms are only about 13 inches in diameter. So it's just absolutely crazy. Here are shrimp boats employed. There are hundreds of shrimp boats employed to drag booms instead of nets. Here they are working. You can see easily that all the oily water just goes over the back of the boom. All they're doing is stirring it. It's just ridiculous. Also, for all the shoreline that has booms -- hundreds and hundreds of miles of shoreline -- all of the shoreline that has booms, there's adjacent shoreline that doesn't have any booms. There is ample opportunity for oil and dirty water to get in behind them. And that lower photo, that's a bird colony that has been boomed. Everybody's trying to protect the bird colonies there. Well, as an ornithologist, I can tell you that birds fly, and that -- (Laughter) and that booming a bird colony doesn't do it; it doesn't do it. These birds make a living by diving into the water. In fact, really what I think they should do, if anything -- they're trying so hard to protect those nests -- actually, if they destroyed every single nest some of the birds would leave, and that would be better for them this year. As far as cleaning them, I don't mean to cast any aspersion on people cleaning birds. It's really, really important that we express our compassion. I think that's the most important thing that people have, is compassion. It's really important to get those images and to show it. But really, where are those birds going to get released to? It's like taking somebody out of a burning building, treating them for smoke inhalation and sending them back into the building, because the oil is still gushing. I refuse to acknowledge this as anything like an accident. I think that this is the result of gross negligence. (Applause) Not just B.P. B.P. operated very sloppily and very recklessly because they could. And they were allowed to do so because of the absolute failure of oversight of the government that's supposed to be our government, protecting us. It turns out that -- you see this sign on almost every commercial vessel in the United States -- you know, if you spilled a couple of gallons of oil, you would be in big trouble. And you have to really wonder who are the laws made for, and who has gotten above the laws. Now there are things that we can do in the future. We could have the kinds of equipment that we would really need. It would not take an awful lot to anticipate that after making 30,000 holes in the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico looking for oil, oil might start coming out of one of them. And you'd have some idea of what to do. That's certainly one of the things we need to do. But I think we have to understand where this leak really started from. It really started from the destruction of the idea that the government is there because it's our government, meant to protect the larger public interest. So I think that the oil blowout, the bank bailout, the mortgage crisis and all these things are absolutely symptoms of the same cause. We still seem to understand that at least we need the police to protect us from a few bad people. And even though the police can be a little annoying at times -- giving us tickets and stuff like that -- nobody says that we should just get rid of them. But in the entire rest of government right now and for the last at least 30 years, there has been a culture of deregulation that is caused directly by the people who we need to be protected from, buying the government out from under us. (Applause) Now this has been a problem for a very, very long time. You can see that corporations were illegal at the founding of America, and even Thomas Jefferson complained that they were already bidding defiance to the laws of our country. Okay, people who say they're conservative, if they really wanted to be really conservative and really patriotic, they would tell these corporations to go to hell. That's what it would really mean to be conservative. So what we really need to do is regain the idea that it's our government safeguarding our interests and regain a sense of unity and common cause in our country that really has been lost. I think there are signs of hope. We seem to be waking up a little bit. The Glass-Steagall Act -- which was really to protect us from the kind of thing that caused the recession to happen, and the bank meltdown and all that stuff that required the bailouts -- that was put in effect in 1933, was systematically destroyed. Now there's a mood to put some of that stuff back in place, but the lobbyists are already there trying to weaken the regulations after the legislation has just passed. So it's a continued fight. It's a historic moment right now. We're either going to have an absolutely unmitigated catastrophe of this oil leak in the Gulf, or we will make the moment we need out of this, as many people have noted today. There's certainly a common theme about needing to make the moment out of this. We've been through this before with other ways of offshore drilling. The first offshore wells were called whales. The first offshore drills were called harpoons. We emptied the ocean of the whales at that time. Now are we stuck with this? Ever since we lived in caves, every time we wanted any energy, we lit something on fire, and that is still what we're doing. We're still lighting something on fire every time we want energy. And people say we can't have clean energy because it's too expensive. Who says it's too expensive? People who sell us fossil fuels. We've been here before with energy, and people saying the economy cannot withstand a switch, because the cheapest energy was slavery. Energy is always a moral issue. It's an issue that is moral right now. It's a matter of right and wrong. Thank you very much.

I dabble in design. I'm a curator of architecture and design; I happen to be at the Museum of Modern Art. But what we're going to talk about today is really design. Really good designers are like sponges: they really are curious and absorb every kind of information that comes their way, and transform it so that it can be used by people like us. And so that gives me an opportunity, because every design show that I curate kind of looks at a different world. And it's great, because it seems like every time I change jobs. And what I'm going to do today is I'm going to give you a preview of the next exhibition that I'm working on, which is called "Design and the Elastic Mind." The world that I decided to focus on this particular time is the world of science and the world of technology. Technology always comes into play when design is involved, but science does a little less. But designers are great at taking big revolutions that happen and transforming them so that we can use them. And this is what this exhibition looks at. If you think about your life today, you go every day through many different scales, many different changes of rhythm and pace. You work over different time zones, you talk to very different people, you multitask. We all know it, and we do it kind of automatically. Some of the minds in this audience are super elastic, others are a little slower, others have a few stretch marks, but nonetheless this is a quite exceptional audience from that viewpoint. Other people are not as elastic. I can't get my father in Italy to work on the Internet. He doesn't want to put high-speed Internet at home. And that's because there's some little bit of fear, little bit of resistance or just clogged mechanisms. So designers work on this particular malaise that we have, these kinds of discomforts that we have, and try to make life easier for us. Elasticity of mind is something that we really need, you know, we really need, we really cherish and we really work on. And this exhibition is about the work of designers that help us be more elastic, and also of designers that really work on this elasticity as an opportunity. And one last thing is that it's not only designers, but it's also scientists. And before I launch into the display of some of the slides and into the preview, I would like to point out this beautiful detail about scientists and design. You can say that the relationship between science and design goes back centuries. You can of course talk about Leonardo da Vinci and many other Renaissance men and women -- and there's a gigantic history behind it. But according to a really great science historian you might know, Peter Galison -- he teaches at Harvard -- what nanotechnology in particular and quantum physics have brought to designers is this renewed interest, this real passion for design. So basically, the idea of being able to build things bottom up, atom by atom, has made them all into tinkerers. And all of a sudden scientists are seeking designers, just like designers are seeking scientists. It's a brand-new love affair that we're trying to cultivate at MOMA. Together with Adam Bly, who is the founder of Seed magazine -- that's now a multimedia company, you might know it -- we founded about a year ago a monthly salon for designers and scientists, and it's quite beautiful. And Keith has come, and also Jonathan has come and many others. And it was great, because at the beginning was this apology fest -- you know, scientists would tell designers, you know, I don't know what style is, I'm not really elegant. And designers would like, oh, I don't know how to do an equation, I don't understand what you're saying. And then all of a sudden they really started talking each others' language, and now we're already at the point that they collaborate. Paul Steinhardt, a physicist from New York, and Aranda/Lasch, architects, collaborated in an installation in London at the Serpentine. And it's really interesting to see how this happens. The exhibition will talk about the work of both designers and scientists, and show how they're presenting the possibilities of the future to us. I'm showing to you different sections of the show right now, just to give you a taste of it. Nanophysics and nanotechnology, for instance, have really opened the designer's mind. In this case I'm showing more the designers' work, because they're the ones that have really been stimulated. A lot of the objects in the show are concepts, not objects that exist already. But what you're looking at here is the work of some scientists from UCLA. This kind of alphabet soup is a new way to mark proteins -- not only by color but literally by alphabet letters. So they construct it, and they can construct all kinds of forms at the nanoscale. This is the work of design students from the Royal College of Arts in London that have been working together with their tutor, Tony Dunne, and with a bunch of scientists around Great Britain on the possibilities of nanotechnology for design in the future. New sensing elements on the body -- you can grow hairs on your nails, and therefore grab some of the particles from another person. They seem very, very obsessed with finding out more about the ideal mate. So they're working on enhancing everything: touch, smell -- everything they can, in order to find the perfect mate. Very interesting. This is a typeface designer from Israel who has designed -- he calls them "typosperma." He's thinking -- of course it's all a concept -- of injecting typefaces into spermatozoa, I don't know how to say it in English -- spermatazoi -- in order to make them become -- to almost have a song or a whole poem written with every ejaculation. (Laughter) I tell you, designers are quite fantastic, you know. So, tissue design. In this case too, you have a mixture of scientists and designers. This here is part of the same lab at the Royal College of Arts. The RCA is really quite an amazing school from that viewpoint. One of the assignments for a year was to work with in-vitro meat. You know that already you can grow meat in vitro. In Australia they did it -- this research company, called SymbioticA. But the problem is that it's a really ugly patty. And so, the assignment to the students was, how should the steak of tomorrow be? When you don't have to kill cows and it can have any shape, what should it be like? So this particular student, James King, went around the beautiful English countryside, picked the best, best cow that he could see, and then put her in the MRI machine. Then, he took the scans of the best organs and made the meat -- of course, this is done with a Japanese resins food maker, but you know, in the future it could be made better -- which reproduces the best MRI scan of the best cow he could find. Instead, this element here is much more banal. Something that you know can be done already is to grow bone tissue, so that you can make a wedding ring out of the bone tissue of your loved one -- literally. So, this is indeed made of human bone tissue. This is SymbioticA, and they've been working -- they were the first ones to do this in-vitro meat -- and now they've also done an in-vitro coat, a leather coat. It's miniscule, but it's a real coat. It's shaped like one. So, we'll be able to really not have any excuse to be wearing everything leather in the future. One of the most important topics of the show -- you know, as anything in our life today, we can look at it from many, many different viewpoints, and at different levels. One of the most interesting and most important concepts is the idea of scale. We change scale very often: we change resolution of screens, and we're not really fazed by it, we do it very comfortably. So you go, even in the exhibition, from the idea of nanotechnology and the nanoscale to the manipulation of really great amounts of data -- the mapping and tagging of the universe and of the world. In this particular case a section will be devoted to information design. You see here the work of Ben Fry. This is "Human vs. Chimps" -- the few chromosomes that distinguish us from chimps. It was a beautiful visualization that he did for Seed magazine. And here's the whole code of Pac-Man, visualized with all the go-to, go-back-to, also made into a beautiful choreography. And then also graphs by scientists, this beautiful diagraph of protein homology. Scientists are starting to also consider aesthetics. We were discussing with Keith Shrubb* this morning the fact that many scientists tend not to use anything beautiful in their presentations, otherwise they're afraid of being considered dumb blondes. So they pick the worst background from any kind of PowerPoint presentation, the worst typeface. It's only recently that this kind of marriage between design and science is producing some of the first "pretty" -- if we can say so -- scientific presentations. Another aspect of contemporary design that I think is mind-opening, promising and will really be the future of design, is the idea of collective design. You know, the whole XO laptop, from One Laptop per Child, is based on the idea of collaboration and mash and networking. So, the more the merrier. The more computers, the stronger the signal, and children work on the interface so that it's all based on doing things together, tasks together. So the idea of collective design is something that will become even bigger in the future, and this is chosen as an example. Related to the idea of collective design and to the new balance between the individual and the collectiveness, collectivity is the idea of existence maximum. That's a term that I coined a few years ago while I was thinking of how pressed we are together, and at the same time how these small objects, like the Walkman first and then the iPod, create bubbles of space around us that enable us to have a metaphysical space that is much bigger than our physical space. You can be in the subway and you can be completely isolated and have your own room in your iPod. And this is the work of several designers that really enhance the idea of solitude and expansion by means of various techniques. This is a spa telephone. The idea is that it's become so difficult to have a private conversation anywhere that you go to the spa, you have a massage, you have a facial, maybe a rub, and then you have this beautiful pool with this perfect temperature, and you can have this isolation tank phone conversation with whomever you've been wanting to talk with for a long time. And same thing here, Social Tele-presence. It's actually already used by the military a little bit, but it's the idea of being able to be somewhere else with your senses while you're removed from it physically. And this is called Blind Date. It's a [unclear], so if you're too shy to be really at the date, you can stay at a distance with your flowers and somebody else reenacts the date for you. Rapid manufacturing is another big area in which technology and design are, I think, bound to change the world. You've heard about it before many times. Rapid manufacturing is a computer file sent directly from the computer to the manufacturing machine. It used to be called rapid prototyping, rapid modeling. It started out in the '80s, but at the beginning it was machines carving out of a foam block a model that was very, very fragile, and could not have any real use. Slowly but surely, the materials became better -- better resins. Techniques became better -- not only carving but also stereolithography and laser -- solidifying all kinds of resins, whether in powder or in liquid form. And the vats became bigger, to the point that now we can have actual chairs made by rapid manufacturing. It takes seven days today to manufacture a chair, but you know what? One day it will take seven hours. And then the dream is that you'll be able to, from home, customize your chair. You know, companies and designers will be designing the matrix or the margins that respect both solidity and brand, and design identity. And then you can send it to the Kinko's store at the corner and go get your chair. Now, the implications of this are enormous, not only regarding the participation of the final buyer in the design process, but also no tracking, no warehousing, no wasted materials. Also, I can imagine many design manufacturers will have to retool their own business plans and maybe invest in this Kinko's store. But it really is a big change. And here I'm showing a picture that was in Wired Magazine -- you know, the Artifacts of the Future section that I love so much -- that shows you can have your desktop 3D printer and print your own basketball. But here instead are examples, you can already 3D-print textiles, which is very interesting. This is just a really nice touch -- it's called slow prototyping. It's a designer that put 10,000 bees at work and they built this vase. They had a particular shape that they had to stay in. Mapping and tagging. As the capacity of computers becomes really, really big, and the capacity of our mind not that much bigger, we find that we need to tag as much as we can what we do in order to then retrace our path. Also, we do it in order to share with other people. Again, this communal sense of experience that seems to be so important today. So, various ways to map and tag are also the work of many designers nowadays. Also, the senses -- designers and scientists all work on trying to expand our senses capabilities so that we can achieve more. And also animal senses in a way. This particular object that many people love so much is actually based on kind of a scientific experiment -- the fact that bees have a very strong olfactory sense, and so -- much like dogs that can smell certain kinds of skin cancer -- bees can be trained by Pavlovian reflex to detect one type of cancer, and also pregnancy. And so this student at the RCA designed this beautiful blown-glass object where the bees move from one chamber to the other if they detect that particular smell that signifies, in this case, pregnancy. Another shape is made for cancer. Design for Debate is a very interesting new endeavor that designers have really shaped for themselves. Some designers don't design objects, products, things that we're going to actually use, but rather, they design scenarios that are object-based. They're still very useful. They help companies and other designers think better about the future. And usually they are accompanied by videos. This is quite beautiful. It's Dunne and Raby, "All the Robots." Those are a series of robots that are meant to be taken care of. We always think that robots will take care of us, and instead they designed these robots that are very, very needy. You need to take one in your arms and look at it in the eyes for about five minutes before it does something. Another one gets really, really nervous if you get in to the room, and starts shaking, so you have to calm it down. So it's really a way to make us think more about what robots mean to us. Noam Toran and "Accessories for Lonely Men": the idea is that when you lose your loved one or you go through a bad breakup, what you miss the most are those annoying things that you used to hate when you were with the other person. So he designed all these series of accessories. This one is something that takes away the sheets from you at night. Then there's another one that breathes on your neck. There's another one that throws plates and breaks them. So it's just this idea of what we really miss in life. Elio Caccavale: he took the idea of those dolls that explain leukemia. He's working on dolls that explain xenotransplantation, and also the spider gene into the goat, from a few years ago. He's working for the exhibition on a whole series of dolls that explain to children where babies come from today. Because it's not anymore Mom, Dad, the flowers and the bees, and then there's the baby. No, it can be two moms, three dads, in-vitro -- there's the whole idea of how babies can be made today that has changed. So it's a series of dolls that he's working on right now. One of the most beautiful things is that designers really work on life, even though they take technology into account. And many designers have been working recently on the idea of death and mourning, and what we can do about it today with new technologies. Or how we should behave about it with new technologies. These three objects over there are hard drives with a Bluetooth connection. But they're in reality very, very beautiful sculpted artifacts that contain the whole desktop and computer memory of somebody who passed away. So instead of having only the pictures, you will be able to put this object next to the computer and all of a sudden have, you know, Gertrude's whole life and all of her files and her address book come alive. And this is even better. This is Auger-Loizeau, "AfterLife." It's the idea that some people don't believe in an afterlife. So to give them something tangible that shows that there is something after death, they take the gastric juices of people who passed away and concentrate them, and put them into a battery that can actually be used to power flashlights. They also go -- you know, sex toys, whatever. It's quite amazing how these things can make you smile, can make you laugh, can make you cry sometimes. But I'm hoping that this particular exhibition will be able to trace a new portrait of where design is going -- which is always, hopefully, a portrait a few years in advance of where the world is going. Thank you very much.

I've got apparently 18 minutes to convince you that history has a direction, an arrow; that in some fundamental sense, it's good; that the arrow points to something positive. Now, when the TED people first approached me about giving this upbeat talk -- (Laughter) -- that was before the cartoon of Muhammad had triggered global rioting. It was before the avian flu had reached Europe. It was before Hamas had won the Palestinian election, eliciting various counter-measures by Israel. And to be honest, if I had known when I was asked to give this upbeat talk that even as I was giving the upbeat talk, the apocalypse would be unfolding -- (Laughter) -- I might have said, "Is it okay if I talk about something else?" But I didn't, OK. So we're here. I'll do what I can. I'll do what I can. I've got to warn you: the sense in which my worldview is upbeat has always been kind of subtle, sometimes even elusive. (Laughter) The sense in which I can be uplifting and inspiring -- I mean, there's always been a kind of a certain grim dimension to the way I try to uplift, so if grim inspiration -- (Laughter) -- if grim inspiration is not a contradiction in terms, that is, I'm afraid, the most you can hope for. OK, today -- that's if I succeed. I'll see what I can do. OK? Now, in one sense, the claim that history has a direction is not that controversial. If you're just talking about social structure, OK, clearly that's gotten more complex a little over the last 10,000 years -- has reached higher and higher levels. And in fact, that's actually sustaining a long-standing trend that predates human beings, OK, that biological evolution was doing for us. Because what happened in the beginning, this stuff encases itself in a cell, then cells start hanging out together in societies. Eventually they get so close, they form multicellular organisms, then you get complex multicellular organisms; they form societies. But then at some point, one of these multicellular organisms does something completely amazing with this stuff, which is it launches a whole second kind of evolution: cultural evolution. And amazingly, that evolution sustains the trajectory that biological evolution had established toward greater complexity. By cultural evolution we mean the evolution of ideas. A lot of you have heard the term "memes." The evolution of technology, I pay a lot of attention to, so, you know, one of the first things you got was a little hand axe. Generations go by, somebody says, hey, why don't we put it on a stick? (Laughter) Just absolutely delights the little ones. Next best thing to a video game. This may not seem to impress, but technological evolution is progressive, so another 10, 20,000 years, and armaments technology takes you here. (Laughter) Impressive. And the rate of technological evolution speeds up, so a mere quarter of a century after this, you get this, OK. (Laughter) And this. (Laughter) I'm sorry -- it was a cheap laugh, but I wanted to find a way to transition back to this idea of the unfolding apocalypse, and I thought that might do it. (Applause) So, what threatens to happen with this unfolding apocalypse is the collapse of global social organization. Now, first let me remind you how much work it took to get us where we are, to be on the brink of true global social organization. Originally, you had the most complex societies, the hunter-gatherer village. Stonehenge is the remnant of a chiefdom, which is what you get with the invention of agriculture: multi-village polity with centralized rule. With the invention of writing, you start getting cities. This is blurry. I kind of like that because it makes it look like a one-celled organism and reminds you how many levels organic organization has already moved through to get to this point. And then you get to, you know, you get empires. I want to stress, you know, social organization can transcend political bounds. This is the Silk Road connecting the Chinese Empire and the Roman Empire. So you had social complexity spanning the whole continent, even if no polity did similarly. Today, you've got nation states. Point is: there's obviously collaboration and organization going on beyond national bounds. This is actually just a picture of the earth at night, and I'm just putting it up because I think it's pretty. Does kind of convey the sense that this is an integrated system. Now, I explained this growth of complexity by reference to something called "non-zero sumness." Assuming that a few of you did not do the assigned reading, very quickly, the key idea is the distinction between zero-sum games, in which correlations are inverse: always a winner and a loser. Non-zero-sum games in which correlations can be positive, OK. So like in tennis, usually it's win-lose; it always adds up to zero-zero-sum. But if you're playing doubles, the person on your side of the net, they're in the same boat as you, so you're playing a non-zero-sum game with them. It's either for the better or for the worse, OK. A lot of forms of non-zero-sum behavior in the realm of economics and so on in everyday life often leads to cooperation. The argument I make is basically that, well, non-zero-sum games have always been part of life. You have them in hunter-gatherer societies, but then through technological evolution, new forms of technology arise that facilitate or encourage the playing of non-zero-sum games, involving more people over larger territory. Social structure adapts to accommodate this possibility and to harness this productive potential, so you get cities, you know, and you get all the non-zero-sum games you don't think about that are being played across the world. Like, have you ever thought when you buy a car, how many people on how many different continents contributed to the manufacture of that car? Those are people in effect you're playing a non-zero-sum game with. I mean, there are certainly plenty of them around. Now, this sounds like an intrinsically upbeat worldview in a way, because when you think of non-zero, you think win-win, you know, that's good. Well, there are a few reasons that actually it's not intrinsically upbeat. First of all, it can accommodate; it doesn't deny the existence of inequality exploitation war. But there's a more fundamental reason that it's not intrinsically upbeat, because a non-zero-sum game, all it tells you for sure is that the fortunes will be correlated for better or worse. It doesn't necessarily predict a win-win outcome. So, in a way, the question is: on what grounds am I upbeat at all about history? And the answer is, first of all, on balance I would say people have played their games to more win-win outcomes than lose-lose outcomes. On balance, I think history is a net positive in the non-zero-sum game department. And a testament to this is the thing that most amazes me, most impresses me, and most uplifts me, which is that there is a moral dimension to history; there is a moral arrow. We have seen moral progress over time. 2,500 years ago, members of one Greek city-state considered members of another Greek city-state subhuman and treated them that way. And then this moral revolution arrived, and they decided that actually, no, Greeks are human beings. It's just the Persians who aren't fully human and don't deserve to be treated very nicely. But this was progress -- you know, give them credit. And now today, we've seen more progress. I think -- I hope -- most people here would say that all people everywhere are human beings, deserve to be treated decently, unless they do something horrendous, regardless of race or religion. And you have to read your ancient history to realize what a revolution that has been, OK. This was not a prevalent view, few thousand years ago, and I attribute it to this non-zero-sum dynamic. I think that's the reason there is as much tolerance toward nationalities, ethnicities, religions as there is today. If you asked me, you know, why am I not in favor of bombing Japan, well, I'm only half-joking when I say they built my car. We have this non-zero-sum relationship, and I think that does lead to a kind of a tolerance to the extent that you realize that someone else's welfare is positively correlated with yours -- you're more likely to cut them a break. I kind of think this is a kind of a business-class morality. Unfortunately, I don't fly trans-Atlantic business class often enough to know, or any other kind of business class really, but I assume that in business class, you don't hear many expressions of, you know, bigotry about racial groups or ethnic groups, because the people who are flying trans-Atlantic business class are doing business with all these people; they're making money off all these people. And I really do think that, in that sense at least, capitalism has been a constructive force, and more fundamentally, it's a non-zero-sumness that has been a constructive force in expanding people's realm of moral awareness. I think the non-zero-sum dynamic, which is not only economic by any means -- it's not always commerce -- but it has driven us to the verge of a moral truth, which is the fundamental equality of everyone. It has done that. As it has moved global, moved us toward a global level of social organization, it has driven us toward moral truth. I think that's wonderful. Now, back to the unfolding apocalypse. And you may wonder, OK, that's all fine, sounds great -- moral direction in history -- but what about this so-called clash of civilizations? Well, first of all, I would emphasize that it fits into the non-zero-sum framework, OK. If you look at the relationship between the so-called Muslim world and Western world -- two terms I don't like, but can't really avoid; in such a short span of time, they're efficient if nothing else -- it is non-zero-sum. And by that I mean, if people in the Muslim world get more hateful, more resentful, less happy with their place in the world, it'll be bad for the West. If they get more happy, it'll be good for the West. So that is a non-zero-sum dynamic. And I would say the non-zero-sum dynamic is only going to grow more intense over time because of technological trends, but more intense in a kind of negative way. It's the downside correlation of their fortunes that will become more and more possible. And one reason is because of something I call the "growing lethality of hatred." More and more, it's possible for grassroots hatred abroad to manifest itself in the form of organized violence on American soil. And that's pretty new, and I think it's probably going to get a lot worse -- this capacity -- because of trends in information technology, in technologies that can be used for purposes of munitions like biotechnology and nanotechnology. We may be hearing more about that today. And there's something I worry about especially, which is that this dynamic will lead to a kind of a feedback cycle that puts us on a slippery slope. What I have in mind is: terrorism happens here; we overreact to it. That, you know, we're not sufficiently surgical in our retaliation leads to more hatred abroad, more terrorism. We overreact because being human, we feel like retaliating, and it gets worse and worse and worse. You could call this the positive feedback of negative vibes, but I think in something so spooky, we really shouldn't have the word positive there at all, even in a technical sense. So let's call it the death spiral of negativity. (Laughter) I assure you if it happens, at the end, both the West and the Muslim world will have suffered. So, what do we do? Well, first of all, we can do a lot more with arms control, the international regulation of dangerous technologies. I have a whole global governance sermon that I will spare you right now, because I don't think that's going to be enough anyway, although it's essential. I think we're going to have to have a major round of moral progress in the world. I think you're just going to have to see less hatred among groups, less bigotry, and, you know, racial groups, religious groups, whatever. I've got to admit I feel silly saying that. It sounds so kind of Pollyannaish. I feel like Rodney King, you know, saying, why can't we all just get along? But hey, I don't really see any alternative, given the way I read the situation. There's going to have to be moral progress. There's going to have to be a lessening of the amount of hatred in the world, given how dangerous it's becoming. In my defense, I'd say, as naive as this may sound, it's ultimately grounded in cynicism. That is to say -- (Laughter) -- thank you, thank you. That is to say, remember: my whole view of morality is that it boils down to self-interest. It's when people's fortunes are correlated. It's when your welfare conduces to mine, that I decide, oh yeah, I'm all in favor of your welfare. That's what's responsible for this growth of this moral progress so far, and I'm saying we once again have a correlation of fortunes, and if people respond to it intelligently, we will see the development of tolerance and so on -- the norms that we need, you know. We will see the further evolution of this kind of business-class morality. So, these two things, you know, if they get people's attention and drive home the positive correlation and people do what's in their self-interests, which is further the moral evolution, then they could actually have a constructive effect. And that's why I lump growing lethality of hatred and death spiral of negativity under the general rubric, reasons to be cheerful. (Laughter) Doing the best I can, OK. (Laughter) I never called myself Mr. Uplift. I'm just doing what I can here. (Laughter) Now, launching a moral revolution has got to be hard, right? I mean, what do you do? And I think the answer is a lot of different people are going to have to do a lot of different things. We all start where we are. Speaking as an American who has children whose security 10, 20, 30 years down the road I worry about -- what I personally want to start out doing is figuring out why so many people around the world hate us, OK. I think that's a worthy research project myself. I also like it because it's an intrinsically kind of morally redeeming exercise. Because to understand why somebody in a very different culture does something -- somebody you're kind of viewing as alien, who's doing things you consider strange in a culture you consider strange -- to really understand why they do the things they do is a morally redeeming accomplishment, because you've got to relate their experience to yours. To really understand it, you've got to say, "Oh, I get it. So when they feel resentful, it's kind of like the way I feel resentful when this happens, and for somewhat the same reasons." That's true understanding. And I think that is an expansion of your moral compass when you manage to do that. It's especially hard to do when people hate you, OK, because you don't really, in a sense, want to completely understand why people hate you. I mean, you want to hear the reason, but you don't want to be able to relate to it. You don't want it to make sense, right? (Laughter) You don't want to say, "Well, yeah, I can kind of understand how a human being in those circumstances would hate the country I live in." That's not a pleasant thing, but I think it's something that we're going to have to get used to and work on. Now, I want to stress that to understand, you know -- there are people who don't like this whole business of understanding the grassroots, the root causes of things; they don't want to know why people hate us. I want to understand it. The reason you're trying to understand why they hate us, is to get them to quit hating us. The idea when you go through this moral exercise of really coming to appreciate their humanity and better understand them, is part of an effort to get them to appreciate your humanity in the long run. I think it's the first step toward that. That's the long-term goal. There are people who worry about this, and in fact, I, myself, apparently, was denounced on national TV a couple of nights ago because of an op-ed I'd written. It was kind of along these lines, and the allegation was that I have, quote, "affection for terrorists." Now, the good news is that the person who said it was Ann Coulter. (Laughter) (Applause) I mean, if you've got to have an enemy, do make it Ann Coulter. (Laughter) But it's not a crazy concern, OK, because understanding behavior can lead to a kind of empathy, and it can make it a little harder to deliver tough love, and so on. But I think we're a lot closer to erring on the side of not comprehending the situation clearly enough, than in comprehending it so clearly that we just can't, you know, get the army out to kill terrorists. So I'm not really worried about it. So -- (Laughter) -- I mean, we're going to have to work on a lot of fronts, but if we succeed -- if we succeed -- then once again, non-zero-sumness and the recognition of non-zero-sum dynamics will have forced us to a higher moral level. And a kind of saving higher moral level, something that kind of literally saves the world. If you look at the word "salvation" in the Bible -- the Christian usage that we're familiar with -- saving souls, that people go to heaven -- that's actually a latecomer. The original meaning of the word "salvation" in the Bible is about saving the social system. "Yahweh is our Savior" means "He has saved the nation of Israel," which at the time, was a pretty high-level social organization. Now, social organization has reached the global level, and I guess, if there's good news I can say I'm bringing you, it's just that all the salvation of the world requires is the intelligent pursuit of self-interests in a disciplined and careful way. It's going to be hard. I say we give it a shot anyway because we've just come too far to screw it up now. Thanks. (Applause)

I first became fascinated with octopus at an early age. I grew up in Mobile, Alabama -- somebody's got to be from Mobile, right? -- and Mobile sits at the confluence of five rivers, forming this beautiful delta. And the delta has alligators crawling in and out of rivers filled with fish and cypress trees dripping with snakes, birds of every flavor. It's an absolute magical wonderland to live in -- if you're a kid interested in animals, to grow up in. And this delta water flows to Mobile Bay, and finally into the Gulf of Mexico. And I remember my first real contact with octopus was probably at age five or six. I was in the gulf, and I was swimming around and saw a little octopus on the bottom. And I reached down and picked him up, and immediately became fascinated and impressed by its speed and its strength and agility. It was prying my fingers apart and moving to the back of my hand. It was all I could do to hold onto this amazing creature. Then it sort of calmed down in the palms of my hands and started flashing colors, just pulsing all of these colors. And as I looked at it, it kind of tucked its arms under it, raised into a spherical shape and turned chocolate brown with two white stripes. I'm going, "My gosh!" I had never seen anything like this in my life! So I marveled for a moment, and then decided it was time to release him, so I put him down. The octopus left my hands and then did the damnedest thing: It landed on the bottom in the rubble and -- fwoosh! -- vanished right before my eyes. And I knew, right then, at age six, that is an animal that I want to learn more about. So I did. And I went off to college and got a degree in marine zoology, and then moved to Hawaii and entered graduate school at the University of Hawaii. And while a student at Hawaii, I worked at the Waikiki Aquarium. And the aquarium had a lot of big fish tanks but not a lot of invertebrate displays, and being the spineless guy, I thought, well I'll just go out in the field and collect these wonderful animals I had been learning about as a student and bring them in, and I built these elaborate sets and put them on display. Now, the fish in the tanks were gorgeous to look at, but they didn't really interact with people. But the octopus did. If you walked up to an octopus tank, especially early in the morning before anyone arrived, the octopus would rise up and look at you and you're thinking, "Is that guy really looking at me? He is looking at me!" And you walk up to the front of the tank. Then you realize that these animals all have different personalities: Some of them would hold their ground, others would slink into the back of the tank and disappear in the rocks, and one in particular, this amazing animal ... I went up to the front of the tank, and he's just staring at me, and he had little horns come up above his eyes. So I went right up to the front of the tank -- I was three or four inches from the front glass -- and the octopus was sitting on a perch, a little rock, and he came off the rock and he also came down right to the front of the glass. So I was staring at this animal about six or seven inches away, and at that time I could actually focus that close; now as I look at my fuzzy fingers I realize those days are long gone. Anyway, there we were, staring at each other, and he reaches down and grabs an armful of gravel and releases it in the jet of water entering the tank from the filtration system, and -- chk chk chk chk chk! -- this gravel hits the front of the glass and falls down. He reaches up, takes another armful of gravel, releases it -- chk chk chk chk chk! -- same thing. Then he lifts another arm and I lift an arm. Then he lifts another arm and I lift another arm. And then I realize the octopus won the arms race, because I was out and he had six left. (Laughter) But the only way I can describe what I was seeing that day was that this octopus was playing, which is a pretty sophisticated behavior for a mere invertebrate. So, about three years into my degree, a funny thing happened on the way to the office, which actually changed the course of my life. A man came into the aquarium. It's a long story, but essentially he sent me and a couple of friends of mine to the South Pacific to collect animals for him, and as we left, he gave us two 16-millimeter movie cameras. He said, "Make a movie about this expedition." "OK, a couple of biologists making a movie -- this'll be interesting," and off we went. And we did, we made a movie, which had to be the worst movie ever made in the history of movie making, but it was a blast. I had so much fun. And I remember that proverbial light going off in my head, thinking, "Wait a minute. Maybe I can do this all the time. Yeah, I'll be a filmmaker." So I literally came back from that job, quit school, hung my filmmaking shingle and just never told anyone that I didn't know what I was doing. It's been a good ride. And what I learned in school though was really beneficial. If you're a wildlife filmmaker and you're going out into the field to film animals, especially behavior, it helps to have a fundamental background on who these animals are, how they work and, you know, a bit about their behaviors. But where I really learned about octopus was in the field, as a filmmaker making films with them, where you're allowed to spend large periods of time with the animals, seeing octopus being octopus in their ocean homes. I remember I took a trip to Australia, went to an island called One Tree Island. And apparently, evolution had occurred at a pretty rapid rate on One Tree, between the time they named it and the time I arrived, because I'm sure there were at least three trees on that island when we were there. Anyway, one tree is situated right next to a beautiful coral reef. In fact, there's a surge channel where the tide is moving back and forth, twice a day, pretty rapidly. And there's a beautiful reef, very complex reef, with lots of animals, including a lot of octopus. And not uniquely but certainly, the octopus in Australia are masters at camouflage. As a matter of fact, there's one right there. So our first challenge was to find these things, and that was a challenge, indeed. But the idea is, we were there for a month and I wanted to acclimate the animals to us so that we could see behaviors without disturbing them. So the first week was pretty much spent just getting as close as we could, every day a little closer, a little closer, a little closer. And you knew what the limit was: they would start getting twitchy and you'd back up, come back in a few hours. And after the first week, they ignored us. It was like, "I don't know what that thing is, but he's no threat to me." So they went on about their business and from a foot away, we're watching mating and courting and fighting and it is just an unbelievable experience. And one of the most fantastic displays that I remember, or at least visually, was a foraging behavior. And they had a lot of different techniques that they would use for foraging, but this particular one used vision. And they would see a coral head, maybe 10 feet away, and start moving over toward that coral head. And I don't know whether they actually saw crab in it, or imagined that one might be, but whatever the case, they would leap off the bottom and go through the water and land right on top of this coral head, and then the web between the arms would completely engulf the coral head, and they would fish out, swim for crabs. And as soon as the crabs touched the arm, it was lights out. And I always wondered what happened under that web. So we created a way to find out, (Laughter) and I got my first look at that famous beak in action. It was fantastic. If you're going to make a lot of films about a particular group of animals, you might as well pick one that's fairly common. And octopus are, they live in all the oceans. They also live deep. And I can't say octopus are responsible for my really strong interest in getting in subs and going deep, but whatever the case, I like that. It's like nothing you've ever done. If you ever really want to get away from it all and see something that you have never seen, and have an excellent chance of seeing something no one has ever seen, get in a sub. You climb in, seal the hatch, turn on a little oxygen, turn on the scrubber, which removes the CO2 in the air you breathe, and they chuck you overboard. Down you go. There's no connection to the surface apart from a pretty funky radio. And as you go down, the washing machine at the surface calms down. And it gets quiet. And it starts getting really nice. And as you go deeper, that lovely, blue water you were launched in gives way to darker and darker blue. And finally, it's a rich lavender, and after a couple of thousand feet, it's ink black. And now you've entered the realm of the mid-water community. You could give an entire talk about the creatures that live in the mid-water. Suffice to say though, as far as I'm concerned, without question, the most bizarre designs and outrageous behaviors are in the animals that live in the mid-water community. But we're just going to zip right past this area, this area that includes about 95 percent of the living space on our planet and go to the mid-ocean ridge, which I think is even more extraordinary. The mid-ocean ridge is a huge mountain range, 40,000 miles long, snaking around the entire globe. And they're big mountains, thousands of feet tall, some of which are tens of thousands of feet and bust through the surface, creating islands like Hawaii. And the top of this mountain range is splitting apart, creating a rift valley. And when you dive into that rift valley, that's where the action is because literally thousands of active volcanoes are going off at any point in time all along this 40,000 mile range. And as these tectonic plates are spreading apart, magma, lava is coming up and filling those gaps, and you're looking land -- new land -- being created right before your eyes. And over the tops of them is 3,000 to 4,000 meters of water creating enormous pressure, forcing water down through the cracks toward the center of the earth, until it hits a magma chamber where it becomes superheated and supersaturated with minerals, reverses its flow and starts shooting back to the surface and is ejected out of the earth like a geyser at Yellowstone. In fact, this whole area is like a Yellowstone National Park with all of the trimmings. And this vent fluid is about 600 or 700 degrees F. The surrounding water is just a couple of degrees above freezing. So it immediately cools, and it can no longer hold in suspension all of the material that it's dissolved, and it precipitates out, forming black smoke. And it forms these towers, these chimneys that are 10, 20, 30 feet tall. And all along the sides of these chimneys is shimmering with heat and loaded with life. You've got black smokers going all over the place and chimneys that have tube worms that might be eight to 10 feet long. And out of the tops of these tube worms are these beautiful red plumes. And living amongst the tangle of tube worms is an entire community of animals: shrimp, fish, lobsters, crab, clams and swarms of arthropods that are playing that dangerous game between over here is scalding hot and freezing cold. And this whole ecosystem wasn't even known about until 33 years ago. And it completely threw science on its head. It made scientists rethink where life on Earth might have actually begun. And before the discovery of these vents, all life on Earth, the key to life on Earth, was believed to be the sun and photosynthesis. But down there, there is no sun, there is no photosynthesis; it's chemosynthetic environment down there driving it, and it's all so ephemeral. You might film this unbelievable hydrothermal vent, which you think at the time has to be on another planet. It's amazing to think that this is actually on earth; it looks like aliens in an alien environment. But you go back to the same vent eight years later and it can be completely dead. There's no hot water. All of the animals are gone, they're dead, and the chimneys are still there creating a really nice ghost town, an eerie, spooky ghost town, but essentially devoid of animals, of course. But 10 miles down the ridge... pshhh! There's another volcano going. And there's a whole new hydrothermal vent community that has been formed. And this kind of life and death of hydrothermal vent communities is going on every 30 or 40 years all along the ridge. And that ephemeral nature of the hydrothermal vent community isn't really different from some of the areas that I've seen in 35 years of traveling around, making films. Where you go and film a really nice sequence at a bay. And you go back, and I'm at home, and I'm thinking, "Okay, what can I shoot ... Ah! I know where I can shoot that. There's this beautiful bay, lots of soft corals and stomatopods." And you show up, and it's dead. There's no coral, algae growing on it, and the water's pea soup. You think, "Well, what happened?" And you turn around, and there's a hillside behind you with a neighborhood going in, and bulldozers are pushing piles of soil back and forth. And over here there's a golf course going in. And this is the tropics. It's raining like crazy here. So this rainwater is flooding down the hillside, carrying with it sediments from the construction site, smothering the coral and killing it. And fertilizers and pesticides are flowing into the bay from the golf course -- the pesticides killing all the larvae and little animals, fertilizer creating this beautiful plankton bloom -- and there's your pea soup. But, encouragingly, I've seen just the opposite. I've been to a place that was a pretty trashed bay. And I looked at it, just said, "Yuck," and go and work on the other side of the island. Five years later, come back, and that same bay is now gorgeous. It's beautiful. It's got living coral, fish all over the place, crystal clear water, and you go, "How did that happen?" Well, how it happened is the local community galvanized. They recognized what was happening on the hillside and put a stop to it; enacted laws and made permits required to do responsible construction and golf course maintenance and stopped the sediments flowing into the bay, and stopped the chemicals flowing into the bay, and the bay recovered. The ocean has an amazing ability to recover, if we'll just leave it alone. I think Margaret Mead said it best. She said that a small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. And a small group of thoughtful people changed that bay. I'm a big fan of grassroots organizations. I've been to a lot of lectures where, at the end of it, inevitably, one of the first questions that comes up is, "But, but what can I do? I'm an individual. I'm one person. And these problems are so large and global, and it's just overwhelming." Fair enough question. My answer to that is don't look at the big, overwhelming issues of the world. Look in your own backyard. Look in your heart, actually. What do you really care about that isn't right where you live? And fix it. Create a healing zone in your neighborhood and encourage others to do the same. And maybe these healing zones can sprinkle a map, little dots on a map. And in fact, the way that we can communicate today -- where Alaska is instantly knowing what's going on in China, and the Kiwis did this, and then over in England they tried to ... and everybody is talking to everyone else -- it's not isolated points on a map anymore, it's a network we've created. And maybe these healing zones can start growing, and possibly even overlap, and good things can happen. So that's how I answer that question. Look in your own backyard, in fact, look in the mirror. What can you do that is more responsible than what you're doing now? And do that, and spread the word. The vent community animals can't really do much about the life and death that's going on where they live, but up here we can. In theory, we're thinking, rational human beings. And we can make changes to our behavior that will influence and affect the environment, like those people changed the health of that bay. Now, Sylvia's TED Prize wish was to beseech us to do anything we could, everything we could, to set aside not pin pricks, but significant expanses of the ocean for preservation, "hope spots," she calls them. And I applaud that. I loudly applaud that. And it's my hope that some of these "hope spots" can be in the deep ocean, an area that has historically been seriously neglected, if not abused. The term "deep six" comes to mind: "If it's too big or too toxic for a landfill, deep six it!" So, I hope that we can also keep some of these "hope spots" in the deep sea. Now, I don't get a wish, but I certainly can say that I will do anything I can to support Sylvia Earle's wish. And that I do. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Chris Anderson: So I guess what we're going to do is we're going to talk about your life, and using some pictures that you shared with me. And I think we should start right here with this one. Okay, now who is this? Martine Rothblatt: This is me with our oldest son Eli. He was about age five. This is taken in Nigeria right after having taken the Washington, D.C. bar exam. CA: Okay. But this doesn't really look like a Martine. MR: Right. That was myself as a male, the way I was brought up. Before I transitioned from male to female and Martin to Martine. CA: You were brought up Martin Rothblatt. MR: Correct. CA: And about a year after this picture, you married a beautiful woman. Was this love at first sight? What happened there? MR: It was love at the first sight. I saw Bina at a discotheque in Los Angeles, and we later began living together, but the moment I saw her, I saw just an aura of energy around her. I asked her to dance. She said she saw an aura of energy around me. I was a single male parent. She was a single female parent. We showed each other our kids' pictures, and we've been happily married for a third of a century now. (Applause) CA: And at the time, you were kind of this hotshot entrepreneur, working with satellites. I think you had two successful companies, and then you started addressing this problem of how could you use satellites to revolutionize radio. Tell us about that. MR: Right. I always loved space technology, and satellites, to me, are sort of like the canoes that our ancestors first pushed out into the water. So it was exciting for me to be part of the navigation of the oceans of the sky, and as I developed different types of satellite communication systems, the main thing I did was to launch bigger and more powerful satellites, the consequence of which was that the receiving antennas could be smaller and smaller, and after going through direct television broadcasting, I had the idea that if we could make a more powerful satellite, the receiving dish could be so small that it would just be a section of a parabolic dish, a flat little plate embedded into the roof of an automobile, and it would be possible to have nationwide satellite radio, and that's Sirius XM today. CA: Wow. So who here has used Sirius? (Applause) MR: Thank you for your monthly subscriptions. (Laughter) CA: So that succeeded despite all predictions at the time. It was a huge commercial success, but soon after this, in the early 1990s, there was this big transition in your life and you became Martine. MR: Correct. CA: So tell me, how did that happen? MR: It happened in consultation with Bina and our four beautiful children, and I discussed with each of them that I felt my soul was always female, and as a woman, but I was afraid people would laugh at me if I expressed it, so I always kept it bottled up and just showed my male side. And each of them had a different take on this. Bina said, "I love your soul, and whether the outside is Martin and Martine, it doesn't it matter to me, I love your soul." My son said, "If you become a woman, will you still be my father?" And I said, "Yes, I'll always be your father," and I'm still his father today. My youngest daughter did an absolutely brilliant five-year-old thing. She told people, "I love my dad and she loves me." So she had no problem with a gender blending whatsoever. CA: And a couple years after this, you published this book: "The Apartheid of Sex." What was your thesis in this book? MR: My thesis in this book is that there are seven billion people in the world, and actually, seven billion unique ways to express one's gender. And while people may have the genitals of a male or a female, the genitals don't determine your gender or even really your sexual identity. That's just a matter of anatomy and reproductive tracts, and people could choose whatever gender they want if they weren't forced by society into categories of either male or female the way South Africa used to force people into categories of black or white. We know from anthropological science that race is fiction, even though racism is very, very real, and we now know from cultural studies that separate male or female genders is a constructed fiction. The reality is a gender fluidity that crosses the entire continuum from male to female. CA: You yourself don't always feel 100 percent female. MR: Correct. I would say in some ways I change my gender about as often as I change my hairstyle. CA: (Laughs) Okay, now, this is your gorgeous daughter, Jenesis. And I guess she was about this age when something pretty terrible happened. MR: Yes, she was finding herself unable to walk up the stairs in our house to her bedroom, and after several months of doctors, she was diagnosed to have a rare, almost invariably fatal disease called pulmonary arterial hypertension. CA: So how did you respond to that? MR: Well, we first tried to get her to the best doctors we could. We ended up at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The head of pediatric cardiology told us that he was going to refer her to get a lung transplant, but not to hold out any hope, because there are very few lungs available, especially for children. He said that all people with this illness died, and if any of you have seen the film "Lorenzo's Oil," there's a scene when the protagonist kind of rolls down the stairway crying and bemoaning the fate of his son, and that's exactly how we felt about Jenesis. CA: But you didn't accept that as the limit of what you could do. You started trying to research and see if you could find a cure somehow. MR: Correct. She was in the intensive care ward for weeks at a time, and Bina and I would tag team to stay at the hospital while the other watched the rest of the kids, and when I was in the hospital and she was sleeping, I went to the hospital library. I read every article that I could find on pulmonary hypertension. I had not taken any biology, even in college, so I had to go from a biology textbook to a college-level textbook and then medical textbook and the journal articles, back and forth, and eventually I knew enough to think that it might be possible that somebody could find a cure. So we started a nonprofit foundation. I wrote a description asking people to submit grants and we would pay for medical research. I became an expert on the condition -- doctors said to me, Martine, we really appreciate all the funding you've provided us, but we are not going to be able to find a cure in time to save your daughter. However, there is a medicine that was developed at the Burroughs Wellcome Company that could halt the progression of the disease, but Burroughs Wellcome has just been acquired by Glaxo Wellcome. They made a decision not to develop any medicines for rare and orphan diseases, and maybe you could use your expertise in satellite communications to develop this cure for pulmonary hypertension. CA: So how on earth did you get access to this drug? MR: I went to Glaxo Wellcome and after three times being rejected and having the door slammed in my face because they weren't going to out-license the drug to a satellite communications expert, they weren't going to send the drug out to anybody at all, and they thought I didn't have the expertise, finally I was able to persuade a small team of people to work with me and develop enough credibility. I wore down their resistance, and they had no hope this drug would even work, by the way, and they tried to tell me, "You're just wasting your time. We're sorry about your daughter." But finally, for 25,000 dollars and agreement to pay 10 percent of any revenues we might ever get, they agreed to give me worldwide rights to this drug. CA: And so you put this drug on the market in a really brilliant way, by basically charging what it would take to make the economics work. MR: Oh yes, Chris, but this really wasn't a drug that I ended up -- after I wrote the check for 25,000, and I said, "Okay, where's the medicine for Jenesis?" they said, "Oh, Martine, there's no medicine for Jenesis. This is just something we tried in rats." And they gave me, like, a little plastic Ziploc bag of a small amount of powder. They said, "Don't give it to any human," and they gave me a piece of paper which said it was a patent, and from that, we had to figure out a way to make this medicine. A hundred chemists in the U.S. at the top universities all swore that little patent could never be turned into a medicine. If it was turned into a medicine, it could never be delivered because it had a half-life of only 45 minutes. CA: And yet, a year or two later, you were there with a medicine that worked for Jenesis. MR: Chris, the astonishing thing is that this absolutely worthless piece of powder that had the sparkle of a promise of hope for Jenesis is not only keeping Jenesis and other people alive today, but produces almost a billion and a half dollars a year in revenue. (Applause) CA: So here you go. So you took this company public, right? And made an absolute fortune. And how much have you paid Glaxo, by the way, after that 25,000? MR: Yeah, well, every year we pay them 10 percent of 1.5 billion, 150 million dollars, last year 100 million dollars. It's the best return on investment they ever received. (Laughter) CA: And the best news of all, I guess, is this. MR: Yes. Jenesis is an absolutely brilliant young lady. She's alive, healthy today at 30. You see me, Bina and Jenesis there. The most amazing thing about Jenesis is that while she could do anything with her life, and believe me, if you grew up your whole life with people in your face saying that you've got a fatal disease, I would probably run to Tahiti and just not want to run into anybody again. But instead she chooses to work in United Therapeutics. She says she wants to do all she can to help other people with orphan diseases get medicines, and today, she's our project leader for all telepresence activities, where she helps digitally unite the entire company to work together to find cures for pulmonary hypertension. CA: But not everyone who has this disease has been so fortunate. There are still many people dying, and you are tackling that too. How? MR: Exactly, Chris. There's some 3,000 people a year in the United States alone, perhaps 10 times that number worldwide, who continue to die of this illness because the medicines slow down the progression but they don't halt it. The only cure for pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary fibrosis, cystic fibrosis, emphysema, COPD, what Leonard Nimoy just died of, is a lung transplant, but sadly, there are only enough available lungs for 2,000 people in the U.S. a year to get a lung transplant, whereas nearly a half million people a year die of end-stage lung failure. CA: So how can you address that? MR: So I conceptualize the possibility that just like we keep cars and planes and buildings going forever with an unlimited supply of building parts and machine parts, why can't we create an unlimited supply of transplantable organs to keep people living indefinitely, and especially people with lung disease. So we've teamed up with the decoder of the human genome, Craig Venter, and the company he founded with Peter Diamandis, the founder of the X Prize, to genetically modify the pig genome so that the pig's organs will not be rejected by the human body and thereby to create an unlimited supply of transplantable organs. We do this through our company, United Therapeutics. CA: So you really believe that within, what, a decade, that this shortage of transplantable lungs maybe be cured, through these guys? MR: Absolutely, Chris. I'm as certain of that as I was of the success that we've had with direct television broadcasting, Sirius XM. It's actually not rocket science. It's straightforward engineering away one gene after another. We're so lucky to be born in the time that sequencing genomes is a routine activity, and the brilliant folks at Synthetic Genomics are able to zero in on the pig genome, find exactly the genes that are problematic, and fix them. CA: But it's not just bodies that -- though that is amazing. (Applause) It's not just long-lasting bodies that are of interest to you now. It's long-lasting minds. And I think this graph for you says something quite profound. What does this mean? MR: What this graph means, and it comes from Ray Kurzweil, is that the rate of development in computer processing hardware, firmware and software, has been advancing along a curve such that by the 2020s, as we saw in earlier presentations today, there will be information technology that processes information and the world around us at the same rate as a human mind. CA: And so that being so, you're actually getting ready for this world by believing that we will soon be able to, what, actually take the contents of our brains and somehow preserve them forever? How do you describe that? MR: Well, Chris, what we're working on is creating a situation where people can create a mind file, and a mind file is the collection of their mannerisms, personality, recollection, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values, everything that we've poured today into Google, into Amazon, into Facebook, and all of this information stored there will be able, in the next couple decades, once software is able to recapitulate consciousness, be able to revive the consciousness which is imminent in our mind file. CA: Now you're not just messing around with this. You're serious. I mean, who is this? MR: This is a robot version of my beloved spouse, Bina. And we call her Bina 48. She was programmed by Hanson Robotics out of Texas. There's the centerfold from National Geographic magazine with one of her caregivers, and she roams the web and has hundreds of hours of Bina's mannerisms, personalities. She's kind of like a two-year-old kid, but she says things that blow people away, best expressed by perhaps a New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Amy Harmon who says her answers are often frustrating, but other times as compelling as those of any flesh person she's interviewed. CA: And is your thinking here, part of your hope here, is that this version of Bina can in a sense live on forever, or some future upgrade to this version can live on forever? MR: Yes. Not just Bina, but everybody. You know, it costs us virtually nothing to store our mind files on Facebook, Instagram, what-have-you. Social media is I think one of the most extraordinary inventions of our time, and as apps become available that will allow us to out-Siri Siri, better and better, and develop consciousness operating systems, everybody in the world, billions of people, will be able to develop mind clones of themselves that will have their own life on the web. CA: So the thing is, Martine, that in any normal conversation, this would sound stark-staring mad, but in the context of your life, what you've done, some of the things we've heard this week, the constructed realities that our minds give, I mean, you wouldn't bet against it. MR: Well, I think it's really nothing coming from me. If anything, I'm perhaps a bit of a communicator of activities that are being undertaken by the greatest companies in China, Japan, India, the U.S., Europe. There are tens of millions of people working on writing code that expresses more and more aspects of our human consciousness, and you don't have to be a genius to see that all these threads are going to come together and ultimately create human consciousness, and it's something we'll value. There are so many things to do in this life, and if we could have a simulacrum, a digital doppelgänger of ourselves that helps us process books, do shopping, be our best friends, I believe our mind clones, these digital versions of ourselves, will ultimately be our best friends, and for me personally and Bina personally, we love each other like crazy. Each day, we are always saying, like, "Wow, I love you even more than 30 years ago. And so for us, the prospect of mind clones and regenerated bodies is that our love affair, Chris, can go on forever. And we never get bored of each other. I'm sure we never will. CA: I think Bina's here, right? MR: She is, yeah. CA: Would it be too much, I don't know, do we have a handheld mic? Bina, could we invite you to the stage? I just have to ask you one question. Besides, we need to see you. (Applause) Thank you, thank you. Come and join Martine here. I mean, look, when you got married, if someone had told you that, in a few years time, the man you were marrying would become a woman, and a few years after that, you would become a robot -- (Laughter) -- how has this gone? How has it been? Bina Rothblatt: It's been really an exciting journey, and I would have never thought that at the time, but we started making goals and setting those goals and accomplishing things, and before you knew it, we just keep going up and up and we're still not stopping, so it's great. CA: Martine told me something really beautiful, just actually on Skype before this, which was that he wanted to live for hundreds of years as a mind file, but not if it wasn't with you. BR: That's right, we want to do it together. We're cryonicists as well, and we want to wake up together. CA: So just so as you know, from my point of view, this isn't only one of the most astonishing lives I have heard, it's one of the most astonishing love stories I've ever heard. It's just a delight to have you both here at TED. Thank you so much. MR: Thank you. (Applause)

Each of you possesses the most powerful, dangerous and subversive trait that natural selection has ever devised. It's a piece of neural audio technology for rewiring other people's minds. I'm talking about your language, of course, because it allows you to implant a thought from your mind directly into someone else's mind, and they can attempt to do the same to you, without either of you having to perform surgery. Instead, when you speak, you're actually using a form of telemetry not so different from the remote control device for your television. It's just that, whereas that device relies on pulses of infrared light, your language relies on pulses, discrete pulses, of sound. And just as you use the remote control device to alter the internal settings of your television to suit your mood, you use your language to alter the settings inside someone else's brain to suit your interests. Languages are genes talking, getting things that they want. And just imagine the sense of wonder in a baby when it first discovers that, merely by uttering a sound, it can get objects to move across a room as if by magic, and maybe even into its mouth. Now language's subversive power has been recognized throughout the ages in censorship, in books you can't read, phrases you can't use and words you can't say. In fact, the Tower of Babel story in the Bible is a fable and warning about the power of language. According to that story, early humans developed the conceit that, by using their language to work together, they could build a tower that would take them all the way to heaven. Now God, angered at this attempt to usurp his power, destroyed the tower, and then to ensure that it would never be rebuilt, he scattered the people by giving them different languages -- confused them by giving them different languages. And this leads to the wonderful irony that our languages exist to prevent us from communicating. Even today, we know that there are words we cannot use, phrases we cannot say, because if we do so, we might be accosted, jailed, or even killed. And all of this from a puff of air emanating from our mouths. Now all this fuss about a single one of our traits tells us there's something worth explaining. And that is how and why did this remarkable trait evolve, and why did it evolve only in our species? Now it's a little bit of a surprise that to get an answer to that question, we have to go to tool use in the chimpanzees. Now these chimpanzees are using tools, and we take that as a sign of their intelligence. But if they really were intelligent, why would they use a stick to extract termites from the ground rather than a shovel? And if they really were intelligent, why would they crack open nuts with a rock? Why wouldn't they just go to a shop and buy a bag of nuts that somebody else had already cracked open for them? Why not? I mean, that's what we do. Now the reason the chimpanzees don't do that is that they lack what psychologists and anthropologists call social learning. They seem to lack the ability to learn from others by copying or imitating or simply watching. As a result, they can't improve on others' ideas or learn from others' mistakes -- benefit from others' wisdom. And so they just do the same thing over and over and over again. In fact, we could go away for a million years and come back and these chimpanzees would be doing the same thing with the same sticks for the termites and the same rocks to crack open the nuts. Now this may sound arrogant, or even full of hubris. How do we know this? Because this is exactly what our ancestors, the Homo erectus, did. These upright apes evolved on the African savanna about two million years ago, and they made these splendid hand axes that fit wonderfully into your hands. But if we look at the fossil record, we see that they made the same hand axe over and over and over again for one million years. You can follow it through the fossil record. Now if we make some guesses about how long Homo erectus lived, what their generation time was, that's about 40,000 generations of parents to offspring, and other individuals watching, in which that hand axe didn't change. It's not even clear that our very close genetic relatives, the Neanderthals, had social learning. Sure enough, their tools were more complicated than those of Homo erectus, but they too showed very little change over the 300,000 years or so that those species, the Neanderthals, lived in Eurasia. Okay, so what this tells us is that, contrary to the old adage, "monkey see, monkey do," the surprise really is that all of the other animals really cannot do that -- at least not very much. And even this picture has the suspicious taint of being rigged about it -- something from a Barnum & Bailey circus. But by comparison, we can learn. We can learn by watching other people and copying or imitating what they can do. We can then choose, from among a range of options, the best one. We can benefit from others' ideas. We can build on their wisdom. And as a result, our ideas do accumulate, and our technology progresses. And this cumulative cultural adaptation, as anthropologists call this accumulation of ideas, is responsible for everything around you in your bustling and teeming everyday lives. I mean the world has changed out of all proportion to what we would recognize even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. And all of this because of cumulative cultural adaptation. The chairs you're sitting in, the lights in this auditorium, my microphone, the iPads and iPods that you carry around with you -- all are a result of cumulative cultural adaptation. Now to many commentators, cumulative cultural adaptation, or social learning, is job done, end of story. Our species can make stuff, therefore we prospered in a way that no other species has. In fact, we can even make the "stuff of life" -- as I just said, all the stuff around us. But in fact, it turns out that some time around 200,000 years ago, when our species first arose and acquired social learning, that this was really the beginning of our story, not the end of our story. Because our acquisition of social learning would create a social and evolutionary dilemma, the resolution of which, it's fair to say, would determine not only the future course of our psychology, but the future course of the entire world. And most importantly for this, it'll tell us why we have language. And the reason that dilemma arose is, it turns out, that social learning is visual theft. If I can learn by watching you, I can steal your best ideas, and I can benefit from your efforts, without having to put in the time and energy that you did into developing them. If I can watch which lure you use to catch a fish, or I can watch how you flake your hand axe to make it better, or if I follow you secretly to your mushroom patch, I can benefit from your knowledge and wisdom and skills, and maybe even catch that fish before you do. Social learning really is visual theft. And in any species that acquired it, it would behoove you to hide your best ideas, lest somebody steal them from you. And so some time around 200,000 years ago, our species confronted this crisis. And we really had only two options for dealing with the conflicts that visual theft would bring. One of those options was that we could have retreated into small family groups. Because then the benefits of our ideas and knowledge would flow just to our relatives. Had we chosen this option, sometime around 200,000 years ago, we would probably still be living like the Neanderthals were when we first entered Europe 40,000 years ago. And this is because in small groups there are fewer ideas, there are fewer innovations. And small groups are more prone to accidents and bad luck. So if we'd chosen that path, our evolutionary path would have led into the forest -- and been a short one indeed. The other option we could choose was to develop the systems of communication that would allow us to share ideas and to cooperate amongst others. Choosing this option would mean that a vastly greater fund of accumulated knowledge and wisdom would become available to any one individual than would ever arise from within an individual family or an individual person on their own. Well, we chose the second option, and language is the result. Language evolved to solve the crisis of visual theft. Language is a piece of social technology for enhancing the benefits of cooperation -- for reaching agreements, for striking deals and for coordinating our activities. And you can see that, in a developing society that was beginning to acquire language, not having language would be a like a bird without wings. Just as wings open up this sphere of air for birds to exploit, language opened up the sphere of cooperation for humans to exploit. And we take this utterly for granted, because we're a species that is so at home with language, but you have to realize that even the simplest acts of exchange that we engage in are utterly dependent upon language. And to see why, consider two scenarios from early in our evolution. Let's imagine that you are really good at making arrowheads, but you're hopeless at making the wooden shafts with the flight feathers attached. Two other people you know are very good at making the wooden shafts, but they're hopeless at making the arrowheads. So what you do is -- one of those people has not really acquired language yet. And let's pretend the other one is good at language skills. So what you do one day is you take a pile of arrowheads, and you walk up to the one that can't speak very well, and you put the arrowheads down in front of him, hoping that he'll get the idea that you want to trade your arrowheads for finished arrows. But he looks at the pile of arrowheads, thinks they're a gift, picks them up, smiles and walks off. Now you pursue this guy, gesticulating. A scuffle ensues and you get stabbed with one of your own arrowheads. Okay, now replay this scene now, and you're approaching the one who has language. You put down your arrowheads and say, "I'd like to trade these arrowheads for finished arrows. I'll split you 50/50." The other one says, "Fine. Looks good to me. We'll do that." Now the job is done. Once we have language, we can put our ideas together and cooperate to have a prosperity that we couldn't have before we acquired it. And this is why our species has prospered around the world while the rest of the animals sit behind bars in zoos, languishing. That's why we build space shuttles and cathedrals while the rest of the world sticks sticks into the ground to extract termites. All right, if this view of language and its value in solving the crisis of visual theft is true, any species that acquires it should show an explosion of creativity and prosperity. And this is exactly what the archeological record shows. If you look at our ancestors, the Neanderthals and the Homo erectus, our immediate ancestors, they're confined to small regions of the world. But when our species arose about 200,000 years ago, sometime after that we quickly walked out of Africa and spread around the entire world, occupying nearly every habitat on Earth. Now whereas other species are confined to places that their genes adapt them to, with social learning and language, we could transform the environment to suit our needs. And so we prospered in a way that no other animal has. Language really is the most potent trait that has ever evolved. It is the most valuable trait we have for converting new lands and resources into more people and their genes that natural selection has ever devised. Language really is the voice of our genes. Now having evolved language, though, we did something peculiar, even bizarre. As we spread out around the world, we developed thousands of different languages. Currently, there are about seven or 8,000 different languages spoken on Earth. Now you might say, well, this is just natural. As we diverge, our languages are naturally going to diverge. But the real puzzle and irony is that the greatest density of different languages on Earth is found where people are most tightly packed together. If we go to the island of Papua New Guinea, we can find about 800 to 1,000 distinct human languages, different human languages, spoken on that island alone. There are places on that island where you can encounter a new language every two or three miles. Now, incredible as this sounds, I once met a Papuan man, and I asked him if this could possibly be true. And he said to me, "Oh no. They're far closer together than that." And it's true; there are places on that island where you can encounter a new language in under a mile. And this is also true of some remote oceanic islands. And so it seems that we use our language, not just to cooperate, but to draw rings around our cooperative groups and to establish identities, and perhaps to protect our knowledge and wisdom and skills from eavesdropping from outside. And we know this because when we study different language groups and associate them with their cultures, we see that different languages slow the flow of ideas between groups. They slow the flow of technologies. And they even slow the flow of genes. Now I can't speak for you, but it seems to be the case that we don't have sex with people we can't talk to. (Laughter) Now we have to counter that, though, against the evidence we've heard that we might have had some rather distasteful genetic dalliances with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans. (Laughter) Okay, this tendency we have, this seemingly natural tendency we have, towards isolation, towards keeping to ourselves, crashes head first into our modern world. This remarkable image is not a map of the world. In fact, it's a map of Facebook friendship links. And when you plot those friendship links by their latitude and longitude, it literally draws a map of the world. Our modern world is communicating with itself and with each other more than it has at any time in its past. And that communication, that connectivity around the world, that globalization now raises a burden. Because these different languages impose a barrier, as we've just seen, to the transfer of goods and ideas and technologies and wisdom. And they impose a barrier to cooperation. And nowhere do we see that more clearly than in the European Union, whose 27 member countries speak 23 official languages. The European Union is now spending over one billion euros annually translating among their 23 official languages. That's something on the order of 1.45 billion U.S. dollars on translation costs alone. Now think of the absurdity of this situation. If 27 individuals from those 27 member states sat around table, speaking their 23 languages, some very simple mathematics will tell you that you need an army of 253 translators to anticipate all the pairwise possibilities. The European Union employs a permanent staff of about 2,500 translators. And in 2007 alone -- and I'm sure there are more recent figures -- something on the order of 1.3 million pages were translated into English alone. And so if language really is the solution to the crisis of visual theft, if language really is the conduit of our cooperation, the technology that our species derived to promote the free flow and exchange of ideas, in our modern world, we confront a question. And that question is whether in this modern, globalized world we can really afford to have all these different languages. To put it this way, nature knows no other circumstance in which functionally equivalent traits coexist. One of them always drives the other extinct. And we see this in the inexorable march towards standardization. There are lots and lots of ways of measuring things -- weighing them and measuring their length -- but the metric system is winning. There are lots and lots of ways of measuring time, but a really bizarre base 60 system known as hours and minutes and seconds is nearly universal around the world. There are many, many ways of imprinting CDs or DVDs, but those are all being standardized as well. And you can probably think of many, many more in your own everyday lives. And so our modern world now is confronting us with a dilemma. And it's the dilemma that this Chinese man faces, who's language is spoken by more people in the world than any other single language, and yet he is sitting at his blackboard, converting Chinese phrases into English language phrases. And what this does is it raises the possibility to us that in a world in which we want to promote cooperation and exchange, and in a world that might be dependent more than ever before on cooperation to maintain and enhance our levels of prosperity, his actions suggest to us it might be inevitable that we have to confront the idea that our destiny is to be one world with one language. Thank you. (Applause) Matt Ridley: Mark, one question. Svante found that the FOXP2 gene, which seems to be associated with language, was also shared in the same form in Neanderthals as us. Do we have any idea how we could have defeated Neanderthals if they also had language? Mark Pagel: This is a very good question. So many of you will be familiar with the idea that there's this gene called FOXP2 that seems to be implicated in some ways in the fine motor control that's associated with language. The reason why I don't believe that tells us that the Neanderthals had language is -- here's a simple analogy: Ferraris are cars that have engines. My car has an engine, but it's not a Ferrari. Now the simple answer then is that genes alone don't, all by themselves, determine the outcome of very complicated things like language. What we know about this FOXP2 and Neanderthals is that they may have had fine motor control of their mouths -- who knows. But that doesn't tell us they necessarily had language. MR: Thank you very much indeed. (Applause)

I've been thinking a lot about the world recently and how it's changed over the last 20, 30, 40 years. Twenty or 30 years ago, if a chicken caught a cold and sneezed and died in a remote village in East Asia, it would have been a tragedy for the chicken and its closest relatives, but I don't think there was much possibility of us fearing a global pandemic and the deaths of millions. Twenty or 30 years ago, if a bank in North America lent too much money to some people who couldn't afford to pay it back and the bank went bust, that was bad for the lender and bad for the borrower, but we didn't imagine it would bring the global economic system to its knees for nearly a decade. This is globalization. This is the miracle that has enabled us to transship our bodies and our minds and our words and our pictures and our ideas and our teaching and our learning around the planet ever faster and ever cheaper. It's brought a lot of bad stuff, like the stuff that I just described, but it's also brought a lot of good stuff. A lot of us are not aware of the extraordinary successes of the Millennium Development Goals, several of which have achieved their targets long before the due date. That proves that this species of humanity is capable of achieving extraordinary progress if it really acts together and it really tries hard. But if I had to put it in a nutshell these days, I sort of feel that globalization has taken us by surprise, and we've been slow to respond to it. If you look at the downside of globalization, it really does seem to be sometimes overwhelming. All of the grand challenges that we face today, like climate change and human rights and demographics and terrorism and pandemics and narco-trafficking and human slavery and species loss, I could go on, we're not making an awful lot of progress against an awful lot of those challenges. So in a nutshell, that's the challenge that we all face today at this interesting point in history. That's clearly what we've got to do next. We've somehow got to get our act together and we've got to figure out how to globalize the solutions better so that we don't simply become a species which is the victim of the globalization of problems. Why are we so slow at achieving these advances? What's the reason for it? Well, there are, of course, a number of reasons, but perhaps the primary reason is because we're still organized as a species in the same way that we were organized 200 or 300 years ago. There's one superpower left on the planet and that is the seven billion people, the seven billion of us who cause all these problems, the same seven billion, by the way, who will resolve them all. But how are those seven billion organized? They're still organized in 200 or so nation-states, and the nations have governments that make rules and cause us to behave in certain ways. And that's a pretty efficient system, but the problem is that the way that those laws are made and the way those governments think is absolutely wrong for the solution of global problems, because it all looks inwards. The politicians that we elect and the politicians we don't elect, on the whole, have minds that microscope. They don't have minds that telescope. They look in. They pretend, they behave, as if they believed that every country was an island that existed quite happily, independently of all the others on its own little planet in its own little solar system. This is the problem: countries competing against each other, countries fighting against each other. This week, as any week you care to look at, you'll find people actually trying to kill each other from country to country, but even when that's not going on, there's competition between countries, each one trying to shaft the next. This is clearly not a good arrangement. We clearly need to change it. We clearly need to find ways of encouraging countries to start working together a little bit better. And why won't they do that? Why is it that our leaders still persist in looking inwards? Well, the first and most obvious reason is because that's what we ask them to do. That's what we tell them to do. When we elect governments or when we tolerate unelected governments, we're effectively telling them that what we want is for them to deliver us in our country a certain number of things. We want them to deliver prosperity, growth, competitiveness, transparency, justice and all of those things. So unless we start asking our governments to think outside a little bit, to consider the global problems that will finish us all if we don't start considering them, then we can hardly blame them if what they carry on doing is looking inwards, if they still have minds that microscope rather than minds that telescope. That's the first reason why things tend not to change. The second reason is that these governments, just like all the rest of us, are cultural psychopaths. I don't mean to be rude, but you know what a psychopath is. A psychopath is a person who, unfortunately for him or her, lacks the ability to really empathize with other human beings. When they look around, they don't see other human beings with deep, rich, three-dimensional personal lives and aims and ambitions. What they see is cardboard cutouts, and it's very sad and it's very lonely, and it's very rare, fortunately. But actually, aren't most of us not really so very good at empathy? Oh sure, we're very good at empathy when it's a question of dealing with people who kind of look like us and kind of walk and talk and eat and pray and wear like us, but when it comes to people who don't do that, who don't quite dress like us and don't quite pray like us and don't quite talk like us, do we not also have a tendency to see them ever so slightly as cardboard cutouts too? And this is a question we need to ask ourselves. I think constantly we have to monitor it. Are we and our politicians to a degree cultural psychopaths? The third reason is hardly worth mentioning because it's so silly, but there's a belief amongst governments that the domestic agenda and the international agenda are incompatible and always will be. This is just nonsense. In my day job, I'm a policy adviser. I've spent the last 15 years or so advising governments around the world, and in all of that time I have never once seen a single domestic policy issue that could not be more imaginatively, effectively and rapidly resolved than by treating it as an international problem, looking at the international context, comparing what others have done, bringing in others, working externally instead of working internally. And so you may say, well, given all of that, why then doesn't it work? Why can we not make our politicians change? Why can't we demand them? Well I, like a lot of us, spend a lot of time complaining about how hard it is to make people change, and I don't think we should fuss about it. I think we should just accept that we are an inherently conservative species. We don't like to change. It exists for very sensible evolutionary reasons. We probably wouldn't still be here today if we weren't so resistant to change. It's very simple: Many thousands of years ago, we discovered that if we carried on doing the same things, we wouldn't die, because the things that we've done before by definition didn't kill us, and therefore as long as we carry on doing them, we'll be okay, and it's very sensible not to do anything new, because it might kill you. But of course, there are exceptions to that. Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere. And one of the exceptions, the interesting exception, is when you can show to people that there might be some self-interest in them making that leap of faith and changing a little bit. So I've spent a lot of the last 10 or 15 years trying to find out what could be that self-interest that would encourage not just politicians but also businesses and general populations, all of us, to start to think a little more outwardly, to think in a bigger picture, not always to look inwards, sometimes to look outwards. And this is where I discovered something quite important. In 2005, I launched a study called the Nation Brands Index. What it is, it's a very large-scale study that polls a very large sample of the world's population, a sample that represents about 70 percent of the planet's population, and I started asking them a series of questions about how they perceive other countries. And the Nation Brands Index over the years has grown to be a very, very large database. It's about 200 billion data points tracking what ordinary people think about other countries and why. Why did I do this? Well, because the governments that I advise are very, very keen on knowing how they are regarded. They've known, partly because I've encouraged them to realize it, that countries depend enormously on their reputations in order to survive and prosper in the world. If a country has a great, positive image, like Germany has or Sweden or Switzerland, everything is easy and everything is cheap. You get more tourists. You get more investors. You sell your products more expensively. If, on the other hand, you have a country with a very weak or a very negative image, everything is difficult and everything is expensive. So governments care desperately about the image of their country, because it makes a direct difference to how much money they can make, and that's what they've promised their populations they're going to deliver. So a couple of years ago, I thought I would take some time out and speak to that gigantic database and ask it, why do some people prefer one country more than another? And the answer that the database gave me completely staggered me. It was 6.8. I haven't got time to explain in detail. Basically what it told me was — (Laughter) (Applause) — the kinds of countries we prefer are good countries. We don't admire countries primarily because they're rich, because they're powerful, because they're successful, because they're modern, because they're technologically advanced. We primarily admire countries that are good. What do we mean by good? We mean countries that seem to contribute something to the world in which we live, countries that actually make the world safer or better or richer or fairer. Those are the countries we like. This is a discovery of significant importance — you see where I'm going — because it squares the circle. I can now say, and often do, to any government, in order to do well, you need to do good. If you want to sell more products, if you want to get more investment, if you want to become more competitive, then you need to start behaving, because that's why people will respect you and do business with you, and therefore, the more you collaborate, the more competitive you become. This is quite an important discovery, and as soon as I discovered this, I felt another index coming on. I swear that as I get older, my ideas become simpler and more and more childish. This one is called the Good Country Index, and it does exactly what it says on the tin. It measures, or at least it tries to measure, exactly how much each country on Earth contributes not to its own population but to the rest of humanity. Bizarrely, nobody had ever thought of measuring this before. So my colleague Dr. Robert Govers and I have spent the best part of the last two years, with the help of a large number of very serious and clever people, cramming together all the reliable data in the world we could find about what countries give to the world. And you're waiting for me to tell you which one comes top. And I'm going to tell you, but first of all I want to tell you precisely what I mean when I say a good country. I do not mean morally good. When I say that Country X is the goodest country on Earth, and I mean goodest, I don't mean best. Best is something different. When you're talking about a good country, you can be good, gooder and goodest. It's not the same thing as good, better and best. This is a country which simply gives more to humanity than any other country. I don't talk about how they behave at home because that's measured elsewhere. And the winner is Ireland. (Applause) According to the data here, no country on Earth, per head of population, per dollar of GDP, contributes more to the world that we live in than Ireland. What does this mean? This means that as we go to sleep at night, all of us in the last 15 seconds before we drift off to sleep, our final thought should be, godammit, I'm glad that Ireland exists. (Laughter) And that — (Applause) — In the depths of a very severe economic recession, I think that there's a really important lesson there, that if you can remember your international obligations whilst you are trying to rebuild your own economy, that's really something. Finland ranks pretty much the same. The only reason why it's below Ireland is because its lowest score is lower than Ireland's lowest score. Now the other thing you'll notice about the top 10 there is, of course, they're all, apart from New Zealand, Western European nations. They're also all rich. This depressed me, because one of the things that I did not want to discover with this index is that it's purely the province of rich countries to help poor countries. This is not what it's all about. And indeed, if you look further down the list, I don't have the slide here, you will see something that made me very happy indeed, that Kenya is in the top 30, and that demonstrates one very, very important thing. This is not about money. This is about attitude. This is about culture. This is about a government and a people that care about the rest of the world and have the imagination and the courage to think outwards instead of only thinking selfishly. I'm going to whip through the other slides just so you can see some of the lower-lying countries. There's Germany at 13th, the U.S. comes 21st, Mexico comes 66th, and then we have some of the big developing countries, like Russia at 95th, China at 107th. Countries like China and Russia and India, which is down in the same part of the index, well, in some ways, it's not surprising. They've spent a great deal of time over the last decades building their own economy, building their own society and their own polity, but it is to be hoped that the second phase of their growth will be somewhat more outward-looking than the first phase has been so far. And then you can break down each country in terms of the actual datasets that build into it. I'll allow you to do that. From midnight tonight it's going to be on goodcountry.org, and you can look at the country. You can look right down to the level of the individual datasets. Now that's the Good Country Index. What's it there for? Well, it's there really because I want to try to introduce this word, or reintroduce this word, into the discourse. I've had enough hearing about competitive countries. I've had enough hearing about prosperous, wealthy, fast-growing countries. I've even had enough hearing about happy countries because in the end that's still selfish. That's still about us, and if we carry on thinking about us, we are in deep, deep trouble. I think we all know what it is that we want to hear about. We want to hear about good countries, and so I want to ask you all a favor. I'm not asking a lot. It's something that you might find easy to do and you might even find enjoyable and even helpful to do, and that's simply to start using the word "good" in this context. When you think about your own country, when you think about other people's countries, when you think about companies, when you talk about the world that we live in today, start using that word in the way that I've talked about this evening. Not good, the opposite of bad, because that's an argument that never finishes. Good, the opposite of selfish, good being a country that thinks about all of us. That's what I would like you to do, and I'd like you to use it as a stick with which to beat your politicians. When you elect them, when you reelect them, when you vote for them, when you listen to what they're offering you, use that word, "good," and ask yourself, "Is that what a good country would do?" And if the answer is no, be very suspicious. Ask yourself, is that the behavior of my country? Do I want to come from a country where the government, in my name, is doing things like that? Or do I, on the other hand, prefer the idea of walking around the world with my head held high thinking, "Yeah, I'm proud to come from a good country"? And everybody will welcome you. And everybody in the last 15 seconds before they drift off to sleep at night will say, "Gosh, I'm glad that person's country exists." Ultimately, that, I think, is what will make the change. That word, "good," and the number 6.8 and the discovery that's behind it have changed my life. I think they can change your life, and I think we can use it to change the way that our politicians and our companies behave, and in doing so, we can change the world. I've started thinking very differently about my own country since I've been thinking about these things. I used to think that I wanted to live in a rich country, and then I started thinking I wanted to live in a happy country, but I began to realize, it's not enough. I don't want to live in a rich country. I don't want to live in a fast-growing or competitive country. I want to live in a good country, and I so, so hope that you do too. Thank you. (Applause)

So a friend of mine who's a political scientist, he told me several months ago exactly what this month would be like. He said, you know, there's this fiscal cliff coming, it's going to come at the beginning of 2013. Both parties absolutely need to resolve it, but neither party wants to be seen as the first to resolve it. Neither party has any incentive to solve it a second before it's due, so he said, December, you're just going to see lots of angry negotiations, negotiations breaking apart, reports of phone calls that aren't going well, people saying nothing's happening at all, and then sometime around Christmas or New Year's, we're going to hear, "Okay, they resolved everything." He told me that a few months ago. He said he's 98 percent positive they're going to resolve it, and I got an email from him today saying, all right, we're basically on track, but now I'm 80 percent positive that they're going to resolve it. And it made me think. I love studying these moments in American history when there was this frenzy of partisan anger, that the economy was on the verge of total collapse. The most famous early battle was Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over what the dollar would be and how it would be backed up, with Alexander Hamilton saying, "We need a central bank, the First Bank of the United States, or else the dollar will have no value. This economy won't work," and Thomas Jefferson saying, "The people won't trust that. They just fought off a king. They're not going to accept some central authority." This battle defined the first 150 years of the U.S. economy, and at every moment, different partisans saying, "Oh my God, the economy's about to collapse," and the rest of us just going about, spending our bucks on whatever it is we wanted to buy. To give you a quick primer on where we are, a quick refresher on where we are. So the fiscal cliff, I was told that that's too partisan a thing to say, although I can't remember which party it's supporting or attacking. People say we should call it the fiscal slope, or we should call it an austerity crisis, but then other people say, no, that's even more partisan. So I just call it the self-imposed, self-destructive arbitrary deadline about resolving an inevitable problem. And this is what the inevitable problem looks like. So this is a projection of U.S. debt as a percentage of our overall economy, of GDP. The light blue dotted line represents the Congressional Budget Office's best guess of what will happen if Congress really doesn't do anything, and as you can see, sometime around 2027, we reach Greek levels of debt, somewhere around 130 percent of GDP, which tells you that some time in the next 20 years, if Congress does absolutely nothing, we're going to hit a moment where the world's investors, the world's bond buyers, are going to say, "We don't trust America anymore. We're not going to lend them any money, except at really high interest rates." And at that moment our economy collapses. But remember, Greece is there today. We're there in 20 years. We have lots and lots of time to avoid that crisis, and the fiscal cliff was just one more attempt at trying to force the two sides to resolve the crisis. Here's another way to look at exactly the same problem. The dark blue line is how much the government spends. The light blue line is how much the government gets in. And as you can see, for most of recent history, except for a brief period, we have consistently spent more than we take in. Thus the national debt. But as you can also see, projected going forward, the gap widens a bit and raises a bit, and this graph is only through 2021. It gets really, really ugly out towards 2030. And this graph sort of sums up what the problem is. The Democrats, they say, well, this isn't a big deal. We can just raise taxes a bit and close that gap, especially if we raise taxes on the rich. The Republicans say, hey, no, no, we've got a better idea. Why don't we lower both lines? Why don't we lower government spending and lower government taxes, and then we'll be on an even more favorable long-term deficit trajectory? And behind this powerful disagreement between how to close that gap, there's the worst kind of cynical party politics, the worst kind of insider baseball, lobbying, all of that stuff, but there's also this powerfully interesting, respectful disagreement between two fundamentally different economic philosophies. And I like to think, when I picture how Republicans see the economy, what I picture is just some amazingly well-engineered machine, some perfect machine. Unfortunately, I picture it made in Germany or Japan, but this amazing machine that's constantly scouring every bit of human endeavor and taking resources, money, labor, capital, machinery, away from the least productive parts and towards the more productive parts, and while this might cause temporary dislocation, what it does is it builds up the more productive areas and lets the less productive areas fade away and die, and as a result the whole system is so much more efficient, so much richer for everybody. And this view generally believes that there is a role for government, a small role, to set the rules so people aren't lying and cheating and hurting each other, maybe, you know, have a police force and a fire department and an army, but to have a very limited reach into the mechanisms of this machinery. And when I picture how Democrats and Democratic-leaning economists picture this economy, most Democratic economists are, you know, they're capitalists, they believe, yes, that's a good system a lot of the time. It's good to let markets move resources to their more productive use. But that system has tons of problems. Wealth piles up in the wrong places. Wealth is ripped away from people who shouldn't be called unproductive. That's not going to create an equitable, fair society. That machine doesn't care about the environment, about racism, about all these issues that make this life worse for all of us, and so the government does have a role to take resources from more productive uses, or from richer sources, and give them to other sources. And when you think about the economy through these two different lenses, you understand why this crisis is so hard to solve, because the worse the crisis gets, the higher the stakes are, the more each side thinks they know the answer and the other side is just going to ruin everything. And I can get really despairing. I've spent a lot of the last few years really depressed about this, until this year, I learned something that I felt really excited about. I feel like it's really good news, and it's so shocking, I don't like saying it, because I think people won't believe me. But here's what I learned. The American people, taken as a whole, when it comes to these issues, to fiscal issues, are moderate, pragmatic centrists. And I know that's hard to believe, that the American people are moderate, pragmatic centrists. But let me explain what I'm thinking. When you look at how the federal government spends money, so this is the battle right here, 55 percent, more than half, is on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a few other health programs, 20 percent defense, 19 percent discretionary, and six percent interest. So when we're talking about cutting government spending, this is the pie we're talking about, and Americans overwhelmingly, and it doesn't matter what party they're in, overwhelmingly like that big 55 percent chunk. They like Social Security. They like Medicare. They even like Medicaid, even though that goes to the poor and indigent, which you might think would have less support. And they do not want it fundamentally touched, although the American people are remarkably comfortable, and Democrats roughly equal to Republicans, with some minor tweaks to make the system more stable. Social Security is fairly easy to fix. The rumors of its demise are always greatly exaggerated. So gradually raise Social Security retirement age, maybe only on people not yet born. Americans are about 50/50, whether they're Democrats or Republicans. Reduce Medicare for very wealthy seniors, seniors who make a lot of money. Don't even eliminate it. Just reduce it. People generally are comfortable with it, Democrats and Republicans. Raise medical health care contributions? Everyone hates that equally, but Republicans and Democrats hate that together. And so what this tells me is, when you look at the discussion of how to resolve our fiscal problems, we are not a nation that's powerfully divided on the major, major issue. We're comfortable with it needing some tweaks, but we want to keep it. We're not open to a discussion of eliminating it. Now there is one issue that is hyper-partisan, and where there is one party that is just spend, spend, spend, we don't care, spend some more, and that of course is Republicans when it comes to military defense spending. They way outweigh Democrats. The vast majority want to protect military defense spending. That's 20 percent of the budget, and that presents a more difficult issue. I should also note that the [discretionary] spending, which is about 19 percent of the budget, that is Democratic and Republican issues, so you do have welfare, food stamps, other programs that tend to be popular among Democrats, but you also have the farm bill and all sorts of Department of Interior inducements for oil drilling and other things, which tend to be popular among Republicans. Now when it comes to taxes, there is more disagreement. That's a more partisan area. You have Democrats overwhelmingly supportive of raising the income tax on people who make 250,000 dollars a year, Republicans sort of against it, although if you break it out by income, Republicans who make less than 75,000 dollars a year like this idea. So basically Republicans who make more than 250,000 dollars a year don't want to be taxed. Raising taxes on investment income, you also see about two thirds of Democrats but only one third of Republicans are comfortable with that idea. This brings up a really important point, which is that we tend in this country to talk about Democrats and Republicans and think there's this little group over there called independents that's, what, two percent? If you add Democrats, you add Republicans, you've got the American people. But that is not the case at all. And it has not been the case for most of modern American history. Roughly a third of Americans say that they are Democrats. Around a quarter say that they are Republicans. A tiny little sliver call themselves libertarians, or socialists, or some other small third party, and the largest block, 40 percent, say they're independents. So most Americans are not partisan, and most of the people in the independent camp fall somewhere in between, so even though we have tremendous overlap between the views on these fiscal issues of Democrats and Republicans, we have even more overlap when you add in the independents. Now we get to fight about all sorts of other issues. We get to hate each other on gun control and abortion and the environment, but on these fiscal issues, these important fiscal issues, we just are not anywhere nearly as divided as people say. And in fact, there's this other group of people who are not as divided as people might think, and that group is economists. I talk to a lot of economists, and back in the '70s and '80s it was ugly being an economist. You were in what they called the saltwater camp, meaning Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, or you were in the freshwater camp, University of Chicago, University of Rochester. You were a free market capitalist economist or you were a Keynesian liberal economist, and these people didn't go to each other's weddings, they snubbed each other at conferences. It's still ugly to this day, but in my experience, it is really, really hard to find an economist under 40 who still has that kind of way of seeing the world. The vast majority of economists -- it is so uncool to call yourself an ideologue of either camp. The phrase that you want, if you're a graduate student or a postdoc or you're a professor, a 38-year-old economics professor, is, "I'm an empiricist. I go by the data." And the data is very clear. None of these major theories have been completely successful. The 20th century, the last hundred years, is riddled with disastrous examples of times that one school or the other tried to explain the past or predict the future and just did an awful, awful job, so the economics profession has acquired some degree of modesty. They still are an awfully arrogant group of people, I will assure you, but they're now arrogant about their impartiality, and they, too, see a tremendous range of potential outcomes. And this nonpartisanship is something that exists, that has existed in secret in America for years and years and years. I've spent a lot of the fall talking to the three major organizations that survey American political attitudes: Pew Research, the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, and the most important but the least known is the American National Election Studies group that is the world's longest, most respected poll of political attitudes. They've been doing it since 1948, and what they show consistently throughout is that it's almost impossible to find Americans who are consistent ideologically, who consistently support, "No we mustn't tax, and we must limit the size of government," or, "No, we must encourage government to play a larger role in redistribution and correcting the ills of capitalism." Those groups are very, very small. The vast majority of people, they pick and choose, they see compromise and they change over time when they hear a better argument or a worse argument. And that part of it has not changed. What has changed is how people respond to vague questions. If you ask people vague questions, like, "Do you think there should be more government or less government?" "Do you think government should" — especially if you use loaded language -- "Do you think the government should provide handouts?" Or, "Do you think the government should redistribute?" Then you can see radical partisan change. But when you get specific, when you actually ask about the actual taxing and spending issues under consideration, people are remarkably centrist, they're remarkably open to compromise. So what we have, then, when you think about the fiscal cliff, don't think of it as the American people fundamentally can't stand each other on these issues and that we must be ripped apart into two separate warring nations. Think of it as a tiny, tiny number of ancient economists and misrepresentative ideologues have captured the process. And they've captured the process through familiar ways, through a primary system which encourages that small group of people's voices, because that small group of people, the people who answer all yeses or all noes on those ideological questions, they might be small but every one of them has a blog, every one of them has been on Fox or MSNBC in the last week. Every one of them becomes a louder and louder voice, but they don't represent us. They don't represent what our views are. And that gets me back to the dollar, and it gets me back to reminding myself that we know this experience. We know what it's like to have these people on TV, in Congress, yelling about how the end of the world is coming if we don't adopt their view completely, because it's happened about the dollar ever since there's been a dollar. We had the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton. In 1913, we had this ugly battle over the Federal Reserve, when it was created, with vicious, angry arguments over how it would be constituted, and a general agreement that the way it was constituted was the worst possible compromise, a compromise guaranteed to destroy this valuable thing, this dollar, but then everyone agreeing, okay, so long as we're on the gold standard, it should be okay. The Fed can't mess it up so badly. But then we got off the gold standard for individuals during the Depression and we got off the gold standard as a source of international currency coordination during Richard Nixon's presidency. Each of those times, we were on the verge of complete collapse. And nothing happened at all. Throughout it all, the dollar has been one of the most long-standing, stable, reasonable currencies, and we all use it every single day, no matter what the people screaming about tell us, no matter how scared we're supposed to be. And this long-term fiscal picture that we're in right now, I think what is most maddening about it is, if Congress were simply able to show not that they agree with each other, not that they're able to come up with the best possible compromise, but that they are able to just begin the process towards compromise, we all instantly are better off. The fear is that the world is watching. The fear is that the longer we delay any solution, the more the world will look to the U.S. not as the bedrock of stability in the global economy, but as a place that can't resolve its own fights, and the longer we put that off, the more we make the world nervous, the higher interest rates are going to be, the quicker we're going to have to face a day of horrible calamity. And so just the act of compromise itself, and sustained, real compromise, would give us even more time, would allow both sides even longer to spread out the pain and reach even more compromise down the road. So I'm in the media. I feel like my job to make this happen is to help foster the things that seem to lead to compromise, to not talk about this in those vague and scary terms that do polarize us, but to just talk about it like what it is, not an existential crisis, not some battle between two fundamentally different religious views, but a math problem, a really solvable math problem, one where we're not all going to get what we want and one where, you know, there's going to be a little pain to spread around. But the more we address it as a practical concern, the sooner we can resolve it, and the more time we have to resolve it, paradoxically. Thank you. (Applause)

Chris Anderson: So I guess what we're going to do is we're going to talk about your life, and using some pictures that you shared with me. And I think we should start right here with this one. Okay, now who is this? Martine Rothblatt: This is me with our oldest son Eli. He was about age five. This is taken in Nigeria right after having taken the Washington, D.C. bar exam. CA: Okay. But this doesn't really look like a Martine. MR: Right. That was myself as a male, the way I was brought up. Before I transitioned from male to female and Martin to Martine. CA: You were brought up Martin Rothblatt. MR: Correct. CA: And about a year after this picture, you married a beautiful woman. Was this love at first sight? What happened there? MR: It was love at the first sight. I saw Bina at a discotheque in Los Angeles, and we later began living together, but the moment I saw her, I saw just an aura of energy around her. I asked her to dance. She said she saw an aura of energy around me. I was a single male parent. She was a single female parent. We showed each other our kids' pictures, and we've been happily married for a third of a century now. (Applause) CA: And at the time, you were kind of this hotshot entrepreneur, working with satellites. I think you had two successful companies, and then you started addressing this problem of how could you use satellites to revolutionize radio. Tell us about that. MR: Right. I always loved space technology, and satellites, to me, are sort of like the canoes that our ancestors first pushed out into the water. So it was exciting for me to be part of the navigation of the oceans of the sky, and as I developed different types of satellite communication systems, the main thing I did was to launch bigger and more powerful satellites, the consequence of which was that the receiving antennas could be smaller and smaller, and after going through direct television broadcasting, I had the idea that if we could make a more powerful satellite, the receiving dish could be so small that it would just be a section of a parabolic dish, a flap of a plate embedded into the roof of an automobile, and it would be possible to have nationwide satellite radio, and that's Sirius XM today. CA: Wow. So who here has used Sirius? (Applause) MR: Thank you for your monthly subscriptions. (Laughter) CA: So that succeeded despite all predictions at the time. It was a huge commercial success, but soon after this, in the early 1990s, there was this big transition in your life and you became Martine. MR: Correct. CA: So tell me, how did that happen? MR: It happened in consultation with Bina and our four beautiful children, and I discussed with each of them that I felt my soul was always female, and as a woman, but I was afraid people would laugh at me if I expressed it, so I always kept it bottled up and just showed my male side. And each of them had a different take on this. Bina said, "I love your soul, and whether the outside is Martin and Martine, it doesn't it matter to me, I love your soul." My son said, "If you become a woman, will you still be my father?" And I said, "Yes, I'll always be your father, and I'm still his father today." My youngest daughter did an absolutely brilliant five-year-old thing. She told people, "I love my dad and she loves me." So she had no problem with a gender blending whatsoever. CA: And a couple years after this, you published this book: "The Apartheid of Sex." What was your thesis in this book? MR: My thesis in this book is that there are seven billion people in the world, and actually, seven billion unique ways to express one's gender. And while people may have the genitals of a male or a female, the genitals don't determine your gender or even really your sexual identity. That's just a matter of anatomy and reproductive tracts, and people could choose whatever gender they want if they weren't forced by society into categories of either male or female the way South Africa used to force people into categories of black or white. We know from anthropological science that race is fiction, even though racism is very, very real, and we now know from cultural studies that separate male or female genders is a constructed fiction. The reality is a gender fluidity that crosses the entire continuum from male to female. CA: You yourself don't always feel 100 percent female. MR: Correct. I would say in some ways I change my gender about as often as I change my hairstyle. CA: (Laughs) Okay, now, this is your gorgeous daughter, Genesis. And I guess she was about this age when something pretty terrible happened. MR: Yes, she was finding herself unable to walk up the stairs in our house to her bedroom, and after several months of doctors, she was diagnosed to have a rare, almost invariably fatal disease called pulmonary arterial hypertension. CA: So how did you respond to that? MR: Well, we first tried to get her to the best doctors we could. We ended up at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The head of pediatric cardiology told us that he was going to refer her to get a lung transplant, but not to hold out any hope, because there are very few lungs available, especially for children. He said that all people with this illness died, and if any of you have seen the film "Lorenzo's Oil," there's a scene when the protagonist kind of rolls down the stairway crying and bemoaning the fate of his son, and that's exactly how we felt about Genesis. CA: But you didn't accept that as the limit of what you could do. You started trying to research and see if you could find a cure somehow. MR: Correct. She was in the intensive care ward for weeks at a time, and Bina and I would tag team to stay at the hospital while the other watched the rest of the kids, and when I was in the hospital and she was sleeping, I went to the hospital library. I read every article that I could find on pulmonary hypertension. I had not taken any biology, even in college, so I had to go from a biology textbook to a college-level textbook and then medical textbook and the journal articles, back and forth, and eventually I knew enough to think that it might be possible that somebody could find a cure. So we started a nonprofit foundation. I wrote a description asking people to submit grants and we would pay for medical research. I became an expert on the condition -- doctors said to me, Martine, we really appreciate all the funding you've provided us, but we are not going to be able to find a cure in time to save your daughter. However, there is a medicine that was developed at the Burroughs Wellcome Company that could halt the progression of the disease, but Burroughs Wellcome has just been acquired by Glaxo Wellcome. They made a decision not to develop any medicines for rare and orphan diseases, and maybe you could use your expertise in satellite communications to develop this cure for pulmonary hypertension. CA: So how on earth did you get access to this drug? MR: I went to Glaxo Wellcome and after three times being rejected and having the door slammed in my face because they weren't going to out-license the drug to a satellite communications expert, they weren't going to send the drug out to anybody at all, and they thought I didn't have the expertise, finally I was able to persuade a small team of people to work with me and develop enough credibility. I wore down their resistance, and they had no hope this drug would even work, by the way, and they tried to tell me, "You're just wasting your time. We're sorry about your daughter." But finally, for 25,000 dollars and agreement to pay 10 percent of any revenues we might ever get, they agreed to give me worldwide rights to this drug. CA: And so you put this drug on the market in a really brilliant way, by basically charging what it would take to make the economics work. MR: Oh yes, Chris, but this really wasn't a drug that I ended up -- after I wrote the check for 25,000, and I said, "Okay, where's the medicine for Genesis?" they said, "Oh, Martine, there's no medicine for Genesis. This is just something we tried in rats." And they gave me, like, a little plastic Ziploc bag of a small amount of powder. They said, "Don't give it to any human," and they gave me a piece of paper which said it was a patent, and from that, we had to figure out a way to make this medicine. A hundred chemists in the U.S. at the top universities all swore that little patent could never be turned into a medicine. If it was turned into a medicine, it could never be delivered because it had a half-life of only 45 minutes. CA: And yet, a year or two later, you were there with a medicine that worked for Genesis. MR: Chris, the astonishing thing is that this absolutely worthless piece of powder that had the sparkle of a promise of hope for Genesis is not only keeping Genesis and other people alive today, but produces almost a billion and a half dollars a year in revenue. (Applause) CA: So here you go. So you took this company public, right? And made an absolute fortune. And how much have you paid Glaxo, by the way, after that 25,000? MR: Yeah, well, every year we pay them 10 percent of 1.5 billion, 150 million dollars, last year 100 million dollars. It's the best return on investment they ever received. (Laughter) CA: And the best news of all, I guess, is this. MR: Yes. Genesis is an absolutely brilliant young lady. She's alive, healthy today at 30. You see me, Bina and Genesis there. The most amazing thing about Genesis is that while she could do anything with her life, and believe me, if you grew up your whole life with people in your face saying that you've got a fatal disease, I would probably run to Tahiti and just not want to run into anybody again. But instead she chooses to work in United Therapeutics. She says she wants to do all she can to help other people with orphan diseases get medicines, and today, she's our project leader for all telepresence activities, where she helps digitally unite the entire company to work together to find cures for pulmonary hypertension. CA: But not everyone who has this disease has been so fortunate. There are still many people dying, and you are tackling that too. How? MR: Exactly, Chris. There's some 3,000 people a year in the United States alone, perhaps 10 times that number worldwide, who continue to die of this illness because the medicines slow down the progression but they don't halt it. The only cure for pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary fibrosis, cystic fibrosis, emphysema, COPD, what Leonard Nimoy just died of, is a lung transplant, but sadly, there are only enough available lungs for 2,000 people in the U.S. a year to get a lung transplant, whereas nearly a half million people a year die of end-stage lung failure. CA: So how can you address that? MR: So I conceptualize the possibility that just like we keep cars and planes and buildings going forever with an unlimited supply of building parts and machine parts, why can't we create an unlimited supply of transplantable organs to keep people living indefinitely, and especially people with lung disease. So we've teamed up with the decoder of the human genome, Craig Venter, and the company he founded with Peter Diamandis, the founder of the X Prize, to genetically modify the pig genome so that the pig's organs will not be rejected by the human body and thereby to create an unlimited supply of transplantable organs. We do this through our company, United Therapeutics. CA: So you really believe that within, what, a decade, that this shortage of transplantable lungs maybe be cured, through these guys? MR: Absolutely, Chris. I'm as certain of that as I was of the success that we've had with direct television broadcasting, Sirius XM. It's actually not rocket science. It's straightforward engineering away one gene after another. We're so lucky to be born in the time that sequencing genomes is a routine activity, and the brilliant folks at Synthetic Genomics are able to zero in on the pig genome, find exactly the genes that are problematic, and fix them. CA: But it's not just bodies that -- though that is amazing. (Applause) It's not just long-lasting bodies that are of interest to you now. It's long-lasting minds. And I think this graph for you says something quite profound. What does this mean? MR: What this graph means, and it comes from Ray Kurzweil, is that the rate of development in computer processing hardware, firmware and software, has been advancing along a curve such that by the 2020s, as we saw in earlier presentations today, there will be information technology that processes information and the world around us at the same rate as a human mind. CA: And so that being so, you're actually getting ready for this world by believing that we will soon be able to, what, actually take the contents of our brains and somehow preserve them forever? How do you describe that? MR: Well, Chris, what we're working on is creating a situation where people can create a mind file, and a mind file is the collection of their mannerisms, personality, recollection, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values, everything that we've poured today into Google, into Amazon, into Facebook, and all of this information stored there will be able, in the next couple decades, once software is able to recapitulate consciousness, be able to revive the consciousness which is imminent in our mind file. CA: Now you're not just messing around with this. You're serious. I mean, who is this? MR: This is a robot version of my beloved spouse, Bina. And we call her Bina 48. She was programmed by Hanson Robotics out of Texas. There's the centerfold from National Geographic magazine with one of her caregivers, and she roams the web and has hundreds of hours of Bina's mannerisms, personalities. She's kind of like a two-year-old kid, but she says things that blow people away, best expressed by perhaps a New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Amy Harmon who says her answers are often frustrating, but other times as compelling as those of any flesh person she's interviewed. CA: And is your thinking here, part of your hope here, is that this version of Bina can in a sense live on forever, or some future upgrade to this version can live on forever? MR: Yes. Not just Bina, but everybody. You know, it costs us virtually nothing to store our mind files on Facebook, Instagram, what-have-you. Social media is I think one of the most extraordinary inventions of our time, and as apps become available that will allow us to out-Siri Siri, better and better, and develop consciousness operating systems, everybody in the world, billions of people, will be able to develop mind clones of themselves that will have their own life on the web. CA: So the thing is, Martine, that in any normal conversation, this would sound stark-staring mad, but in the context of your life, what you've done, some of the things we've heard this week, the constructed realities that our minds give, I mean, you wouldn't bet against it. MR: Well, I think it's really nothing coming from me. If anything, I'm perhaps a bit of a communicator of activities that are being undertaken by the greatest companies in China, Japan, India, the U.S., Europe. There are tens of millions of people working on writing code that expresses more and more aspects of our human consciousness, and you don't have to be a genius to see that all these threads are going to come together and ultimately create human consciousness, and it's something we'll value. There are so many things to do in this life, and if we could have a simulacrum, a digital doppelgänger of ourselves that helps us process books, do shopping, be our best friends, I believe our mind clones, these digital versions of ourselves, will ultimately be our best friends, and for me personally and Bina personally, we love each other like crazy. Each day, we are always saying, like, "Wow, I love you even more than 30 years ago. And so for us, the prospect of mind clones and regenerated bodies is that our love affair, Chris, can go on forever. And we never get bored of each other. I'm sure we never will. CA: I think Bina's here, right? MR: She is, yeah. CA: Would it be too much, I don't know, do we have a handheld mic? Bina, could we invite you to the stage? I just have to ask you one question. Besides, we need to see you. (Applause) Thank you, thank you. Come and join Martine here. I mean, look, when you got married, if someone had told you that, in a few years time, the man you were marrying would become a woman, and a few years after that, you would become a robot -- (Laughter) -- how has this gone? How has it been? Bina Rothblatt: It's been really an exciting journey, and I would have never thought that at the time, but we started making goals and setting those goals and accomplishing things, and before you knew it, we just keep going up and up and we're still not stopping, so it's great. CA: Martine told me something really beautiful, just actually on Skype before this, which was that he wanted to live for hundreds of years as a mind file, but not if it wasn't with you. BR: That's right, we want to do it together. We're cryonicists as well, and we want to wake up together. CA: So just so as you know, from my point of view, this isn't only one of the most astonishing lives I have heard, it's one of the most astonishing love stories I've ever heard. It's just a delight to have you both here at TED. Thank you so much. MR: Thank you. (Applause)

Oliver was an extremely dashing, handsome, charming and largely unstable male that I completely lost my heart to. (Laughter) He was a Bernese mountain dog, and my ex-husband and I adopted him, and about six months in, we realized that he was a mess. He had such paralyzing separation anxiety that we couldn't leave him alone. Once, he jumped out of our third floor apartment. He ate fabric. He ate things, recyclables. He hunted flies that didn't exist. He suffered from hallucinations. He was diagnosed with a canine compulsive disorder and that's really just the tip of the iceberg. But like with humans, sometimes it's six months in before you realize that the person that you love has some issues. (Laughter) And most of us do not take the person we're dating back to the bar where we met them or give them back to the friend that introduced us, or sign them back up on Match.com. (Laughter) We love them anyway, and we stick to it, and that is what I did with my dog. And I was a — I'd studied biology. I have a Ph.D. in history of science from MIT, and had you asked me 10 years ago if a dog I loved, or just dogs generally, had emotions, I would have said yes, but I'm not sure that I would have told you that they can also wind up with an anxiety disorder, a Prozac prescription and a therapist. But then, I fell in love, and I realized that they can, and actually trying to help my own dog overcome his panic and his anxiety, it just changed my life. It cracked open my world. And I spent the last seven years, actually, looking into this topic of mental illness in other animals. Can they be mentally ill like people, and if so, what does it mean about us? And what I discovered is that I do believe they can suffer from mental illness, and actually looking and trying to identify mental illness in them often helps us be better friends to them and also can help us better understand ourselves. So let's talk about diagnosis for a minute. Many of us think that we can't know what another animal is thinking, and that is true, but any of you in relationships — at least this is my case — just because you ask someone that you're with or your parent or your child how they feel doesn't mean that they can tell you. They may not have words to explain what it is that they're feeling, and they may not know. It's actually a pretty recent phenomenon that we feel that we have to talk to someone to understand their emotional distress. Before the early 20th century, physicians often diagnosed emotional distress in their patients just by observation. It also turns out that thinking about mental illness in other animals isn't actually that much of a stretch. Most mental disorders in the United States are fear and anxiety disorders, and when you think about it, fear and anxiety are actually really extremely helpful animal emotions. Usually we feel fear and anxiety in situations that are dangerous, and once we feel them, we then are motivated to move away from whatever is dangerous. The problem is when we begin to feel fear and anxiety in situations that don't call for it. Mood disorders, too, may actually just be the unfortunate downside of being a feeling animal, and obsessive compulsive disorders also are often manifestations of a really healthy animal thing which is keeping yourself clean and groomed. This tips into the territory of mental illness when you do things like compulsively over-wash your hands or paws, or you develop a ritual that's so extreme that you can't sit down to a bowl of food unless you engage in that ritual. So for humans, we have the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual," which is basically an atlas of the currently agreed-upon mental disorders. In other animals, we have YouTube. (Laughter) This is just one search I did for "OCD dog" but I encourage all of you to look at "OCD cat." You will be shocked by what you see. I'm going to show you just a couple examples. This is an example of shadow-chasing. I know, and it's funny and in some ways it's cute. The issue, though, is that dogs can develop compulsions like this that they then engage in all day. So they won't go for a walk, they won't hang out with their friends, they won't eat. They'll develop fixations like chasing their tails compulsively. Here's an example of a cat named Gizmo. He looks like he's on a stakeout but he does this for many, many, many hours a day. He just sits there and he will paw and paw and paw at the screen. This is another example of what's considered a stereotypic behavior. This is a sun bear at the Oakland Zoo named Ting Ting. And if you just sort of happened upon this scene, you might think that Ting Ting is just playing with a stick, but Ting Ting does this all day, and if you pay close attention and if I showed you guys the full half-hour of this clip, you'd see that he does the exact same thing in the exact same order, and he spins the stick in the exact same way every time. Other super common behaviors that you may see, particularly in captive animals, are pacing stereotypies or swaying stereotypies, and actually, humans do this too, and in us, we'll sway, we'll move from side to side. Many of us do this, and sometimes it's an effort to soothe ourselves, and I think in other animals that is often the case too. But it's not just stereotypic behaviors that other animals engage in. This is Gigi. She's a gorilla that lives at the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. She actually has a Harvard psychiatrist, and she's been treated for a mood disorder among other things. Many animals develop mood disorders. Lots of creatures — this horse is just one example — develop self-destructive behaviors. They'll gnaw on things or do other things that may also soothe them, even if they're self-destructive, which could be considered similar to the ways that some humans cut themselves. Plucking. Turns out, if you have fur or feathers or skin, you can pluck yourself compulsively, and some parrots actually have been studied to better understand trichotillomania, or compulsive plucking in humans, something that affects 20 million Americans right now. Lab rats pluck themselves too. In them, it's called barbering. Canine veterans of conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan are coming back with what's considered canine PTSD, and they're having a hard time reentering civilian life when they come back from deployments. They can be too scared to approach men with beards or to hop into cars. I want to be careful and be clear, though. I do not think that canine PTSD is the same as human PTSD. But I also do not think that my PTSD is like your PTSD, or that my anxiety or that my sadness is like yours. We are all different. We also all have very different susceptibilities. So two dogs, raised in the same household, exposed to the very same things, one may develop, say, a debilitating fear of motorcycles, or a phobia of the beep of the microwave, and another one is going to be just fine. So one thing that people ask me pretty frequently: Is this just an instance of humans driving other animals crazy? Or, is animal mental illness just a result of mistreatment or abuse? And it turns out we're actually so much more complicated than that. So one great thing that has happened to me is recently I published a book on this, and every day now that I open my email or when I go to a reading or even when I go to a cocktail party, people tell me their stories of the animals that they have met. And recently, I did a reading in California, and a woman raised her hand after the talk and she said, "Dr. Braitman, I think my cat has PTSD." And I said, "Well, why? Tell me a little bit about it." So, Ping is her cat. She was a rescue, and she used to live with an elderly man, and one day the man was vacuuming and he suffered a heart attack, and he died. A week later, Ping was discovered in the apartment alongside the body of her owner, and the vacuum had been running the entire time. For many months, up to I think two years after that incident, she was so scared she couldn't be in the house when anyone was cleaning. She was quite literally a scaredy cat. She would hide in the closet. She was un-self-confident and shaky, but with the loving support of her family, a lot of a time, and their patience, now, three years later, she's actually a happy, confident cat. Another story of trauma and recovery that I came across was actually a few years ago. I was in Thailand to do some research. I met a monkey named Boonlua, and when Boonlua was a baby, he was attacked by a pack of dogs, and they ripped off both of his legs and one arm, and Boonlua dragged himself to a monastery, where the monks took him in. They called in a veterinarian, who treated his wounds. Eventually, Boonlua wound up at an elephant facility, and the keepers really decided to take him under their wing, and they figured out what he liked, which, it turned out, was mint Mentos and Rhinoceros beetles and eggs. But they worried, because he was social, that he was lonely, and they didn't want to put him in with another monkey, because they thought with just one arm, he wouldn't be able to defend himself or even play. And so they gave him a rabbit, and Boonlua was immediately a different monkey. He was extremely happy to be with this rabbit. They groomed each other, they become close friends, and then the rabbit had bunnies, and Boonlua was even happier than he was before, and it had in a way given him a reason to wake up in the morning, and in fact it gave him such a reason to wake up that he decided not to sleep. He became extremely protective of these bunnies, and he stopped sleeping, and he would sort of nod off while trying to take care of them. In fact, he was so protective and so affectionate with these babies that the sanctuary eventually had to take them away from him because he was so protective, he was worried that their mother might hurt them. So after they were taken away, the sanctuary staff worried that he would fall into a depression, and so to avoid that, they gave him another rabbit friend. (Laughter) My official opinion is that he does not look depressed. (Laughter) So one thing that I would really like people to feel is that you really should feel empowered to make some assumptions about the creatures that you know well. So when it comes to your dog or your cat or maybe your one-armed monkey that you happen to know, if you think that they are traumatized or depressed, you're probably right. This is extremely anthropomorphic, or the assignation of human characteristics onto non-human animals or things. I don't think, though, that that's a problem. I don't think that we can not anthropomorphize. It's not as if you can take your human brain out of your head and put it in a jar and then use it to think about another animal thinking. We will always be one animal wondering about the emotional experience of another animal. So then the choice becomes, how do you anthropomorphize well? Or do you anthropomorphize poorly? And anthropomorphizing poorly is all too common. (Laughter) It may include dressing your corgis up and throwing them a wedding, or getting too close to exotic wildlife because you believe that you had a spiritual connection. There's all manner of things. Anthropomorphizing well, however, I believe is based on accepting our animal similarities with other species and using them to make assumptions that are informed about other animals' minds and experiences, and there's actually an entire industry that is in some ways based on anthropomorphizing well, and that is the psychopharmaceutical industry. One in five Americans is currently taking a psychopharmaceutical drug, from the antidepressants and antianxiety medications to the antipsychotics. It turns out that we owe this entire psychopharmaceutical arsenal to other animals. These drugs were tested in non-human animals first, and not just for toxicity but for behavioral effects. The very popular antipsychotic Thorazine first relaxed rats before it relaxed people. The antianxiety medication Librium was given to cats selected for their meanness in the 1950s and made them into peaceable felines. And even antidepressants were first tested in rabbits. Today, however, we are not just giving these drugs to other animals as test subjects, but they're giving them these drugs as patients, both in ethical and much less ethical ways. SeaWorld gives mother orcas antianxiety medications when their calves are taken away. Many zoo gorillas have been given antipsychotics and antianxiety medications. But dogs like my own Oliver are given antidepressants and some antianxiety medications to keep them from jumping out of buildings or jumping into traffic. Just recently, actually, a study came out in "Science" that showed that even crawdads responded to antianxiety medication. It made them braver, less skittish, and more likely to explore their environment. It's hard to know how many animals are on these drugs, but I can tell you that the animal pharmaceutical industry is immense and growing, from seven billion dollars in 2011 to a projected 9.25 billion by the year 2015. Some animals are on these drugs indefinitely. Others, like one bonobo who lives in Milwaukee at the zoo there was on them until he started to save his Paxil prescription and then distribute it among the other bonobos. (Laughter) (Applause) More than psychopharmaceuticals, though, there are many, many, many other therapeutic interventions that help other creatures. And here is a place where I think actually that veterinary medicine can teach something to human medicine, which is, if you take your dog, who is, say, compulsively chasing his tail, into the veterinary behaviorist, their first action isn't to reach for the prescription pad; it's to ask you about your dog's life. They want to know how often your dog gets outside. They want to know how much exercise your dog is getting. They want to know how much social time with other dogs and other humans. They want to talk to you about what sorts of therapies, largely behavior therapies, you've tried with that animal. Those are the things that often tend to help the most, especially when combined with psychopharmaceuticals. The thing, though, I believe, that helps the most, particularly with social animals, is time with other social animals. In many ways, I feel like I became a service animal to my own dog, and I have seen parrots do it for people and people do it for parrots and dogs do it for elephants and elephants do it for other elephants. I don't know about you; I get a lot of Internet forwards of unlikely animal friendships. I also think it's a huge part of Facebook, the monkey that adopts the cat or the great dane who adopted the orphaned fawn, or the cow that makes friends with the pig, and had you asked me eight, nine years ago, about these, I would have told you that they were hopelessly sentimental and maybe too anthropomorphic in the wrong way and maybe even staged, and what I can tell you now is that there is actually something to this. This is legit. In fact, some interesting studies have pointed to oxytocin levels, which are a kind of bonding hormone that we release when we're having sex or nursing or around someone that we care for extremely, oxytocin levels raising in both humans and dogs who care about each other or who enjoy each other's company, and beyond that, other studies show that oxytocin raised even in other pairs of animals, so, say, in goats and dogs who were friends and played with each other, their levels spiked afterwards. I have a friend who really showed me that mental health is in fact a two-way street. His name is Lonnie Hodge, and he's a veteran of Vietnam. When he returned, he started working with survivors of genocide and a lot of people who had gone through war trauma. And he had PTSD and also a fear of heights, because in Vietnam, he had been rappelling backwards out of helicopters over the skids, and he was givena service dog named Gander, a labradoodle, to help him with PTSD and his fear of heights. This is them actually on the first day that they met, which is amazing, and since then, they've spent a lot of time together visiting with other veterans suffering from similar issues. But what's so interesting to me about Lonnie and Gander's relationship is about a few months in, Gander actually developed a fear of heights, probably because he was watching Lonnie so closely. What's pretty great about this, though, is that he's still a fantastic service dog, because now, when they're both at a great height, Lonnie is so concerned with Gander's well-being that he forgets to be scared of the heights himself. Since I've spent so much time with these stories, digging into archives, I literally spent years doing this research, and it's changed me. I no longer look at animals at the species level. I look at them as individuals, and I think about them as creatures with their own individual weather systems guiding their behavior and informing how they respond to the world. And I really believe that this has made me a more curious and a more empathetic person, both to the animals that share my bed and occasionally wind up on my plate, but also to the people that I know who are suffering from anxiety and from phobias and all manner of other things, and I really do believe that even though you can't know exactly what's going on in the mind of a pig or your pug or your partner, that that shouldn't stop you from empathizing with them. The best thing that we could do for our loved ones is, perhaps, to anthropomorphize them. Charles Darwin's father once told him that everybody could lose their mind at some point. Thankfully, we can often find them again, but only with each other's help. Thank you. (Applause)

Take a look at this picture. It poses a very fascinating puzzle for us. These African students are doing their homework under streetlights at the airport in the capital city because they don't have any electricity at home. Now, I haven't met these particular students, but I've met students like them. Let's just pick one -- for example, the one in the green shirt. Let's give him a name, too: Nelson. I'll bet Nelson has a cellphone. So here is the puzzle. Why is it that Nelson has access to a cutting-edge technology, like the cellphone, but doesn't have access to a 100-year-old technology for generating electric light in the home? Now, in a word, the answer is "rules." Bad rules can prevent the kind of win-win solution that's available when people can bring new technologies in and make them available to someone like Nelson. What kinds of rules? The electric company in this nation operates under a rule, which says that it has to sell electricity at a very low, subsidized price -- in fact, a price that is so low it loses money on every unit that it sells. So it has neither the resources, nor the incentives, to hook up many other users. The president wanted to change this rule. He's seen that it's possible to have a different set of rules, rules where businesses earn a small profit, so they have an incentive to sign up more customers. That's the kind of rules that the cellphone company that Nelson purchases his telephony from operates under. The president has seen how those rules worked well. So he tried to change the rules for pricing on electricity, but ran into a firestorm of protest from businesses and consumers who wanted to preserve the existing subsidized rates. So he was stuck with rules that prevented him from letting the win-win solution help his country. And Nelson is stuck studying under the streetlights. The real challenge then, is to try to figure out how we can change rules. Are there some rules we can develop for changing rules? I want to argue that there is a general abstract insight that we can make practical, which is that, if we can give more choices to people, and more choices to leaders -- who, in many countries, are also people. (Laughter) But, it's useful to present the opposition between these two. Because the kind of choice you might want to give to a leader, a choice like giving the president the choice to raise prices on electricity, takes away a choice that people in the economy want. They want the choice to be able to continue consuming subsidized electric power. So if you give just to one side or the other, you'll have tension or friction. But if we can find ways to give more choices to both, that will give us a set of rules for changing rules that get us out of traps. Now, Nelson also has access to the Internet. And he says that if you want to see the damaging effects of rules, the ways that rules can keep people in the dark, look at the pictures from NASA of the earth at night. In particular check out Asia. If you zoom in here, you can see North Korea, in outline here, which is like a black hole compared to its neighbors. Now, you won't be surprised to learn that the rules in North Korea keep people there in the dark. But it is important to recognize that North Korea and South Korea started out with identical sets of rules in both the sense of laws and regulations, but also in the deeper senses of understandings, norms, culture, values and beliefs. When they separated, they made choices that led to very divergent paths for their sets of rules. So we can change -- we as humans can change the rules that we use to interact with each other, for better, or for worse. Now let's look at another region, the Caribbean. Zoom in on Haiti, in outline here. Haiti is also dark, compared to its neighbor here, the Dominican Republic, which has about the same number of residents. Both of these countries are dark compared to Puerto Rico, which has half as many residents as either Haiti or the Dominican Republic. What Haiti warns us is that rules can be bad because governments are weak. It's not just that the rules are bad because the government is too strong and oppressive, as in North Korea. So that if we want to create environments with good rules, we can't just tear down. We've got to find ways to build up, as well. Now, China dramatically demonstrates both the potential and the challenges of working with rules. Back in the beginning of the data presented in this chart, China was the world's high-technology leader. Chinese had pioneered technologies like steel, printing, gunpowder. But the Chinese never adopted, at least in that period, effective rules for encouraging the spread of those ideas -- a profit motive that could have encouraged the spread. And they soon adopted rules which slowed down innovation and cut China off from the rest of the world. So as other countries in the world innovated, in the sense both of developing newer technologies, but also developing newer rules, the Chinese were cut off from those advances. Income there stayed stagnant, as it zoomed ahead in the rest of the world. This next chart looks at more recent data. It plots income, average income in China as a percentage of average income in the United States. In the '50s and '60s you can see that it was hovering at about three percent. But then in the late '70s something changed. Growth took off in China. The Chinese started catching up very quickly with the United States. If you go back to the map at night, you can get a clue to the process that lead to the dramatic change in rules in China. The brightest spot in China, which you can see on the edge of the outline here, is Hong Kong. Hong Kong was a small bit of China that, for most of the 20th century, operated under a very different set of rules than the rest of mainland China -- rules that were copied from working market economies of the time, and administered by the British. In the 1950s, Hong Kong was a place where millions of people could go, from the mainland, to start in jobs like sewing shirts, making toys. But, to get on a process of increasing income, increasing skills led to very rapid growth there. Hong Kong was also the model which leaders like Deng Xiaoping could copy, when they decided to move all of the mainland towards the market model. But Deng Xiaoping instinctively understood the importance of offering choices to his people. So instead of forcing everyone in China to shift immediately to the market model, they proceeded by creating some special zones that could do, in a sense, what Britain did: make the opportunity to go work with the market rules available to the people who wanted to opt in there. So they created four special economic zones around Hong Kong: zones where Chinese could come and work, and cities grew up very rapidly there; also zones where foreign firms could come in and make things. One of the zones next to Hong Kong has a city called Shenzhen. In that city there is a Taiwanese firm that made the iPhone that many of you have, and they made it with labor from Chinese who moved there to Shenzhen. So after the four special zones, there were 14 coastal cites that were open in the same sense, and eventually demonstrated successes in these places that people could opt in to, that they flocked to because of the advantages they offered. Demonstrated successes there led to a consensus for a move toward the market model for the entire economy. Now the Chinese example shows us several points. One is: preserve choices for people. Two: operate on the right scale. If you try to change the rules in a village, you could do that, but a village would be too small to get the kinds of benefits you can get if you have millions of people all working under good rules. On the other hand, the nation is too big. If you try to change the rules in the nation, you can't give some people a chance to hold back, see how things turn out, and let others zoom ahead and try the new rules. But cities give you this opportunity to create new places, with new rules that people can opt in to. And they're large enough to get all of the benefits that we can have when millions of us work together under good rules. So the proposal is that we conceive of something called a charter city. We start with a charter that specifies all the rules required to attract the people who we'll need to build the city. We'll need to attract the investors who will build out the infrastructure -- the power system, the roads, the port, the airport, the buildings. You'll need to attract firms, who will come hire the people who move there first. And you'll need to attract families, the residents who will come and live there permanently, raise their children, get an education for their children, and get their first job. With that charter, people will move there. The city can be built. And we can scale this model. We can go do it over and over again. To make it work, we need good rules. We've already discussed that. Those are captured in the charter. We also need the choices for people. That's really built into the model if we allow for the possibility of building cities on uninhabited land. You start from uninhabited territory. People can come live under the new charter, but no one is forced to live under it. The final thing we need are choices for leaders. And, to achieve the kind of choices we want for leaders we need to allow for the potential for partnerships between nations: cases where nations work together, in effect, de facto, the way China and Britain worked together to build, first a little enclave of the market model, and then scale it throughout China. In a sense, Britain, inadvertently, through its actions in Hong Kong, did more to reduce world poverty than all the aid programs that we've undertaken in the last century. So if we allow for these kind of partnerships to replicate this again, we can get those kinds of benefits scaled throughout the world. In some cases this will involve a delegation of responsibility, a delegation of control from one country to another to take over certain kinds of administrative responsibilities. Now, when I say that, some of you are starting to think, "Well, is this just bringing back colonialism?" It's not. But it's important to recognize that the kind of emotions that come up when we start to think about these things, can get in the way, can make us pull back, can shut down our ability, and our interest in trying to explore new ideas. Why is this not like colonialism? The thing that was bad about colonialism, and the thing which is residually bad in some of our aid programs, is that it involved elements of coercion and condescension. This model is all about choices, both for leaders and for the people who will live in these new places. And, choice is the antidote to coercion and condescension. So let's talk about how this could play out in practice. Let's take a particular leader, Raul Castro, who is the leader of Cuba. It must have occurred to Castro that he has the chance to do for Cuba what Deng Xiaoping did for China, but he doesn't have a Hong Kong there on the island in Cuba. He does, though, have a little bit of light down in the south that has a very special status. There is a zone there, around Guantanamo Bay, where a treaty gives the United States administrative responsibility for a piece of land that's about twice the size of Manhattan. Castro goes to the prime minister of Canada and says, "Look, the Yankees have a terrible PR problem. They want to get out. Why don't you, Canada, take over? Build -- run a special administrative zone. Allow a new city to be built up there. Allow many people to come in. Let us have a Hong Kong nearby. Some of my citizens will move into that city as well. Others will hold back. But this will be the gateway that will connect the modern economy and the modern world to my country." Now, where else might this model be tried? Well, Africa. I've talked with leaders in Africa. Many of them totally get the notion of a special zone that people can opt into as a rule. It's a rule for changing rules. It's a way to create new rules, and let people opt-in without coercion, and the opposition that coercion can force. They also totally get the idea that in some instances they can make more credible promises to long-term investors -- the kind of investors who will come build the port, build the roads, in a new city -- they can make more credible promises if they do it along with a partner nation. Perhaps even in some arrangement that's a little bit like an escrow account, where you put land in the escrow account and the partner nation takes responsibility for it. There is also lots of land in Africa where new cities could be built. This is a picture I took when I was flying along the coast. There are immense stretches of land like this -- land where hundreds of millions of people could live. Now, if we generalize this and think about not just one or two charter cites, but dozens -- cities that will help create places for the many hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people who will move to cities in the coming century -- is there enough land for them? Well, throughout the world, if we look at the lights at night, the one thing that's misleading is that, visually, it looks like most of the world is already built out. So let me show you why that's wrong. Take this representation of all of the land. Turn it into a square that stands for all the arable land on Earth. And let these dots represent the land that's already taken up by the cities that three billion people now live in. If you move the dots down to the bottom of the rectangle you can see that the cities for the existing three billion urban residents take up only three percent of the arable land on earth. So if we wanted to build cities for another billion people, they would be dots like this. We'd go from three percent of the arable land, to four percent. We'd dramatically reduce the human footprint on Earth by building more cities that people can move to. And if these are cities governed by good rules, they can be cities where people are safe from crime, safe from disease and bad sanitation, where people have a chance to get a job. They can get basic utilities like electricity. Their kids can get an education. So what will it take to get started building the first charter cities, scaling this so we build many more? It would help to have a manual. (Laughter) What university professors could do is write some details that might go into this manual. You wouldn't want to let us run the cities, go out and design them. You wouldn't let academics out in the wild. (Laughter) But, you could set us to work thinking about questions like, suppose it isn't just Canada that does the deal with Raul Castro. Perhaps Brazil comes in as a participant, and Spain as well. And perhaps Cuba wants to be one of the partners in a four-way joint venture. How would we write the treaty to do that? There is less precedent for that, but that could easily be worked out. How would we finance this? Turns out Singapore and Hong Kong are cities that made huge gains on the value of the land that they owned when they got started. You could use the gains on the value of the land to pay for things like the police, the courts, but the school system and the health care system too, which make this a more attractive place to live, makes this a place where people have higher incomes -- which, incidentally, makes the land more valuable. So the incentives for the people helping to construct this zone and build it, and set up the basic rules, go very much in the right direction. So there are many other details like this. How could we have buildings that are low cost and affordable for people who work in a first job, assembling something like an iPhone, but make those buildings energy efficient, and make sure that they are safe, so they don't fall down in an earthquake or a hurricane. Many technical details to be worked out, but those of us who are already starting to pursue these things can already tell that there is no roadblock, there's no impediment, other than a failure of imagination, that will keep us from delivering on a truly global win-win solution. Let me conclude with this picture. The reason we can be so well off, even though there is so many people on earth, is because of the power of ideas. We can share ideas with other people, and when they discover them, they share with us. It's not like scarce objects, where sharing means we each get less. When we share ideas we all get more. When we think about ideas in that way, we usually think about technologies. But there is another class of ideas: the rules that govern how we interact with each other; rules like, let's have a tax system that supports a research university that gives away certain kinds of knowledge for free. Let's have a system where we have ownership of land that is registered in a government office, that people can pledge as collateral. If we can keep innovating on our space of rules, and particularly innovate in the sense of coming up with rules for changing rules, so we don't get stuck with bad rules, then we can keep moving progress forward and truly make the world a better place, so that people like Nelson and his friends don't have to study any longer under the streetlights. Thank you. (Applause)

Good morning. How are you? (Laughter) It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing. In fact, I'm leaving. (Laughter) There have been three themes running through the conference which are relevant to what I want to talk about. One is the extraordinary evidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and in all of the people here. Just the variety of it and the range of it. The second is that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen, in terms of the future. No idea how this may play out. I have an interest in education. Actually, what I find is everybody has an interest in education. Don't you? I find this very interesting. If you're at a dinner party, and you say you work in education -- Actually, you're not often at dinner parties, frankly. (Laughter) If you work in education, you're not asked. (Laughter) And you're never asked back, curiously. That's strange to me. But if you are, and you say to somebody, you know, they say, "What do you do?" and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face. They're like, "Oh my God," you know, "Why me?" (Laughter) "My one night out all week." (Laughter) But if you ask about their education, they pin you to the wall. Because it's one of those things that goes deep with people, am I right? Like religion, and money and other things. So I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do. We have a huge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to take us into this future that we can't grasp. If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time. And yet we're meant to be educating them for it. So the unpredictability, I think, is extraordinary. And the third part of this is that we've all agreed, nonetheless, on the really extraordinary capacities that children have -- their capacities for innovation. I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she? Just seeing what she could do. And she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent. And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents. And we squander them, pretty ruthlessly. So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) That was it, by the way. Thank you very much. (Laughter) So, 15 minutes left. (Laughter) Well, I was born... no. (Laughter) I heard a great story recently -- I love telling it -- of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson. She was six, and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this girl hardly ever paid attention, and in this drawing lesson, she did. The teacher was fascinated. She went over to her, and she said, "What are you drawing?" And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will, in a minute." (Laughter) When my son was four in England -- Actually, he was four everywhere, to be honest. (Laughter) If we're being strict about it, wherever he went, he was four that year. He was in the Nativity play. Do you remember the story? (Laughter) No, it was big, it was a big story. Mel Gibson did the sequel, you may have seen it. (Laughter) "Nativity II." But James got the part of Joseph, which we were thrilled about. We considered this to be one of the lead parts. We had the place crammed full of agents in T-shirts: "James Robinson IS Joseph!" (Laughter) He didn't have to speak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in? They come in bearing gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh. This really happened. We were sitting there and I think they just went out of sequence, because we talked to the little boy afterward and we said, "You OK with that?" And he said, "Yeah, why? Was that wrong?" They just switched. The three boys came in, four-year-olds with tea towels on their heads, and they put these boxes down, and the first boy said, "I bring you gold." And the second boy said, "I bring you myrrh." And the third boy said, "Frank sent this." (Laughter) What these things have in common is that kids will take a chance. If they don't know, they'll have a go. Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong. I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative. What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original -- if you're not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. And we run our companies like this. We stigmatize mistakes. And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make. And the result is that we are educating people out of their creative capacities. Picasso once said this, he said that all children are born artists. The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up. I believe this passionately, that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather, we get educated out if it. So why is this? I lived in Stratford-on-Avon until about five years ago. In fact, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles. So you can imagine what a seamless transition that was. (Laughter) Actually, we lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born. Are you struck by a new thought? I was. You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being seven? I never thought of it. I mean, he was seven at some point. He was in somebody's English class, wasn't he? (Laughter) How annoying would that be? (Laughter) "Must try harder." (Laughter) Being sent to bed by his dad, you know, to Shakespeare, "Go to bed, now! And put the pencil down." (Laughter) "And stop speaking like that." (Laughter) "It's confusing everybody." (Laughter) Anyway, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say a word about the transition. My son didn't want to come. I've got two kids; he's 21 now, my daughter's 16. He didn't want to come to Los Angeles. He loved it, but he had a girlfriend in England. This was the love of his life, Sarah. He'd known her for a month. (Laughter) Mind you, they'd had their fourth anniversary, because it's a long time when you're 16. He was really upset on the plane, he said, "I'll never find another girl like Sarah." And we were rather pleased about that, frankly -- (Laughter) Because she was the main reason we were leaving the country. (Laughter) But something strikes you when you move to America and travel around the world: Every education system on Earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one. Doesn't matter where you go. You'd think it would be otherwise, but it isn't. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and at the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on Earth. And in pretty much every system too, there's a hierarchy within the arts. Art and music are normally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance. There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance everyday to children the way we teach them mathematics. Why? Why not? I think this is rather important. I think math is very important, but so is dance. Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do. We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting? (Laughter) Truthfully, what happens is, as children grow up, we start to educate them progressively from the waist up. And then we focus on their heads. And slightly to one side. If you were to visit education, as an alien, and say "What's it for, public education?" I think you'd have to conclude, if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything that they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners -- I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn't it? They're the people who come out the top. And I used to be one, so there. (Laughter) And I like university professors, but you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement. They're just a form of life, another form of life. But they're rather curious, and I say this out of affection for them. There's something curious about professors in my experience -- not all of them, but typically, they live in their heads. They live up there, and slightly to one side. They're disembodied, you know, in a kind of literal way. They look upon their body as a form of transport for their heads. (Laughter) Don't they? It's a way of getting their head to meetings. (Laughter) If you want real evidence of out-of-body experiences, get yourself along to a residential conference of senior academics, and pop into the discotheque on the final night. (Laughter) And there, you will see it. Grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat. (Laughter) Waiting until it ends so they can go home and write a paper about it. (Laughter) Our education system is predicated on the idea of academic ability. And there's a reason. Around the world, there were no public systems of education, really, before the 19th century. They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism. So the hierarchy is rooted on two ideas. Number one, that the most useful subjects for work are at the top. So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on the grounds that you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? Don't do music, you're not going to be a musician; don't do art, you won't be an artist. Benign advice -- now, profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in a revolution. And the second is academic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence, because the universities designed the system in their image. If you think of it, the whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance. And the consequence is that many highly-talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not, because the thing they were good at at school wasn't valued, or was actually stigmatized. And I think we can't afford to go on that way. In the next 30 years, according to UNESCO, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history. More people, and it's the combination of all the things we've talked about -- technology and its transformation effect on work, and demography and the huge explosion in population. Suddenly, degrees aren't worth anything. Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job. If you didn't have a job, it's because you didn't want one. And I didn't want one, frankly. (Laughter) But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other. It's a process of academic inflation. And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet. We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence. We know three things about intelligence. One, it's diverse. We think about the world in all the ways that we experience it. We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms, we think in movement. Secondly, intelligence is dynamic. If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive. The brain isn't divided into compartments. In fact, creativity -- which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value -- more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things. By the way, there's a shaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain called the corpus callosum. It's thicker in women. Following off from Helen yesterday, this is probably why women are better at multi-tasking. Because you are, aren't you? There's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life. If my wife is cooking a meal at home -- which is not often, thankfully. (Laughter) No, she's good at some things, but if she's cooking, she's dealing with people on the phone, she's talking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling, she's doing open-heart surgery over here. If I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's on the hook, if she comes in I get annoyed. I say, "Terry, please, I'm trying to fry an egg in here." (Laughter) "Give me a break." (Laughter) Actually, do you know that old philosophical thing, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it happen? Remember that old chestnut? I saw a great t-shirt recently, which said, "If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?" (Laughter) And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct. I'm doing a new book at the moment called "Epiphany," which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent. I'm fascinated by how people got to be there. It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, Gillian Lynne. Have you heard of her? Some have. She's a choreographer, and everybody knows her work. She did "Cats" and "Phantom of the Opera." She's wonderful. I used to be on the board of The Royal Ballet, as you can see. Anyway, Gillian and I had lunch one day and I said, "How did you get to be a dancer?" It was interesting. When she was at school, she was really hopeless. And the school, in the '30s, wrote to her parents and said, "We think Gillian has a learning disorder." She couldn't concentrate; she was fidgeting. I think now they'd say she had ADHD. Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s, and ADHD hadn't been invented at this point. It wasn't an available condition. (Laughter) People weren't aware they could have that. (Laughter) Anyway, she went to see this specialist. So, this oak-paneled room, and she was there with her mother, and she was led and sat on this chair at the end, and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes while this man talked to her mother about the problems Gillian was having at school. Because she was disturbing people; her homework was always late; and so on, little kid of eight. In the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian, and said, "I've listened to all these things your mother's told me, I need to speak to her privately. Wait here. We'll be back; we won't be very long," and they went and left her. But as they went out of the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk. And when they got out, he said to her mother, "Just stand and watch her." And the minute they left the room, she was on her feet, moving to the music. And they watched for a few minutes and he turned to her mother and said, "Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn't sick; she's a dancer. Take her to a dance school." I said, "What happened?" She said, "She did. I can't tell you how wonderful it was. We walked in this room and it was full of people like me. People who couldn't sit still. People who had to move to think." Who had to move to think. They did ballet, they did tap, jazz; they did modern; they did contemporary. She was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet School; she became a soloist; she had a wonderful career at the Royal Ballet. She eventually graduated from the Royal Ballet School, founded the Gillian Lynne Dance Company, met Andrew Lloyd Webber. She's been responsible for some of the most successful musical theater productions in history, she's given pleasure to millions, and she's a multi-millionaire. Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down. (Applause) What I think it comes to is this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology and the revolution that was triggered by Rachel Carson. I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity. Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth: for a particular commodity. And for the future, it won't serve us. We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children. There was a wonderful quote by Jonas Salk, who said, "If all the insects were to disappear from the Earth, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish." And he's right. What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination. We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about. And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are and seeing our children for the hope that they are. And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future. By the way -- we may not see this future, but they will. And our job is to help them make something of it. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I thought I'd begin with a scene of war. There was little to warn of the danger ahead. The Iraqi insurgent had placed the IED, an Improvised Explosive Device, along the side of the road with great care. By 2006, there were more than 2,500 of these attacks every single month, and they were the leading cause of casualties among American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The team that was hunting for this IED is called an EOD team— Explosives Ordinance Disposal—and they're the pointy end of the spear in the American effort to suppress these roadside bombs. Each EOD team goes out on about 600 of these bomb calls every year, defusing about two bombs a day. Perhaps the best sign of how valuable they are to the war effort, is that the Iraqi insurgents put a $50,000 bounty on the head of a single EOD soldier. Unfortunately, this particular call would not end well. By the time the soldier advanced close enough to see the telltale wires of the bomb, it exploded in a wave of flame. Now, depending how close you are and how much explosive has been packed into that bomb, it can cause death or injury. You have to be as far as 50 yards away to escape that. The blast is so strong it can even break your limbs, even if you're not hit. That soldier had been on top of the bomb. And so when the rest of the team advanced they found little left. And that night the unit's commander did a sad duty, and he wrote a condolence letter back to the United States, and he talked about how hard the loss had been on his unit, about the fact that they had lost their bravest soldier, a soldier who had saved their lives many a time. And he apologized for not being able to bring them home. But then he talked up the silver lining that he took away from the loss. "At least," as he wrote, "when a robot dies, you don't have to write a letter to its mother." That scene sounds like science fiction, but is battlefield reality already. The soldier in that case was a 42-pound robot called a PackBot. The chief's letter went, not to some farmhouse in Iowa like you see in the old war movies, but went to the iRobot Company, which is named after the Asimov novel and the not-so-great Will Smith movie, and... um... (Laughter)... if you remember that in that fictional world, robots started out carrying out mundane chores, and then they started taking on life-and-death decisions. That's a reality we face today. What we're going to do is actually just flash a series of photos behind me that show you the reality of robots used in war right now or already at the prototype stage. It's just to give you a taste. Another way of putting it is you're not going to see anything that's powered by Vulcan technology, or teenage wizard hormones or anything like that. This is all real. So why don't we go ahead and start those pictures. Something big is going on in war today, and maybe even the history of humanity itself. The U.S. military went into Iraq with a handful of drones in the air. We now have 5,300. We went in with zero unmanned ground systems. We now have 12,000. And the tech term "killer application" takes on new meaning in this space. And we need to remember that we're talking about the Model T Fords, the Wright flyers, compared to what's coming soon. That's where we're at right now. One of the people that I recently met with was an Air Force three-star general, and he said basically, where we're headed very soon is tens of thousands of robots operating in our conflicts, and these numbers matter, because we're not just talking about tens of thousands of today's robots, but tens of thousands of these prototypes and tomorrow's robots, because of course, one of the things that's operating in technology is Moore's Law, that you can pack in more and more computing power into those robots, and so flash forward around 25 years, if Moore's Law holds true, those robots will be close to a billion times more powerful in their computing than today. And so what that means is the kind of things that we used to only talk about at science fiction conventions like Comic-Con have to be talked about in the halls of power and places like the Pentagon. A robots revolution is upon us. Now, I need to be clear here. I'm not talking about a revolution where you have to worry about the Governor of California showing up at your door, a la the Terminator. (Laughter) When historians look at this period, they're going to conclude that we're in a different type of revolution: a revolution in war, like the invention of the atomic bomb. But it may be even bigger than that, because our unmanned systems don't just affect the "how" of war-fighting, they affect the "who" of fighting at its most fundamental level. That is, every previous revolution in war, be it the machine gun, be it the atomic bomb, was about a system that either shot faster, went further, had a bigger boom. That's certainly the case with robotics, but they also change the experience of the warrior and even the very identity of the warrior. Another way of putting this is that mankind's 5,000-year-old monopoly on the fighting of war is breaking down in our very lifetime. I've spent the last several years going around meeting with all the players in this field, from the robot scientists to the science fiction authors who inspired them to the 19-year-old drone pilots who are fighting from Nevada, to the four-star generals who command them, to even the Iraqi insurgents who they are targeting and what they think about our systems, and what I found interesting is not just their stories, but how their experiences point to these ripple effects that are going outwards in our society, in our law and our ethics, etc. And so what I'd like to do with my remaining time is basically flesh out a couple of these. So the first is that the future of war, even a robotics one, is not going to be purely an American one. The U.S. is currently ahead in military robotics right now, but we know that in technology there's no such thing as a permanent first move or advantage. In a quick show of hands, how many people in this room still use Wang Computers? (Laughter) It's the same thing in war. The British and the French invented the tank. The Germans figured out how to use it right, and so what we have to think about for the U.S. is that we are ahead right now, but you have 43 other countries out there working on military robotics, and they include all the interesting countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran. And this raises a bigger worry for me. How do we move forward in this revolution given the state of our manufacturing and the state of our science and mathematics training in our schools? Or another way of thinking about this is, what does it mean to go to war increasingly with soldiers whose hardware is made in China and software is written in India? But just as software has gone open-source, so has warfare. Unlike an aircraft carrier or an atomic bomb, you don't need a massive manufacturing system to build robotics. A lot of it is off the shelf. A lot of it's even do-it-yourself. One of those things you just saw flashed before you was a raven drone, the handheld tossed one. For about a thousand dollars, you can build one yourself, equivalent to what the soldiers use in Iraq. That raises another wrinkle when it comes to war and conflict. Good guys might play around and work on these as hobby kits, but so might bad guys. This cross between robotics and things like terrorism is going to be fascinating and even disturbing, and we've already seen it start. During the war between Israel, a state, and Hezbollah, a non-state actor, the non-state actor flew four different drones against Israel. There's already a jihadi website that you can go on and remotely detonate an IED in Iraq while sitting at your home computer. And so I think what we're going to see is two trends take place with this. First is, you're going to reinforce the power of individuals against governments, but then the second is that we are going to see an expansion in the realm of terrorism. The future of it may be a cross between al Qaeda 2.0 and the next generation of the Unabomber. And another way of thinking about this is the fact that, remember, you don't have to convince a robot that they're gonna receive 72 virgins after they die to convince them to blow themselves up. But the ripple effects of this are going to go out into our politics. One of the people that I met with was a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, and he put it this way: "I like these systems because they save American lives, but I worry about more marketization of wars, more shock-and-awe talk, to defray discussion of the costs. People are more likely to support the use of force if they view it as costless." Robots for me take certain trends that are already in play in our body politic, and maybe take them to their logical ending point. We don't have a draft. We don't have declarations of war anymore. We don't buy war bonds anymore. And now we have the fact that we're converting more and more of our American soldiers that we would send into harm's way into machines, and so we may take those already lowering bars to war and drop them to the ground. But the future of war is also going to be a YouTube war. That is, our new technologies don't merely remove humans from risk. They also record everything that they see. So they don't just delink the public: they reshape its relationship with war. There's already several thousand video clips of combat footage from Iraq on YouTube right now, most of it gathered by drones. Now, this could be a good thing. It could be building connections between the home front and the war front as never before. But remember, this is taking place in our strange, weird world, and so inevitably the ability to download these video clips to, you know, your iPod or your Zune gives you the ability to turn it into entertainment. Soldiers have a name for these clips. They call it war porn. The typical one that I was sent was an email that had an attachment of video of a Predator strike taking out an enemy site. Missile hits, bodies burst into the air with the explosion. It was set to music. It was set to the pop song "I Just Want To Fly" by Sugar Ray. This ability to watch more but experience less creates a wrinkle in the public's relationship with war. I think about this with a sports parallel. It's like the difference between watching an NBA game, a professional basketball game on TV, where the athletes are tiny figures on the screen, and being at that basketball game in person and realizing what someone seven feet really does look like. But we have to remember, these are just the clips. These are just the ESPN SportsCenter version of the game. They lose the context. They lose the strategy. They lose the humanity. War just becomes slam dunks and smart bombs. Now the irony of all this is that while the future of war may involve more and more machines, it's our human psychology that's driving all of this, it's our human failings that are leading to these wars. So one example of this that has big resonance in the policy realm is how this plays out on our very real war of ideas that we're fighting against radical groups. What is the message that we think we are sending with these machines versus what is being received in terms of the message. So one of the people that I met was a senior Bush Administration official, who had this to say about our unmanning of war: "It plays to our strength. The thing that scares people is our technology." But when you go out and meet with people, for example in Lebanon, it's a very different story. One of the people I met with there was a news editor, and we're talking as a drone is flying above him, and this is what he had to say. "This is just another sign of the coldhearted cruel Israelis and Americans, who are cowards because they send out machines to fight us. They don't want to fight us like real men, but they're afraid to fight, so we just have to kill a few of their soldiers to defeat them." The future of war also is featuring a new type of warrior, and it's actually redefining the experience of going to war. You can call this a cubicle warrior. This is what one Predator drone pilot described of his experience fighting in the Iraq War while never leaving Nevada. "You're going to war for 12 hours, shooting weapons at targets, directing kills on enemy combatants, and then you get in the car and you drive home and within 20 minutes, you're sitting at the dinner table talking to your kids about their homework." Now, the psychological balancing of those experiences is incredibly tough, and in fact those drone pilots have higher rates of PTSD than many of the units physically in Iraq. But some have worries that this disconnection will lead to something else, that it might make the contemplation of war crimes a lot easier when you have this distance. "It's like a video game," is what one young pilot described to me of taking out enemy troops from afar. As anyone who's played Grand Theft Auto knows, we do things in the video world that we wouldn't do face to face. So much of what you're hearing from me is that there's another side to technologic revolutions, and that it's shaping our present and maybe will shape our future of war. Moore's Law is operative, but so's Murphy's Law. The fog of war isn't being lifted. The enemy has a vote. We're gaining incredible new capabilities, but we're also seeing and experiencing new human dilemmas. Now, sometimes these are just "oops" moments, which is what the head of a robotics company described it, you just have "oops" moments. Well, what are "oops" moments with robots in war? Well, sometimes they're funny. Sometimes, they're like that scene from the Eddie Murphy movie "Best Defense," playing out in reality, where they tested out a machine gun-armed robot, and during the demonstration it started spinning in a circle and pointed its machine gun at the reviewing stand of VIPs. Fortunately the weapon wasn't loaded and no one was hurt, but other times "oops" moments are tragic, such as last year in South Africa, where an anti-aircraft cannon had a "software glitch," and actually did turn on and fired, and nine soldiers were killed. We have new wrinkles in the laws of war and accountability. What do we do with things like unmanned slaughter? What is unmanned slaughter? We've already had three instances of Predator drone strikes where we thought we got bin Laden, and it turned out not to be the case. And this is where we're at right now. This is not even talking about armed, autonomous systems with full authority to use force. And do not believe that that isn't coming. During my research I came across four different Pentagon projects on different aspects of that. And so you have this question: what does this lead to issues like war crimes? Robots are emotionless, so they don't get upset if their buddy is killed. They don't commit crimes of rage and revenge. But robots are emotionless. They see an 80-year-old grandmother in a wheelchair the same way they see a T-80 tank: they're both just a series of zeroes and ones. And so we have this question to figure out: How do we catch up our 20th century laws of war, that are so old right now that they could qualify for Medicare, to these 21st century technologies? And so, in conclusion, I've talked about what seems the future of war, but notice that I've only used real world examples and you've only seen real world pictures and videos. And so this sets a great challenge for all of us that we have to worry about well before you have to worry about your Roomba sucking the life away from you. Are we going to let the fact that what's unveiling itself right now in war sounds like science fiction and therefore keeps us in denial? Are we going to face the reality of 21st century war? Is our generation going to make the same mistake that a past generation did with atomic weaponry, and not deal with the issues that surround it until Pandora's box is already opened up? Now, I could be wrong on this, and one Pentagon robot scientist told me that I was. He said, "There's no real social, ethical, moral issues when it comes to robots. That is," he added, "unless the machine kills the wrong people repeatedly. Then it's just a product recall issue." And so the ending point for this is that actually, we can turn to Hollywood. A few years ago, Hollywood gathered all the top characters and created a list of the top 100 heroes and top 100 villains of all of Hollywood history, the characters that represented the best and worst of humanity. Only one character made it onto both lists: The Terminator, a robot killing machine. And so that points to the fact that our machines can be used for both good and evil, but for me it points to the fact that there's a duality of humans as well. This week is a celebration of our creativity. Our creativity has taken our species to the stars. Our creativity has created works of arts and literature to express our love. And now, we're using our creativity in a certain direction, to build fantastic machines with incredible capabilities, maybe even one day an entirely new species. But one of the main reasons that we're doing that is because of our drive to destroy each other, and so the question we all should ask: is it our machines, or is it us that's wired for war? Thank you. (Applause)

I thought I'd begin with a scene of war. There was little to warn of the danger ahead. The Iraqi insurgent had placed the IED, an Improvised Explosive Device, along the side of the road with great care. By 2006, there were more than 2,500 of these attacks every single month, and they were the leading cause of casualties among American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The team that was hunting for this IED is called an EOD team— Explosives Ordinance Disposal—and they're the pointy end of the spear in the American effort to suppress these roadside bombs. Each EOD team goes out on about 600 of these bomb calls every year, defusing about two bombs a day. Perhaps the best sign of how valuable they are to the war effort, is that the Iraqi insurgents put a $50,000 bounty on the head of a single EOD soldier. Unfortunately, this particular call would not end well. By the time the soldier advanced close enough to see the telltale wires of the bomb, it exploded in a wave of flame. Now, depending how close you are and how much explosive has been packed into that bomb, it can cause death or injury. You have to be as far as 50 yards away to escape that. The blast is so strong it can even break your limbs, even if you're not hit. That soldier had been on top of the bomb. And so when the rest of the team advanced they found little left. And that night the unit's commander did a sad duty, and he wrote a condolence letter back to the United States, and he talked about how hard the loss had been on his unit, about the fact that they had lost their bravest soldier, a soldier who had saved their lives many a time. And he apologized for not being able to bring them home. But then he talked up the silver lining that he took away from the loss. "At least," as he wrote, "when a robot dies, you don't have to write a letter to its mother." That scene sounds like science fiction, but is battlefield reality already. The soldier in that case was a 42-pound robot called a PackBot. The chief's letter went, not to some farmhouse in Iowa like you see in the old war movies, but went to the iRobot Company, which is named after the Asimov novel and the not-so-great Will Smith movie, and... um... (Laughter)... if you remember that in that fictional world, robots started out carrying out mundane chores, and then they started taking on life-and-death decisions. That's a reality we face today. What we're going to do is actually just flash a series of photos behind me that show you the reality of robots used in war right now or already at the prototype stage. It's just to give you a taste. Another way of putting it is you're not going to see anything that's powered by Vulcan technology, or teenage wizard hormones or anything like that. This is all real. So why don't we go ahead and start those pictures. Something big is going on in war today, and maybe even the history of humanity itself. The U.S. military went into Iraq with a handful of drones in the air. We now have 5,300. We went in with zero unmanned ground systems. We now have 12,000. And the tech term "killer application" takes on new meaning in this space. And we need to remember that we're talking about the Model T Fords, the Wright Flyers, compared to what's coming soon. That's where we're at right now. One of the people that I recently met with was an Air Force three-star general, and he said basically, where we're headed very soon is tens of thousands of robots operating in our conflicts, and these numbers matter, because we're not just talking about tens of thousands of today's robots, but tens of thousands of these prototypes and tomorrow's robots, because of course, one of the things that's operating in technology is Moore's Law, that you can pack in more and more computing power into those robots, and so flash forward around 25 years, if Moore's Law holds true, those robots will be close to a billion times more powerful in their computing than today. And so what that means is the kind of things that we used to only talk about at science fiction conventions like Comic-Con have to be talked about in the halls of power and places like the Pentagon. A robots revolution is upon us. Now, I need to be clear here. I'm not talking about a revolution where you have to worry about the Governor of California showing up at your door, a la the Terminator. (Laughter) When historians look at this period, they're going to conclude that we're in a different type of revolution: a revolution in war, like the invention of the atomic bomb. But it may be even bigger than that, because our unmanned systems don't just affect the "how" of war-fighting, they affect the "who" of fighting at its most fundamental level. That is, every previous revolution in war, be it the machine gun, be it the atomic bomb, was about a system that either shot faster, went further, had a bigger boom. That's certainly the case with robotics, but they also change the experience of the warrior and even the very identity of the warrior. Another way of putting this is that mankind's 5,000-year-old monopoly on the fighting of war is breaking down in our very lifetime. I've spent the last several years going around meeting with all the players in this field, from the robot scientists to the science fiction authors who inspired them to the 19-year-old drone pilots who are fighting from Nevada, to the four-star generals who command them, to even the Iraqi insurgents who they are targeting and what they think about our systems, and what I found interesting is not just their stories, but how their experiences point to these ripple effects that are going outwards in our society, in our law and our ethics, etc. And so what I'd like to do with my remaining time is basically flesh out a couple of these. So the first is that the future of war, even a robotics one, is not going to be purely an American one. The U.S. is currently ahead in military robotics right now, but we know that in technology there's no such thing as a permanent first move or advantage. In a quick show of hands, how many people in this room still use Wang Computers? (Laughter) It's the same thing in war. The British and the French invented the tank. The Germans figured out how to use it right, and so what we have to think about for the U.S. is that we are ahead right now, but you have 43 other countries out there working on military robotics, and they include all the interesting countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran. And this raises a bigger worry for me. How do we move forward in this revolution given the state of our manufacturing and the state of our science and mathematics training in our schools? Or another way of thinking about this is, what does it mean to go to war increasingly with soldiers whose hardware is made in China and software is written in India? But just as software has gone open-source, so has warfare. Unlike an aircraft carrier or an atomic bomb, you don't need a massive manufacturing system to build robotics. A lot of it is off the shelf. A lot of it's even do-it-yourself. One of those things you just saw flashed before you was a raven drone, the handheld tossed one. For about a thousand dollars, you can build one yourself, equivalent to what the soldiers use in Iraq. That raises another wrinkle when it comes to war and conflict. Good guys might play around and work on these as hobby kits, but so might bad guys. This cross between robotics and things like terrorism is going to be fascinating and even disturbing, and we've already seen it start. During the war between Israel, a state, and Hezbollah, a non-state actor, the non-state actor flew four different drones against Israel. There's already a jihadi website that you can go on and remotely detonate an IED in Iraq while sitting at your home computer. And so I think what we're going to see is two trends take place with this. First is, you're going to reinforce the power of individuals against governments, but then the second is that we are going to see an expansion in the realm of terrorism. The future of it may be a cross between al Qaeda 2.0 and the next generation of the Unabomber. And another way of thinking about this is the fact that, remember, you don't have to convince a robot that they're gonna receive 72 virgins after they die to convince them to blow themselves up. But the ripple effects of this are going to go out into our politics. One of the people that I met with was a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, and he put it this way: "I like these systems because they save American lives, but I worry about more marketization of wars, more shock-and-awe talk, to defray discussion of the costs. People are more likely to support the use of force if they view it as costless." Robots for me take certain trends that are already in play in our body politic, and maybe take them to their logical ending point. We don't have a draft. We don't have declarations of war anymore. We don't buy war bonds anymore. And now we have the fact that we're converting more and more of our American soldiers that we would send into harm's way into machines, and so we may take those already lowering bars to war and drop them to the ground. But the future of war is also going to be a YouTube war. That is, our new technologies don't merely remove humans from risk. They also record everything that they see. So they don't just delink the public: they reshape its relationship with war. There's already several thousand video clips of combat footage from Iraq on YouTube right now, most of it gathered by drones. Now, this could be a good thing. It could be building connections between the home front and the war front as never before. But remember, this is taking place in our strange, weird world, and so inevitably the ability to download these video clips to, you know, your iPod or your Zune gives you the ability to turn it into entertainment. Soldiers have a name for these clips. They call it war porn. The typical one that I was sent was an email that had an attachment of video of a Predator strike taking out an enemy site. Missile hits, bodies burst into the air with the explosion. It was set to music. It was set to the pop song "I Just Want To Fly" by Sugar Ray. This ability to watch more but experience less creates a wrinkle in the public's relationship with war. I think about this with a sports parallel. It's like the difference between watching an NBA game, a professional basketball game on TV, where the athletes are tiny figures on the screen, and being at that basketball game in person and realizing what someone seven feet really does look like. But we have to remember, these are just the clips. These are just the ESPN SportsCenter version of the game. They lose the context. They lose the strategy. They lose the humanity. War just becomes slam dunks and smart bombs. Now the irony of all this is that while the future of war may involve more and more machines, it's our human psychology that's driving all of this, it's our human failings that are leading to these wars. So one example of this that has big resonance in the policy realm is how this plays out on our very real war of ideas that we're fighting against radical groups. What is the message that we think we are sending with these machines versus what is being received in terms of the message. So one of the people that I met was a senior Bush Administration official, who had this to say about our unmanning of war: "It plays to our strength. The thing that scares people is our technology." But when you go out and meet with people, for example in Lebanon, it's a very different story. One of the people I met with there was a news editor, and we're talking as a drone is flying above him, and this is what he had to say. "This is just another sign of the coldhearted cruel Israelis and Americans, who are cowards because they send out machines to fight us. They don't want to fight us like real men, but they're afraid to fight, so we just have to kill a few of their soldiers to defeat them." The future of war also is featuring a new type of warrior, and it's actually redefining the experience of going to war. You can call this a cubicle warrior. This is what one Predator drone pilot described of his experience fighting in the Iraq War while never leaving Nevada. "You're going to war for 12 hours, shooting weapons at targets, directing kills on enemy combatants, and then you get in the car and you drive home and within 20 minutes, you're sitting at the dinner table talking to your kids about their homework." Now, the psychological balancing of those experiences is incredibly tough, and in fact those drone pilots have higher rates of PTSD than many of the units physically in Iraq. But some have worries that this disconnection will lead to something else, that it might make the contemplation of war crimes a lot easier when you have this distance. "It's like a video game," is what one young pilot described to me of taking out enemy troops from afar. As anyone who's played Grand Theft Auto knows, we do things in the video world that we wouldn't do face to face. So much of what you're hearing from me is that there's another side to technologic revolutions, and that it's shaping our present and maybe will shape our future of war. Moore's Law is operative, but so's Murphy's Law. The fog of war isn't being lifted. The enemy has a vote. We're gaining incredible new capabilities, but we're also seeing and experiencing new human dilemmas. Now, sometimes these are just "oops" moments, which is what the head of a robotics company described it, you just have "oops" moments. Well, what are "oops" moments with robots in war? Well, sometimes they're funny. Sometimes, they're like that scene from the Eddie Murphy movie "Best Defense," playing out in reality, where they tested out a machine gun-armed robot, and during the demonstration it started spinning in a circle and pointed its machine gun at the reviewing stand of VIPs. Fortunately the weapon wasn't loaded and no one was hurt, but other times "oops" moments are tragic, such as last year in South Africa, where an anti-aircraft cannon had a "software glitch," and actually did turn on and fired, and nine soldiers were killed. We have new wrinkles in the laws of war and accountability. What do we do with things like unmanned slaughter? What is unmanned slaughter? We've already had three instances of Predator drone strikes where we thought we got bin Laden, and it turned out not to be the case. And this is where we're at right now. This is not even talking about armed, autonomous systems with full authority to use force. And do not believe that that isn't coming. During my research I came across four different Pentagon projects on different aspects of that. And so you have this question: what does this lead to issues like war crimes? Robots are emotionless, so they don't get upset if their buddy is killed. They don't commit crimes of rage and revenge. But robots are emotionless. They see an 80-year-old grandmother in a wheelchair the same way they see a T-80 tank: they're both just a series of zeroes and ones. And so we have this question to figure out: How do we catch up our 20th century laws of war, that are so old right now that they could qualify for Medicare, to these 21st century technologies? And so, in conclusion, I've talked about what seems the future of war, but notice that I've only used real world examples and you've only seen real world pictures and videos. And so this sets a great challenge for all of us that we have to worry about well before you have to worry about your Roomba sucking the life away from you. Are we going to let the fact that what's unveiling itself right now in war sounds like science fiction and therefore keeps us in denial? Are we going to face the reality of 21st century war? Is our generation going to make the same mistake that a past generation did with atomic weaponry, and not deal with the issues that surround it until Pandora's box is already opened up? Now, I could be wrong on this, and one Pentagon robot scientist told me that I was. He said, "There's no real social, ethical, moral issues when it comes to robots. That is," he added, "unless the machine kills the wrong people repeatedly. Then it's just a product recall issue." And so the ending point for this is that actually, we can turn to Hollywood. A few years ago, Hollywood gathered all the top characters and created a list of the top 100 heroes and top 100 villains of all of Hollywood history, the characters that represented the best and worst of humanity. Only one character made it onto both lists: The Terminator, a robot killing machine. And so that points to the fact that our machines can be used for both good and evil, but for me it points to the fact that there's a duality of humans as well. This week is a celebration of our creativity. Our creativity has taken our species to the stars. Our creativity has created works of arts and literature to express our love. And now, we're using our creativity in a certain direction, to build fantastic machines with incredible capabilities, maybe even one day an entirely new species. But one of the main reasons that we're doing that is because of our drive to destroy each other, and so the question we all should ask: is it our machines, or is it us that's wired for war? Thank you. (Applause)

About 10 years ago, I took on the task to teach global development to Swedish undergraduate students. That was after having spent about 20 years together with African institutions studying hunger in Africa, so I was sort of expected to know a little about the world. And I started in our medical university, Karolinska Institute, an undergraduate course called Global Health. But when you get that opportunity, you get a little nervous. I thought, these students coming to us actually have the highest grade you can get in Swedish college systems -- so I thought, maybe they know everything I'm going to teach them about. So I did a pre-test when they came. And one of the questions from which I learned a lot was this one: "Which country has the highest child mortality of these five pairs?" I put them together, so that in each pair of country, one has twice the child mortality of the other. And this means that it's much bigger a difference than the uncertainty of the data. I won't put you at a test here, but it's Turkey, which is highest there, Poland, Russia, Pakistan and South Africa. And these were the results of the Swedish students. I did it so I got the confidence interval, which is pretty narrow, and I got happy, of course: a 1.8 right answer out of five possible. That means that there was a place for a professor of international health and for my course. (Laughter) But one late night, when I was compiling the report, I really realized my discovery. I have shown that Swedish top students know statistically significantly less about the world than the chimpanzees. (Laughter) Because the chimpanzee would score half right if I gave them two bananas with Sri Lanka and Turkey. They would be right half of the cases. But the students are not there. The problem for me was not ignorance; it was preconceived ideas. I did also an unethical study of the professors of the Karolinska Institute, that hands out the Nobel Prize in Medicine, and they are on par with the chimpanzee there. (Laughter) This is where I realized that there was really a need to communicate, because the data of what's happening in the world and the child health of every country is very well aware. We did this software which displays it like this: every bubble here is a country. This country over here is China. This is India. The size of the bubble is the population, and on this axis here, I put fertility rate. Because my students, what they said when they looked upon the world, and I asked them, "What do you really think about the world?" Well, I first discovered that the textbook was Tintin, mainly. (Laughter) And they said, "The world is still 'we' and 'them.' And 'we' is Western world and 'them' is Third World." "And what do you mean with Western world?" I said. "Well, that's long life and small family, and Third World is short life and large family." So this is what I could display here. I put fertility rate here: number of children per woman: one, two, three, four, up to about eight children per woman. We have very good data since 1962 -- 1960 about -- on the size of families in all countries. The error margin is narrow. Here, I put life expectancy at birth, from 30 years in some countries up to about 70 years. And 1962, there was really a group of countries here that was industrialized countries, and they had small families and long lives. And these were the developing countries: they had large families and they had relatively short lives. Now, what has happened since 1962? We want to see the change. Are the students right? Is it still two types of countries? Or have these developing countries got smaller families and they live here? Or have they got longer lives and live up there? Let's see. We stopped the world then. This is all U.N. statistics that have been available. Here we go. Can you see there? It's China there, moving against better health there, improving there. All the green Latin American countries are moving towards smaller families. Your yellow ones here are the Arabic countries, and they get longer life, but not larger families. The Africans are the green here. They still remain here. This is India; Indonesia is moving on pretty fast. (Laughter) In the '80s here, you have Bangladesh still among the African countries. But now, Bangladesh -- it's a miracle that happens in the '80s: the imams start to promote family planning. They move up into that corner. And in the '90s, we have the terrible HIV epidemic that takes down the life expectancy of the African countries and all the rest of them move up into the corner, where we have long lives and small family, and we have a completely new world. (Applause) (Applause ends) Let me make a comparison directly between the United States of America and Vietnam. 1964. America had small families and long life; Vietnam had large families and short lives. And this is what happens: the data during the war indicate that even with all the death, there was an improvement of life expectancy. By the end of the year, the family planning started in Vietnam; they went for smaller families. And the United States up there is getting for longer life, keeping family size. And in the '80s now, they give up Communist planning and they go for market economy, and it moves faster even than social life. And today, we have in Vietnam the same life expectancy and the same family size here in Vietnam, 2003, as in United States, 1974, by the end of the war. If we don't look in the data, I think we all underestimate the tremendous change in Asia, which was in social change before we saw the economical change. Let's move over to another way here in which we could display the distribution in the world of the income. This is the world distribution of income of people. One dollar, 10 dollars or 100 dollars per day. There's no gap between rich and poor any longer. This is a myth. There's a little hump here. But there are people all the way. And if we look where the income ends up, this is 100 percent the world's annual income. And the richest 20 percent, they take out of that about 74 percent. And the poorest 20 percent, they take about two percent. And this shows that the concept of developing countries is extremely doubtful. We think about aid, like these people here giving aid to these people here. But in the middle, we have most of the world population, and they have now 24 percent of the income. We heard it in other forms. And who are these? Where are the different countries? I can show you Africa. This is Africa. 10% the world population, most in poverty. This is OECD. The rich country. The country club of the U.N. And they are over here on this side. Quite an overlap between Africa and OECD. And this is Latin America. It has everything on this Earth, from the poorest to the richest in Latin America. And on top of that, we can put East Europe, we can put East Asia, and we put South Asia. And how did it look like if we go back in time, to about 1970? Then there was more of a hump. And we have most who lived in absolute poverty were Asians. The problem in the world was the poverty in Asia. And if I now let the world move forward, you will see that while population increases, there are hundreds of millions in Asia getting out of poverty and some others getting into poverty, and this is the pattern we have today. And the best projection from the World Bank is that this will happen, and we will not have a divided world. We'll have most people in the middle. Of course it's a logarithmic scale here, but our concept of economy is growth with percent. We look upon it as a possibility of percentile increase. If I change this, and take GDP per capita instead of family income, and I turn these individual data into regional data of gross domestic product, and I take the regions down here, the size of the bubble is still the population. And you have the OECD there, and you have sub-Saharan Africa there, and we take off the Arab states there, coming both from Africa and from Asia, and we put them separately, and we can expand this axis, and I can give it a new dimension here, by adding the social values there, child survival. Now I have money on that axis, and I have the possibility of children to survive there. In some countries, 99.7% of children survive to five years of age; others, only 70. And here, it seems, there is a gap between OECD, Latin America, East Europe, East Asia, Arab states, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The linearity is very strong between child survival and money. But let me split sub-Saharan Africa. Health is there and better health is up there. I can go here and I can split sub-Saharan Africa into its countries. And when it burst, the size of its country bubble is the size of the population. Sierra Leone down there. Mauritius is up there. Mauritius was the first country to get away with trade barriers, and they could sell their sugar -- they could sell their textiles -- on equal terms as the people in Europe and North America. There's a huge difference between Africa. And Ghana is here in the middle. In Sierra Leone, humanitarian aid. Here in Uganda, development aid. Here, time to invest; there, you can go for a holiday. It's a tremendous variation within Africa which we rarely often make -- that it's equal everything. I can split South Asia here. India's the big bubble in the middle. But a huge difference between Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. I can split Arab states. How are they? Same climate, same culture, same religion -- huge difference. Even between neighbors. Yemen, civil war. United Arab Emirates, money, which was quite equally and well used. Not as the myth is. And that includes all the children of the foreign workers who are in the country. Data is often better than you think. Many people say data is bad. There is an uncertainty margin, but we can see the difference here: Cambodia, Singapore. The differences are much bigger than the weakness of the data. East Europe: Soviet economy for a long time, but they come out after 10 years very, very differently. And there is Latin America. Today, we don't have to go to Cuba to find a healthy country in Latin America. Chile will have a lower child mortality than Cuba within some few years from now. Here, we have high-income countries in the OECD. And we get the whole pattern here of the world, which is more or less like this. And if we look at it, how the world looks, in 1960, it starts to move. This is Mao Tse-tung. He brought health to China. And then he died. And then Deng Xiaoping came and brought money to China, and brought them into the mainstream again. And we have seen how countries move in different directions like this, so it's sort of difficult to get an example country which shows the pattern of the world. But I would like to bring you back to about here, at 1960. I would like to compare South Korea, which is this one, with Brazil, which is this one. The label went away for me here. And I would like to compare Uganda, which is there. And I can run it forward, like this. And you can see how South Korea is making a very, very fast advancement, whereas Brazil is much slower. And if we move back again, here, and we put on trails on them, like this, you can see again that the speed of development is very, very different, and the countries are moving more or less in the same rate as money and health, but it seems you can move much faster if you are healthy first than if you are wealthy first. And to show that, you can put on the way of United Arab Emirates. They came from here, a mineral country. They cached all the oil; they got all the money; but health cannot be bought at the supermarket. You have to invest in health. You have to get kids into schooling. You have to train health staff. You have to educate the population. And Sheikh Zayed did that in a fairly good way. In spite of falling oil prices, he brought this country up here. So we've got a much more mainstream appearance of the world, where all countries tend to use their money better than they used in the past. Now, this is, more or less, if you look at the average data of the countries -- they are like this. Now that's dangerous, to use average data, because there is such a lot of difference within countries. So if I go and look here, we can see that Uganda today is where South Korea was in 1960. If I split Uganda, there's quite a difference within Uganda. These are the quintiles of Uganda. The richest 20 percent of Ugandans are there. The poorest are down there. If I split South Africa, it's like this. And if I go down and look at Niger, where there was such a terrible famine, lastly, it's like this. The 20 percent poorest of Niger is out here, and the 20 percent richest of South Africa is there, and yet we tend to discuss on what solutions there should be in Africa. Everything in this world exists in Africa. And you can't discuss universal access to HIV [medicine] for that quintile up here with the same strategy as down here. The improvement of the world must be highly contextualized, and it's not relevant to have it on regional level. We must be much more detailed. We find that students get very excited when they can use this. And even more, policy makers and the corporate sectors would like to see how the world is changing. Now, why doesn't this take place? Why are we not using the data we have? We have data in the United Nations, in the national statistical agencies and in universities and other non-governmental organizations. Because the data is hidden down in the databases. And the public is there, and the Internet is there, but we have still not used it effectively. All that information we saw changing in the world does not include publicly-funded statistics. There are some web pages like this, you know, but they take some nourishment down from the databases, but people put prices on them, stupid passwords and boring statistics. (Laughter) And this won't work. (Applause) So what is needed? We have the databases. It's not the new database you need. We have wonderful design tools, and more and more are added up here. So we started a nonprofit venture which, linking data to design, we called Gapminder, from the London Underground, where they warn you, "mind the gap." So we thought Gapminder was appropriate. And we started to write software which could link the data like this. And it wasn't that difficult. It took some person years, and we have produced animations. You can take a data set and put it there. We are liberating U.N. data, some few U.N. organization. Some countries accept that their databases can go out on the world, but what we really need is, of course, a search function. A search function where we can copy the data up to a searchable format and get it out in the world. And what do we hear when we go around? I've done anthropology on the main statistical units. Everyone says, "It's impossible. This can't be done. Our information is so peculiar in detail, so that cannot be searched as others can be searched. We cannot give the data free to the students, free to the entrepreneurs of the world." But this is what we would like to see, isn't it? The publicly-funded data is down here. And we would like flowers to grow out on the Net. And one of the crucial points is to make them searchable, and then people can use the different design tool to animate it there. And I have pretty good news for you. I have good news that the present, new Head of U.N. Statistics, he doesn't say it's impossible. He only says, "We can't do it." (Laughter) And that's a quite clever guy, huh? (Laughter) So we can see a lot happening in data in the coming years. We will be able to look at income distributions in completely new ways. This is the income distribution of China, 1970. This is the income distribution of the United States, 1970. Almost no overlap. And what has happened? What has happened is this: that China is growing, it's not so equal any longer, and it's appearing here, overlooking the United States. Almost like a ghost, isn't it? (Laughter) It's pretty scary. (Laughter) But I think it's very important to have all this information. We need really to see it. And instead of looking at this, I would like to end up by showing the Internet users per 1,000. In this software, we access about 500 variables from all the countries quite easily. It takes some time to change for this, but on the axises, you can quite easily get any variable you would like to have. And the thing would be to get up the databases free, to get them searchable, and with a second click, to get them into the graphic formats, where you can instantly understand them. Now, statisticians don't like it, because they say that this will not show the reality; we have to have statistical, analytical methods. But this is hypothesis-generating. I end now with the world. There, the Internet is coming. The number of Internet users are going up like this. This is the GDP per capita. And it's a new technology coming in, but then amazingly, how well it fits to the economy of the countries. That's why the $100 computer will be so important. But it's a nice tendency. It's as if the world is flattening off, isn't it? These countries are lifting more than the economy and will be very interesting to follow this over the year, as I would like you to be able to do with all the publicly funded data. Thank you very much. (Applause)

When the Industrial Revolution started, the amount of carbon sitting underneath Britain in the form of coal was as big as the amount of carbon sitting under Saudi Arabia in the form of oil, and this carbon powered the Industrial Revolution, it put the "Great" in Great Britain, and led to Britain's temporary world domination. And then, in 1918, coal production in Britain peaked, and has declined ever since. In due course, Britain started using oil and gas from the North Sea, and in the year 2000, oil and gas production from the North Sea also peaked, and they're now on the decline. These observations about the finiteness of easily accessible, local, secure fossil fuels, this is a motivation for saying, "Well, what's next? What is life after fossil fuels going to be like? Shouldn't we be thinking hard about how to get off fossil fuels?" Another motivation, of course, is climate change. And when people talk about life after fossil fuels and climate change action, I think there's a lot of fluff, a lot of greenwash, a lot of misleading advertising, and I feel a duty as a physicist to try to guide people around the claptrap and help people understand the actions that really make a difference and to focus on ideas that do add up. Let me illustrate this with what physicists call a back-of-envelope calculation. We love back-of-envelope calculations. You ask a question, you write down some numbers, and you get yourself an answer. It may not be very accurate, but it may make you say, "Hmm." So here's a question: Imagine if we said, "Oh yes, we can get off fossil fuels. We'll use biofuels. Problem solved. Transport, we don't need oil anymore." Well, what if we grew the biofuels for a road on the grass verge at the edge of the road? How wide would the verge have to be for that to work out? Okay, so let's put in some numbers. Let's have our cars go at 60 miles per hour. Let's say they do 30 miles per gallon. That's the European average for new cars. Let's say the productivity of biofuel plantations is 1,200 litres of biofuel per hectare per year. That's true of European biofuels. And let's imagine the cars are spaced 80 meters apart from each other, and they're just perpetually going along this road. The length of the road doesn't matter, because the longer the road, the more biofuel plantation we've got. What do we do with these numbers? Well, you take the first number, and you divide by the other three, and you get eight kilometers. And that's the answer. That's how wide the plantation would have to be, given these assumptions. And maybe that makes you say, "Hmm. Maybe this isn't going to be quite so easy." And it might make you think, perhaps there's an issue to do with areas, and in this talk, I'd like to talk about land areas, and ask, is there an issue about areas? The answer is going to be yes but it depends which country you are in. So let's start in the United Kingdom, since that's where we are today. The energy consumption of the United Kingdom, the total energy consumption, not just transport, but everything, I like to quantify it in light bulbs. It's as if we've all got 125 light bulbs on all the time, 125 kilowatt-hours per day per person is the energy consumption of the U.K. So there's 40 light bulbs' worth for transport, 40 light bulbs' worth for heating, and 40 light bulbs' worth for making electricity, and other things are relatively small compared to those three big fish. It's actually a bigger footprint if we take into account the embodied energy in the stuff we import into our country as well, and 90 percent of this energy today still comes from fossil fuels, and 10 percent only from other, greener -- possibly greener -- sources like nuclear power and renewables. So, that's the U.K., and the population density of the U.K. is 250 people per square kilometer, and I'm now going to show you other countries by these same two measures. On the vertical axis, I'm going to show you how much light bulbs -- what our energy consumption per person is, and we're at 125 light bulbs per person, and that little blue dot there is showing you the land area of the United Kingdom, and the population density is on the horizontal axis, and we're 250 people per square kilometer. Let's add European countries in blue, and you can see there's quite a variety. I should emphasize, both of these axes are logarithmic. As you go from one gray bar to the next gray bar you're going up a factor of 10. Next, let's add Asia in red, the Middle East and North Africa in green, sub-Saharan Africa in blue, black is South America, purple is Central America, and then in pukey-yellow, we have North America, Australia and New Zealand. And you can see the great diversity of population densities and of per capita consumptions. Countries are different from each other. Top left, we have Canada and Australia, with enormous land areas, very high per capita consumption, 200 or 300 light bulbs per person, and very low population densities. Top right, Bahrain has the same energy consumption per person, roughly, as Canada, over 300 light bulbs per person, but their population density is a factor of 300 times greater, 1,000 people per square kilometer. Bottom right, Bangladesh has the same population density as Bahrain but consumes 100 times less per person. Bottom left, well, there's no one. But there used to be a whole load of people. Here's another message from this diagram. I've added on little blue tails behind Sudan, Libya, China, India, Bangladesh. That's 15 years of progress. Where were they 15 years ago, and where are they now? And the message is, most countries are going to the right, and they're going up, up and to the right -- bigger population density and higher per capita consumption. So, we may be off in the top right-hand corner, slightly unusual, the United Kingdom accompanied by Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, and a bunch of other slightly odd countries, but many other countries are coming up and to the right to come and join us, so we're a picture, if you like, of what the future energy consumption might be looking like in other countries too. And I've also added in this diagram now some pink lines that go down and to the right. Those are lines of equal power consumption per unit area, which I measure in watts per square meter. So, for example, the middle line there, 0.1 watts per square meter, is the energy consumption per unit area of Saudi Arabia, Norway, Mexico in purple, and Bangladesh 15 years ago, and half of the world's population lives in countries that are already above that line. The United Kingdom is consuming 1.25 watts per square meter. So's Germany, and Japan is consuming a bit more. So, let's now say why this is relevant. Why is it relevant? Well, we can measure renewables in the same units and other forms of power production in the same units, and renewables is one of the leading ideas for how we could get off our 90 percent fossil fuel habit. So here come some renewables. Energy crops deliver half a watt per square meter in European climates. What does that mean? And you might have anticipated that result, given what I told you about the biofuel plantation a moment ago. Well, we consume 1.25 watts per square meter. What this means is, even if you covered the whole of the United Kingdom with energy crops, you couldn't match today's energy consumption. Wind power produces a bit more, 2.5 watts per square meter, but that's only twice as big as 1.25 watts per square meter, so that means if you wanted literally to produce total energy consumption in all forms on average from wind farms, you need wind farms half the area of the U.K. I've got data to back up all these assertions, by the way. Next, let's look at solar power. Solar panels, when you put them on a roof, deliver about 20 watts per square meter in England. If you really want to get a lot from solar panels, you need to adopt the traditional Bavarian farming method where you leap off the roof and coat the countryside with solar panels too. Solar parks, because of the gaps between the panels, deliver less. They deliver about 5 watts per square meter of land area. And here's a solar park in Vermont with real data delivering 4.2 watts per square meter. Remember where we are, 1.25 watts per square meter, wind farms 2.5, solar parks about five. So, whatever, whichever of those renewables you pick, the message is, whatever mix of those renewables you're using, if you want to power the U.K. on them, you're going to need to cover something like 20 percent or 25 percent of the country with those renewables. And I'm not saying that's a bad idea. We just need to understand the numbers. I'm absolutely not anti-renewables. I love renewables. But I'm also pro-arithmetic. (Laughter) Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers larger powers per unit area, because you don't have the problem of clouds, and so this facility delivers 14 watts per square meter, this one 10 watts per square meter, and this one in Spain 5 watts per square meter. Being generous to concentrating solar power, I think it's perfect credible it could deliver 20 watts per square meter. So that's nice. Of course, Britain doesn't have any deserts. Yet. (Laughter) So here's a summary so far. All renewables, much as I love them, are diffuse. They all have a small power per unit area, and we have to live with that fact. And that means, if you do want renewables to make a substantial difference for a country like the United Kingdom on the scale of today's consumption, you need to be imagining renewable facilities that are country-sized, not the entire country but a fraction of the country, a substantial fraction. There are other options for generating power as well which don't involve fossil fuels. So there's nuclear power, and on this Ordnance Survey map, you can see there's a Sizewell B inside a blue square kilometer. That's one gigawatt in a square kilometer, which works out to 1,000 watts per square meter. So by this particular metric, nuclear power isn't as intrusive as renewables. Of course, other metrics matter too, and nuclear power has all sorts of popularity problems. But the same goes for renewables as well. Here's a photograph of a consultation exercise in full swing in the little town of Penicuik just outside Edinburgh, and you can see the children of Penicuik celebrating the burning of the effigy of the windmill. So people are anti-everything, and we've got to keep all the options on the table. What can a country like the U.K. do on the supply side? Well, the options are, I'd say, these three: power renewables, and recognizing that they need to be close to country-sized; other people's renewables, so we could go back and talk very politely to the people in the top left-hand side of the diagram and say, "Uh, we don't want renewables in our backyard, but, um, please could we put them in yours instead?" And that's a serious option. It's a way for the world to handle this issue. So countries like Australia, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan, could be our best friends for renewable production. And a third option is nuclear power. So that's some supply side options. In addition to the supply levers that we can push, and remember, we need large amounts, because at the moment, we get 90 percent of our energy from fossil fuels. In addition to those levers, we could talk about other ways of solving this issue, namely, we could reduce demand, and that means reducing population — I'm not sure how to do that — or reducing per capita consumption. So let's talk about three more big levers that could really help on the consumption side. First, transport. Here are the physics principles that tell you how to reduce the energy consumption of transport, and people often say, "Oh, yes, technology can answer everything. We can make vehicles that are a hundred times more efficient." And that's almost true. Let me show you. The energy consumption of this typical tank here is 80 kilowatt-hours per hundred person kilometers. That's the average European car. Eighty kilowatt-hours. Can we make something a hundred times better by applying those physics principles I just listed? Yes. Here it is. It's the bicycle. It's 80 times better in energy consumption, and it's powered by biofuel, by Weetabix. (Laughter) And there are other options in between, because maybe the lady in the tank would say, "No, no, no, that's a lifestyle change. Don't change my lifestyle, please." So, well, we could persuade her to get into a train, and that's still a lot more efficient than a car, but that might be a lifestyle change, or there's the eco-car, top-left. It comfortably accommodates one teenager and it's shorter than a traffic cone, and it's almost as efficient as a bicycle as long as you drive it at 15 miles per hour. In between, perhaps some more realistic options on this lever, transport lever, are electric vehicles, so electric bikes and electric cars in the middle, perhaps four times as energy efficient as the standard petrol-powered tank. Next, there's the heating lever. Heating is a third of our energy consumption in Britain, and quite a lot of that is going into homes and other buildings doing space heating and water heating. So here's a typical crappy British house. It's my house, with the Ferrari out front. What can we do to it? Well, the laws of physics are written up there, which describe what -- how the power consumption for heating is driven by the things you can control. The things you can control are the temperature difference between the inside and the outside, and there's this remarkable technology called a thermostat. You grasp it, you rotate it to the left, and your energy consumption in the home will decrease. I've tried it. It works. Some people call it a lifestyle change. You can also get the fluff men in to reduce the leakiness of your building -- put fluff in the walls, fluff in the roof, and a new front door and so forth, and the sad truth is, this will save you money. That's not sad, that's good, but the sad truth is, it'll only get about 25 percent of the leakiness of your building, if you do these things, which are good ideas. If you really want to get a bit closer to Swedish building standards with a crappy house like this, you need to be putting external insulation on the building as shown by this block of flats in London. You can also deliver heat more efficiently using heat pumps which use a smaller bit of high grade energy like electricity to move heat from your garden into your house. The third demand side option I want to talk about, the third way to reduce energy consumption is, read your meters. And people talk a lot about smart meters, but you can do it yourself. Use your own eyes and be smart, read your meter, and if you're anything like me, it'll change your life. Here's a graph I made. I was writing a book about sustainable energy, and a friend asked me, "Well how much energy do you use at home?" And I was embarrassed. I didn't actually know. And so I started reading the meter every week, and the old meter readings are shown in the top half of the graph, and then 2007 is shown in green at the bottom, and that was when I was reading the meter every week, and my life changed, because I started doing experiments and seeing what made a difference, and my gas consumption plummeted because I started tinkering with the thermostat and the timing on the heating system, and I knocked more than a half off my gas bills. There's a similar story for my electricity consumption, where switching off the DVD players, the stereos, the computer peripherals that were on all the time, and just switching them on when I needed them, knocked another third off my electricity bills too. So we need a plan that adds up, and I've described for you six big levers, and we need big action because we get 90 percent of our energy from fossil fuels, and so you need to push hard on most if not all of these levers. And most of these levers have popularity problems, and if there is a lever you don't like the use of, well please do bear in mind that means you need even stronger effort on the other levers. So I'm a strong advocate of having grown-up conversations that are based on numbers and facts, and I want to close with this map that just visualizes for you the requirement of land and so forth in order to get just 16 light bulbs per person from four of the big possible sources. So, if you wanted to get 16 light bulbs, remember, today our total energy consumption is 125 light bulbs' worth. If you wanted 16 from wind, this map visualizes a solution for the U.K. It's got 160 wind farms, each 100 square kilometers in size, and that would be a twentyfold increase over today's amount of wind. Nuclear power, to get 16 light bulbs per person, you'd need two gigawatts at each of the purple dots on the map. That's a fourfold increase over today's levels of nuclear power. Biomass, to get 16 light bulbs per person, you'd need a land area something like three and a half Wales' worth, either in our country, or in someone else's country, possibly Ireland, possibly somewhere else. (Laughter) And a fourth supply side option, concentrating solar power in other people's deserts, if you wanted to get 16 light bulbs' worth, then we're talking about these eight hexagons down at the bottom right. The total area of those hexagons is two Greater London's worth of someone else's Sahara, and you'll need power lines all the way across Spain and France to bring the power from the Sahara to Surrey. We need a plan that adds up. We need to stop shouting and start talking, and if we can have a grown-up conversation, make a plan that adds up and get building, maybe this low-carbon revolution will actually be fun. Thank you very much for listening. (Applause)

I'll tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. Not yours, of course -- other people's. (Laughter) So after being at MIT for a few years, I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting. You know, I don't know how many of those you read, but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write -- even worse to write. So I decided to try and write something more fun. And I came up with an idea that I would write a cookbook. And the title for my cookbook was going to be, "Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink." (Laughter) And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen. I was quite excited about this. I was going to talk a little bit about research, a little bit about the kitchen. We do so much in the kitchen, I thought this would be interesting. I wrote a couple of chapters, and took it to MIT Press and they said, "Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else." I tried other people, and everybody said the same thing, "Cute. Not for us." Until somebody said, "Look, if you're serious about this, you have to write about your research first; you have to publish something, then you'll get the opportunity to write something else. If you really want to do it, you have to do it." I said, "I don't want to write about my research. I do it all day long, I want to write something a bit more free, less constrained." And this person was very forceful and said, "Look, that's the only way you'll ever do it." So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it --" I had a sabbatical. I said, "I'll write about my research, if there's no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook." So, I wrote a book on my research. And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways. First of all, I enjoyed writing. But the more interesting thing was that I started learning from people. It's a fantastic time to write, because there's so much feedback you can get from people. People write to me about their personal experience, and about their examples, and where they disagree, and their nuances. And even being here -- I mean, the last few days, I've known heights of obsessive behavior I never thought about. (Laughter) Which I think is just fascinating. I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior, and I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion as a metaphor for rationality. So think about these two tables. And you must have seen this illusion. If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left, or the horizontal line on the table on the right, which one seems longer? Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer? No, right? It's impossible. But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes. So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help. I can animate the lines. And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines, which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you. Now, the interesting thing about this is when I take the lines away, it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute. (Laughter) You can't look at this and say, "Now I see reality as it is." Right? It's impossible to overcome this sense that this is indeed longer. Our intuition is really fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way. and there is almost nothing we can do about it, aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it. Here's another one. It's one of my favorite illusions. What color is the top arrow pointing to? Audience: Brown. Dan Ariely: Brown. Thank you. The bottom one? Yellow. Turns out they're identical. Can anybody see them as identical? Very, very hard. I can cover the rest of the cube up. If I cover the rest of the cube, you can see that they are identical. If you don't believe me, you can get the slide later and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical. But again, it's the same story, that if we take the background away, the illusion comes back. There is no way for us not to see this illusion. I guess maybe if you're colorblind, I don't think you can see that. I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor. Vision is one of the best things we do. We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision -- bigger than dedicated to anything else. We use our vision more hours of the day than anything else. We're evolutionarily designed to use vision. And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision, which we're so good at, what are the chances we won't make even more mistakes in something we're not as good at, for example, financial decision-making. (Laughter) Something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do, we don't have a specialized part of the brain for, and we don't do that many hours of the day. The argument is in those cases, it might be that we actually make many more mistakes. And worse -- not having an easy way to see them, because in visual illusions, we can easily demonstrate the mistakes; in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder to demonstrate the mistakes to people. So I want to show you some cognitive illusions, or decision-making illusions, in the same way. And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences. It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein. It basically shows the percentage of people who indicated they would be interested in donating their organs. These are different countries in Europe. You basically see two types of countries: countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot; and countries on the left that seem to giving very little, or much less. The question is, why? Why do some countries give a lot and some countries give a little? When you ask people this question, they usually think that it has to be about culture. How much do you care about people? Giving organs to somebody else is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are. Or maybe it's about religion. But if you look at this plot, you can see that countries that we think about as very similar, actually exhibit very different behavior. For example, Sweden is all the way on the right, and Denmark, which we think is culturally very similar, is all the way on the left. Germany is on the left, and Austria is on the right. The Netherlands is on the left, and Belgium is on the right. And finally, depending on your particular version of European similarity, you can think about the U.K. and France as either similar culturally or not, but it turns out that with organ donation, they are very different. By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story. You see, the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group. It turns out that they got to 28 percent after mailing every household in the country a letter, begging people to join this organ donation program. You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far." It's 28 percent in organ donation. (Laughter) But whatever the countries on the right are doing, they're doing a much better job than begging. So what are they doing? Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV. And here is the story. The countries on the left have a form at the DMV that looks something like this. "Check the box below if you want to participate in the organ donor program." And what happens? People don't check, and they don't join. The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot, have a slightly different form. It says, "Check the box below if you don't want to participate ..." Interestingly enough, when people get this, they again don't check, but now they join. (Laughter) Now, think about what this means. You know, we wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet; we feel that we decide what to wear. we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying, is that many of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now, it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you encountered one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very hard to think that it would influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we're in the driver's seat, such a feeling that we're in control and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision. Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than about something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, somebody who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a "V" is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." (Laughter) But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do, we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us. I'll give you one more example. This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Shafir. And they said, "Would this effect also happens to experts? People who are well-paid, experts in their decisions, and who make a lot of them?" And they took a group of physicians. They presented to them a case study of a patient. They said, "Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer. He's been suffering from right hip pain for a while." And then, they said to the physicians, "You decided a few weeks ago that nothing is working for this patient. All these medications, nothing seems to be working. So you refer the patient for hip replacement therapy. Hip replacement. Okay?" So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced. Then they said to half of the physicians, "Yesterday, you reviewed the patient's case, and you realized that you forgot to try one medication. You did not try ibuprofen. What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen? Or do you let him go and have hip replacement?" Well, the good news is that most physicians in this case decided to pull the patient and try ibuprofen. Very good for the physicians. To the other group of physicians, they said, "Yesterday when you reviewed the case, you discovered there were two medications you didn't try out yet -- ibuprofen and piroxicam." You have two medications you didn't try out yet. What do you do? You let him go, or you pull him back? And if you pull him back, do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?" Now, think of it: This decision makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement, but pulling him back, all of the sudden it becomes more complex. There is one more decision. What happens now? The majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go for a hip replacement. I hope this worries you, by the way -- (Laughter) when you go to see your physician. The thing is that no physician would ever say, "Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement. Let's go for hip replacement." But the moment you set this as the default, it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing. I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making. Imagine I give you a choice: Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome, all expenses paid -- hotel, transportation, food, a continental breakfast, everything -- or a weekend in Paris? Now, weekend in Paris, weekend in Rome -- these are different things. They have different food, different culture, different art. Imagine I added a choice to the set that nobody wanted. Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome, a weekend in Paris, or having your car stolen?" (Laughter) It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen, in this set, influence anything? (Laughter) But what if the option to have your car stolen was not exactly like this? What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid, transportation, breakfast, but it doesn't include coffee in the morning? If you want coffee, you have to pay for it yourself, it's two euros 50. (Laughter) Now in some ways, given that you can have Rome with coffee, why would you possibly want Rome without coffee? It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option. But guess what happened? The moment you add Rome without coffee, Rome with coffee becomes more popular, and people choose it. The fact that you have Rome without coffee makes Rome with coffee look superior, and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris. (Laughter) Here are two examples of this principle. This was an ad in The Economist a few years ago that gave us three choices: an online subscription for 59 dollars, a print subscription for 125 dollars, or you could get both for 125. (Laughter) Now I looked at this, and I called up The Economist, and I tried to figure out what they were thinking. And they passed me from one person to another to another, until eventually I got to the person who was in charge of the website, and I called them up, and they went to check what was going on. The next thing I know, the ad is gone, no explanation. So I decided to do the experiment that I would have loved The Economist to do with me. I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students. I said, "What would you choose?" These are the market shares -- most people wanted the combo deal. Thankfully, nobody wanted the dominant option. That means our students can read. (Laughter) But now, if you have an option that nobody wants, you can take it off, right? So I printed another version of this, where I eliminated the middle option. I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happened: Now the most popular option became the least popular, and the least popular became the most popular. What was happening was the option that was useless, in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it. But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out what they wanted. In fact, relative to the option in the middle, which was get only the print for 125, the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal. And as a consequence, people chose it. The general idea here, by the way, is that we actually don't know our preferences that well. And because we don't know our preferences that well, we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces: the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on. One more example of this. People believe that when we deal with physical attraction, we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not, if we're attracted or not. This is why we have these four-minute dates. So I decided to do this experiment with people. I'll show you images here, no real people, but the experiment was with people. I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry. and I said, "Who do you want to date? Tom or Jerry?" But for half the people, I added an ugly version of Jerry. I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive. (Laughter) For the other people, I added an ugly version of Tom. And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom help their respective, more attractive brothers? The answer was absolutely yes. When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular. When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular. (Laughter) This of course has two very clear implications for life in general. If you ever go bar-hopping, who do you want to take with you? (Laughter) You want a slightly uglier version of yourself. (Laughter) Similar, but slightly uglier. (Laughter) The second point, or course, is that if somebody invites you to bar hop, you know what they think about you. (Laughter) Now you get it. What is the general point? The general point is that, when we think about economics, we have this beautiful view of human nature. "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason!" We have this view of ourselves, of others. The behavioral economics perspective is slightly less "generous" to people; in fact, in medical terms, that's our view. (Laughter) But there is a silver lining. The silver lining is, I think, kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting. Are we Superman, or are we Homer Simpson? When it comes to building the physical world, we kind of understand our limitations. We build steps. And we build these things that not everybody can use, obviously. (Laughter) We understand our limitations, and we build around them. But for some reason, when it comes to the mental world, when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stock markets, we somehow forget the idea that we are limited. I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations in the same way we understand our physical limitations, even though they don't stare us in the face the same way, we could design a better world, and that, I think, is the hope of this thing. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Over the past couple of days as I've been preparing for my speech, I've become more and more nervous about what I'm going to say and about being on the same stage as all these fascinating people. Being on the same stage as Al Gore, who was the first person I ever voted for. And -- (Laughter) So I was getting pretty nervous and, you know, I didn't know that Chris sits on the stage, and that's more nerve wracking. But then I started thinking about my family. I started thinking about my father and my grandfather and my great-grandfather, and I realized that I had all of these Teds going through my blood stream -- (Laughter) -- that I had to consider this "my element." So, who am I? Chris kind of mentioned I started a company with my husband. We have about 125 people internationally. If you looked in the book, you saw this, which I really was appalled by. (Laughter) And because I wanted to impress you all with slides, since I saw the great presentations yesterday with graphs, I made a graph that moves, and I talk about the makeup of me. (Laughter) So, besides this freakish thing, this is my science slide. This is math, and this is science; this is genetics. This is my grandmother, and this is where I get this mouth. (Laughter) I'm a blogger, which, probably to a lot of you, means different things. You may have heard about the Kryptonite lock brouhaha, where a blogger talked about how you hack, or break into, a Kryptonite lock using a ballpoint pen, and it spread all over. Kryptonite had to adjust the lock, and they had to address it to avoid too many customer concerns. You may have heard about Rathergate, which was basically the result of bloggers realizing that the "th" in 111 is not typesetted on an old typewriter; it's on Word. Bloggers exposed this, or they worked hard to expose this. You know, blogs are scary. This is what you see. I see this, and I'm sure scared -- and I swear on stage -- shitless about blogs, because this is not something that's friendly. But there are blogs that are changing the way we read news and consume media, and, you know, these are great examples. These people are reaching thousands, if not millions, of readers, and that's incredibly important. During the hurricane, you had MSNBC posting about the hurricane on their blog, updating it frequently. This was possible because of the easy nature of blogging tools. You have my friend, who has a blog on digital -- on PDRs, personal recorders. He makes enough money, just by running ads, to support his family up in Oregon. That's all he does now, and this is something that blogs have made possible. And then you have something like this, which is Interplast. It's a wonderful organization of people and doctors who go to developing nations to offer plastic surgery to those who need it. Children with cleft palates will get it, and they document their story. This is wonderful. I am not that caring. (Laughter) I talk about myself. That's what I am. I'm a blogger. I have always decided that I was going to be an expert on one thing, and I am an expert on this person, and so I write about it. And -- the short story about my blog: it started in 2001. I was 23. I wasn't happy with my job, because I was a designer, but I wasn't being really stimulated. I was an English major in college. I didn't have any use for it, but I missed writing. So, I started to write a blog and I started to create things like these little stories. This was an illustration about my camp experience when I was 11 years old, and how I went to a YMCA camp -- Christian camp -- and basically by the end, I had made my friends hate me so much that I hid in a bunk. They couldn't find me. They sent a search party, and I overheard people saying they wish I had killed myself, jumped off Bible Peak. You can laugh, this is OK. This is me. This is what happened to me. And when I started my blog it was really this one goal -- I said, I am not going to be famous to the world, but I could be famous to people on the Internet. And I set a goal. I said, "I'm going to win an award," because I had never won an award in my entire life. And I said, "I'm going to win this award -- the South by Southwest Weblog award." And I won it. I reached all of these people, and I had tens of thousands of people reading about my life everyday. And then I wrote a post about a banjo. I wrote a post about wanting to buy a banjo -- a $300 banjo, which is a lot of money, and I don't play instruments; I don't know anything about music. I like music, and I like banjos, and I think I probably heard Steve Martin playing, and I said, "I could do that." And I said to my husband, I said, "Ben, can I buy a banjo?" And he's like, "No." And my husband -- this is my husband, who is very hot -- he won an award for being hot -- (Laughter) -- he told me, "You cannot buy a banjo. You're just like your dad," who "collects" instruments. And I wrote a post about how I was so mad at him; he was such a tyrant because he would not let me buy this banjo. And those people who know me understood my joke. This is Mena, this is how I make a joke at people. Because the joke in this is that this person is not a tyrant: this person is so loving and so sweet that he lets me dress him up and post pictures of him to my blog. (Laughter) And if he knew I was showing this right now -- I put this in today -- he would kill me. But the thing was, I wrote this, and my friends read it, and they're like, "Oh, that Mena, she wrote a post about, you know, wanting a stupid thing and being stupid." But I got emails from people that said, "Oh my God, your husband is such an asshole. How much money does he spend on beer in a year? You could take that money and buy your banjo. Why don't you open a separate account?" I've been with him since I was 17 years old. We've never had a separate bank account. They said, "Separate your bank account -- spend your money; spend his money. That's it." And then I got people saying, "Leave him." And -- I was like, "OK, what, who are these people? And why are they reading this?" And I realized: I don't want to reach these people. I don't want to write for this public audience. And I started to kill my blog slowly. I'm like, I don't want to write this anymore, and I slowly and slowly -- And I did tell personal stories from time to then. I wrote this one, and I put this up because of Einstein today. And I'm going to get choked up, because this is my first pet, and she passed away two years ago. And I decided to break from, "I don't really write about my public life," because I wanted to give her a little memorial. But anyways. It's these sort of personal stories. You know, you read the blogs about politics, or about media, and gossip and all these things. These are out there, but it's more of the personal that interests me, and this is -- this is who I am. You see Norman Rockwell. And you have art critics say, "Norman Rockwell is not art. Norman Rockwell hangs in living rooms and bathrooms, and this is not something to be considered high art." And I think this is one of the most important things to us as humans. These things resonate with us, and, if you think about blogs, you think of high art blogs, the history paintings about, you know, all biblical stories, and then you have this. These are the blogs that interest me: the people who just tell stories. One story is about this baby, and his name is Odin. His father was a blogger. And he was writing his blog one day, and his wife gave birth to her baby at 25 weeks. And he never expected this. One day it was normal; the next day it was hell. And this is a one-pound baby. So Odin was documented every single day. Pictures were taken every day: day one, day two ... You have day nine -- they're talking about his apnea; day 39 -- he gets pneumonia. His baby is so small, and I've never encountered such a just -- a disturbing image, but just -- just so heartfelt. You're reading this as this happens, so on day 55, everybody reads that he's having failures: breathing failures and heart failures, and it's slowing down, and you don't know what to expect. But then it gets better. Day 96 he goes home. And you see this post. That's not something that you're going to see in a paper or a magazine but this is something that this person feels, and people are excited about it. Twenty-eight comments. That's not a huge amount of people reading, but 28 people matter. And today he is a healthy baby, who, if you read his blog -- it's Snowdeal.org, his father's blog -- he is taking pictures of him still, because he is still his son and he is, I think, at his age level right now because he had received such great treatment from the hospital. So, blogs. So what? You've probably heard these things before. We talked about the WELL, and we talked about all these sort of things throughout our online history. But I think blogs are basically just an evolution, and that's where we are today. It's this record of who you are, your persona. You have your Google search where you say, "Hey, what is Mena Trott?" And then you find these things and you're happy or unhappy. But then you also find people's blogs, and those are the records of people who are writing daily -- not necessarily about the same topic, but things that interest them. And we talk about the world flattens as being this panel, and I am very optimistic. Whenever I think about blogs I'm like, "Oh, we've got to reach all these people." Millions and hundreds of millions and billions of people. You know, we're getting into China, we want to be there, but you know, there are so many people who won't have the access to write a blog. But to see something like the $100 computer is amazing, because it's a -- blogging software is simple. We have a successful company because of timing, and because of perseverance, but it's simple stuff -- it's not rocket science. And so, that's an amazing thing to consider. So, the life record of a blog is something that I find incredibly important. We started with a slide of my Teds, and I had to add this slide, because I knew that the minute I showed this, my mom -- my mom will see this deck somehow, because she does read my blog -- and she'll say, "Why wasn't there a picture of me?" This is my mom. So, I have all of the people that I know of. But this is basically the extent of the family that I know in terms of my direct line. I showed a Norman Rockwell painting before, and this one I grew up with, looking at constantly. I would spend hours looking at just the connections, saying, "Oh, the little kid up at the top has red hair; so does that first generation up there." And just these little things. This is not science, but this was enough for me to be really so interested in how we have evolved and how we can trace our line. So, that has always influenced me. I have this record, this 1910 census of another Grabowski -- that's my maiden name -- and there's a Theodore, because there's always a Theodore. This is all I have. I have a couple of facts about somebody. I have their date of birth, and their age, and what they did in their household, if they spoke English, and that's it. That's all I know of these people. And it's pretty sad, because I only go back five generations, and then it's it. I don't even know what happens on my mom's side, because she's from Cuba and I don't have that many things. And just doing this I spent time in the archives -- that's another thing why my husband's a saint -- I spent time in the Washington archives, just sitting there, looking for these things. Now it's online, but he sat through that. And so you have this record and, you know, this is my great-great-grandmother. This is the only picture I have. And to think of what we have the ability to do with our blogs; to think about the people who are on those $100 computers talking about who they are, sharing these personal stories -- this is an amazing thing. Another photo that has greatly influenced me, or a series of photos, is this project that's done by an Argentinean man and his wife. And he's basically taking a picture of his family everyday for the past, what is '76 -- 20, oh my God, I'm '77 -- 29 years? Twenty-nine years. There was a joke, originally, about my graph that I left out, which is: you see all this math? I'm just happy I was able to add it up to 100, because that's my skill set. So you have these people aging, and now this is them today, or last year, and that's a powerful thing to have, to be able to track this. I wish that I would have this of my family. I know that one day my children will be wondering -- or my grandchildren, or my great-grandchildren, if I ever have children -- what I am going to -- who I was, so I do something that's very narcissistic: I am a blogger -- that is an amazing thing for me, because it captures a moment in time everyday. I take a picture of myself -- I've been doing this since last year -- every single day. And, you know, it's the same picture; it's basically the same person. Only a couple of people read it. I don't write this for this audience; I'm showing it now, but I would go insane if this was really public. About four people probably read it, and they tell me, you know, "You haven't updated" -- I'm probably going to get people telling me I haven't updated -- but this is something that's amazing, because I can go back to a day -- I can go back to April 2005, and say, what was I doing this day? I look at it, I know exactly. It's this visual cue that is so important to what we do. I put the bad pictures up too, because there are bad pictures. (Laughter) And I remember instantly: I am in Germany in this -- I had to go for a one-day trip. I was sick, and I was in a hotel room, and I wanted not to be there. And so you see these things. It's not just always smiling. Now I've kind of evolved it, so I have this look. If you look at my driver's license I have the same look, and it's -- it's -- a pretty disturbing thing but it's something that is really important. And the last story I really want to tell is this story, because this is probably the one that means the most to me in all of what I'm doing. And I'll probably get choked up, because I tend to when I talk about this. So, this woman, her name was Emma, and she was a blogger on our service, TypePad. And she was a beta tester, so she was there right when we opened -- you know, there were 100 people -- and she wrote about her life dealing with cancer. She was writing and writing and writing, and we all started reading it, because we had so few blogs on the service, we could keep track of everyone. And she was writing one day, and, you know, then she disappeared for a little bit. And her sister came on, and she said that Emma had passed away. And all of our support staff who had talked to her were really emotional, and it was a very hard day at the company. And this was one of those instances where I realized how much blogging affects our relationship, and flattening this sort of world. That this woman is in England, and she lives -- she lived a life where she was talking about what she was doing. But the big thing that really influenced us was, her sister wrote to me, and she said, you know, and she wrote on this blog, that -- writing her blog during the last couple of months of her life was probably the best thing that had happened to her, and being able to talk to people, being able to share what was going on, and being able to write and receive comments. And that was amazing -- to be able to know that we had empowered that, and that blogging was something that she felt comfortable doing, and that the idea that blogging doesn't have to be scary, that we don't always have to be attack of the blogs, that we can be people who are open, and wanting to help and talk to people. That was an amazing thing. And -- and so I printed out her -- or I sent a PDF of her blog to her family, and they passed it out at her memorial service, and even in her obituary, they mentioned her blog because it was such a big part of her life. And that's a huge thing. So, this is her legacy, and I think that my call to action to all of you is: you know, think about blogs, think about what they are, think about what you've thought of them, and then actually do it, because it's something that is really going to change our lives. So, thank you. (Applause)

What technology can we really apply to reducing global poverty? And what I found was quite surprising. We started looking at things like death rates in the 20th century, and how they'd been improved, and very simple things turned out. You'd think maybe antibiotics made more difference than clean water, but it's actually the opposite. And so very simple things -- off-the-shelf technologies that we could easily find on the then-early Web -- would clearly make a huge difference to that problem. But I also, in looking at more powerful technologies and nanotechnology and genetic engineering and other new emerging kind of digital technologies, became very concerned about the potential for abuse. If you think about it, in history, a long, long time ago we dealt with the problem of an individual abusing another individual. We came up with something -- the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not kill. That's a, kind of a one-on-one thing. We organized into cities. We had many people. And to keep the many from tyrannizing the one, we came up with concepts like individual liberty. And then, to have to deal with large groups, say, at the nation-state level, and we had to have mutual non-aggression, or through a series of conflicts, we eventually came to a rough international bargain to largely keep the peace. But now we have a new situation, really what people call an asymmetric situation, where technology is so powerful that it extends beyond a nation-state. It's not the nation-states that have potential access to mass destruction, but individuals. And this is a consequence of the fact that these new technologies tend to be digital. We saw genome sequences. You can download the gene sequences of pathogens off the Internet if you want to, and clearly someone recently -- I saw in a science magazine -- they said, well, the 1918 flu is too dangerous to FedEx around. If people want to use it in their labs for working on research, just reconstruct it yourself, because, you know, it might break in FedEx. So that this is possible to do this is not deniable. So individuals in small groups super-empowered by access to these kinds of self-replicating technologies, whether it be biological or other, are clearly a danger in our world. And the danger is that they can cause roughly what's a pandemic. And we really don't have experience with pandemics, and we're also not very good as a society at acting to things we don't have direct and sort of gut-level experience with. So it's not in our nature to pre-act. And in this case, piling on more technology doesn't solve the problem, because it only super-empowers people more. So the solution has to be, as people like Russell and Einstein and others imagine in a conversation that existed in a much stronger form, I think, early in the 20th century, that the solution had to be not just the head but the heart. You know, public policy and moral progress. The bargain that gives us civilization is a bargain to not use power. We get our individual rights by society protecting us from others not doing everything they can do but largely doing only what is legal. And so to limit the danger of these new things, we have to limit, ultimately, the ability of individuals to have access, essentially, to pandemic power. We also have to have sensible defense, because no limitation is going to prevent a crazy person from doing something. And you know, and the troubling thing is that it's much easier to do something bad than to defend against all possible bad things, so the offensive uses really have an asymmetric advantage. So these are the kind of thoughts I was thinking in 1999 and 2000, and my friends told me I was getting really depressed, and they were really worried about me. And then I signed a book contract to write more gloomy thoughts about this and moved into a hotel room in New York with one room full of books on the Plague, and you know, nuclear bombs exploding in New York where I would be within the circle, and so on. And then I was there on September 11th, and I stood in the streets with everyone. And it was quite an experience to be there. I got up the next morning and walked out of the city, and all the sanitation trucks were parked on Houston Street and ready to go down and start taking the rubble away. And I walked down the middle, up to the train station, and everything below 14th Street was closed. It was quite a compelling experience, but not really, I suppose, a surprise to someone who'd had his room full of the books. It was always a surprise that it happened then and there, but it wasn't a surprise that it happened at all. And everyone then started writing about this. Thousands of people started writing about this. And I eventually abandoned the book, and then Chris called me to talk at the conference. I really don't talk about this anymore because, you know, there's enough frustrating and depressing things going on. But I agreed to come and say a few things about this. And I would say that we can't give up the rule of law to fight an asymmetric threat, which is what we seem to be doing because of the present, the people that are in power, because that's to give up the thing that makes civilization. And we can't fight the threat in the kind of stupid way we're doing, because a million-dollar act causes a billion dollars of damage, causes a trillion dollar response which is largely ineffective and arguably, probably almost certainly, has made the problem worse. So we can't fight the thing with a million-to-one cost, one-to-a-million cost-benefit ratio. So after giving up on the book -- and I had the great honor to be able to join Kleiner Perkins about a year ago, and to work through venture capital on the innovative side, and to try to find some innovations that could address what I saw as some of these big problems. Things where, you know, a factor of 10 difference can make a factor of 1,000 difference in the outcome. I've been amazed in the last year at the incredible quality and excitement of the innovations that have come across my desk. It's overwhelming at times. I'm very thankful for Google and Wikipedia so I can understand at least a little of what people are talking about who come through the doors. But I wanted to share with you three areas that I'm particularly excited about and that relate to the problems that I was talking about in the Wired article. The first is this whole area of education, and it really relates to what Nicholas was talking about with a $100 computer. And that is to say that there's a lot of legs left in Moore's Law. The most advanced transistors today are at 65 nanometers, and we've seen, and I've had the pleasure to invest in, companies that give me great confidence that we'll extend Moore's Law all the way down to roughly the 10 nanometer scale. Another factor of, say, six in dimensional reduction, which should give us about another factor of 100 in raw improvement in what the chips can do. And so, to put that in practical terms, if something costs about 1,000 dollars today, say, the best personal computer you can buy, that might be its cost, I think we can have that in 2020 for 10 dollars. Okay? Now, just imagine what that $100 computer will be in 2020 as a tool for education. I think the challenge for us is -- I'm very certain that that will happen, the challenge is, will we develop the kind of educational tools and things with the net to let us take advantage of that device? I'd argue today that we have incredibly powerful computers, but we don't have very good software for them. And it's only in retrospect, after the better software comes along, and you take it and you run it on a ten-year-old machine, you say, God, the machine was that fast? I remember when they took the Apple Mac interface and they put it back on the Apple II. The Apple II was perfectly capable of running that kind of interface, we just didn't know how to do it at the time. So given that we know and should believe -- because Moore's Law's been, like, a constant, I mean, it's just been very predictable progress over the last 40 years or whatever. We can know what the computers are going to be like in 2020. It's great that we have initiatives to say, let's go create the education and educate people in the world, because that's a great force for peace. And we can give everyone in the world a $100 computer or a $10 computer in the next 15 years. The second area that I'm focusing on is the environmental problem, because that's clearly going to put a lot of pressure on this world. We'll hear a lot more about that from Al Gore very shortly. The thing that we see as the kind of Moore's Law trend that's driving improvement in our ability to address the environmental problem is new materials. We have a challenge, because the urban population is growing in this century from two billion to six billion in a very short amount of time. People are moving to the cities. They all need clean water, they need energy, they need transportation, and we want them to develop in a green way. We're reasonably efficient in the industrial sectors. We've made improvements in energy and resource efficiency, but the consumer sector, especially in America, is very inefficient. But these new materials bring such incredible innovations that there's a strong basis for hope that these things will be so profitable that they can be brought to the market. And I want to give you a specific example of a new material that was discovered 15 years ago. If we take carbon nanotubes, you know, Iijima discovered them in 1991, they just have incredible properties. And these are the kinds of things we're going to discover as we start to engineer at the nano scale. Their strength: they're almost the strongest material, tensile strength material known. They're very, very stiff. They stretch very, very little. In two dimensions, if you make, like, a fabric out of them, they're 30 times stronger than Kevlar. And if you make a three-dimensional structure, like a buckyball, they have all sorts of incredible properties. If you shoot a particle at them and knock a hole in them, they repair themselves; they go zip and they repair the hole in femtoseconds, which is not -- is really quick. (Laughter) If you shine a light on them, they produce electricity. In fact, if you flash them with a camera they catch on fire. If you put electricity on them, they emit light. If you run current through them, you can run 1,000 times more current through one of these than through a piece of metal. You can make both p- and n-type semiconductors, which means you can make transistors out of them. They conduct heat along their length but not across -- well, there is no width, but not in the other direction if you stack them up; that's a property of carbon fiber also. If you put particles in them, and they go shooting out the tip -- they're like miniature linear accelerators or electron guns. The inside of the nanotubes is so small -- the smallest ones are 0.7 nanometers -- that it's basically a quantum world. It's a strange place inside a nanotube. And so we begin to see, and we've seen business plans already, where the kind of things Lisa Randall's talking about are in there. I had one business plan where I was trying to learn more about Witten's cosmic dimension strings to try to understand what the phenomenon was going on in this proposed nanomaterial. So inside of a nanotube, we're really at the limit here. So what we see is with these and other new materials that we can do things with different properties -- lighter, stronger -- and apply these new materials to the environmental problems. New materials that can make water, new materials that can make fuel cells work better, new materials that catalyze chemical reactions, that cut pollution and so on. Ethanol -- new ways of making ethanol. New ways of making electric transportation. The whole green dream -- because it can be profitable. And we've dedicated -- we've just raised a new fund, we dedicated 100 million dollars to these kinds of investments. We believe that Genentech, the Compaq, the Lotus, the Sun, the Netscape, the Amazon, the Google in these fields are yet to be found, because this materials revolution will drive these things forward. The third area that we're working on, and we just announced last week -- we were all in New York. We raised 200 million dollars in a specialty fund to work on a pandemic in biodefense. And to give you an idea of the last fund that Kleiner raised was a $400 million fund, so this for us is a very substantial fund. And what we did, over the last few months -- well, a few months ago, Ray Kurzweil and I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about how publishing the 1918 genome was very dangerous. And John Doerr and Brook and others got concerned, [unclear], and we started looking around at what the world was doing about being prepared for a pandemic. And we saw a lot of gaps. And so we asked ourselves, you know, can we find innovative things that will go fill these gaps? And Brooks told me in a break here, he said he's found so much stuff he can't sleep, because there's so many great technologies out there, we're essentially buried. And we need them, you know. We have one antiviral that people are talking about stockpiling that still works, roughly. That's Tamiflu. But Tamiflu -- the virus is resistant. It is resistant to Tamiflu. We've discovered with AIDS we need cocktails to work well so that the viral resistance -- we need several anti-virals. We need better surveillance. We need networks that can find out what's going on. We need rapid diagnostics so that we can tell if somebody has a strain of flu which we have only identified very recently. We've got to be able to make the rapid diagnostics quickly. We need new anti-virals and cocktails. We need new kinds of vaccines. Vaccines that are broad spectrum. Vaccines that we can manufacture quickly. Cocktails, more polyvalent vaccines. You normally get a trivalent vaccine against three possible strains. We need -- we don't know where this thing is going. We believe that if we could fill these 10 gaps, we have a chance to help really reduce the risk of a pandemic. And the difference between a normal flu season and a pandemic is about a factor of 1,000 in deaths and certainly enormous economic impact. So we're very excited because we think we can fund 10, or speed up 10 projects and see them come to market in the next couple years that will address this. So if we can address, use technology, help address education, help address the environment, help address the pandemic, does that solve the larger problem that I was talking about in the Wired article? And I'm afraid the answer is really no, because you can't solve a problem with the management of technology with more technology. If we let an unlimited amount of power loose, then we will -- a very small number of people will be able to abuse it. We can't fight at a million-to-one disadvantage. So what we need to do is, we need better policy. And for example, some things we could do that would be policy solutions which are not really in the political air right now but perhaps with the change of administration would be -- use markets. Markets are a very strong force. For example, rather than trying to regulate away problems, which probably won't work, if we could price into the cost of doing business, the cost of catastrophe, so that people who are doing things that had a higher cost of catastrophe would have to take insurance against that risk. So if you wanted to put a drug on the market you could put it on. But it wouldn't have to be approved by regulators; you'd have to convince an actuary that it would be safe. And if you apply the notion of insurance more broadly, you can use a more powerful force, a market force, to provide feedback. How could you keep the law? I think the law would be a really good thing to keep. Well, you have to hold people accountable. The law requires accountability. Today scientists, technologists, businessmen, engineers don't have any personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. So if you tie that -- you have to tie that back with the law. And finally, I think we have to do something that's not really -- it's almost unacceptable to say this -- which, we have to begin to design the future. We can't pick the future, but we can steer the future. Our investment in trying to prevent pandemic flu is affecting the distribution of possible outcomes. We may not be able to stop it, but the likelihood that it will get past us is lower if we focus on that problem. So we can design the future if we choose what kind of things we want to have happen and not have happen, and steer us to a lower-risk place. Vice President Gore will talk about how we could steer the climate trajectory into a lower probability of catastrophic risk. But above all, what we have to do is we have to help the good guys, the people on the defensive side, have an advantage over the people who want to abuse things. And what we have to do to do that is we have to limit access to certain information. And growing up as we have, and holding very high the value of free speech, this is a hard thing for us to accept -- for all of us to accept. It's especially hard for the scientists to accept who still remember, you know, Galileo essentially locked up, and who are still fighting this battle against the church. But that's the price of having a civilization. The price of retaining the rule of law is to limit the access to the great and kind of unbridled power. Thank you. (Applause)

I am going to talk about myself, which I rarely do, because I -- well for one thing, I prefer to talk about things I know nothing about. And secondly, I'm a recovering narcissist. (Laughter) I didn't know I was a narcissist actually. I thought narcissism meant you loved yourself. And then someone told me there is a flip side to it. So it's actually drearier than self-love; it's unrequited self-love. (Laughter) I don't feel I can afford a relapse. But I want to, though, explain how I came to design my own particular brand of comedy because I've been through so many different forms of it. I started with improvisation, in a particular form of improvisation called theater games, which had one rule, which I always thought was a great rule for an ethic for a society. And the rule was, you couldn't deny the other person's reality, you could only build on it. And of course we live in a society that's all about contradicting other peoples' reality. It's all about contradiction, which I think is why I'm so sensitive to contradiction in general. I see it everywhere. Like polls. You know, it's always curious to me that in public opinion polls the percentage of Americans who don't know the answer to any given question is always two percent. 75 percent of Americans think Alaska is part of Canada. But only two percent don't know the effect that the debacle in Argentina will have on the IMF's monetary policy -- (Laughter) seems a contradiction. Or this ad that I read in the New York Times: "Wearing a fine watch speaks loudly of your rank in society. Buying it from us screams good taste." (Laughter) Or this that I found in a magazine called California Lawyer, in an article that is surely meant for the lawyers at Enron. "Surviving the Slammer: Do's and Don'ts." (Laughter) "Don't use big words." (Laughter) "Learn the lingua franca." (Laughter) Yeah. "Lingua this, Frankie." (Laughter) And I suppose it's a contradiction that I talk about science when I don't know math. You know, because -- and by the way to I was so grateful to Dean Kamen for pointing out that one of the reasons, that there are cultural reasons that women and minorities don't enter the fields of science and technology -- because for instance, the reason I don't do math is, I was taught to do math and read at the same time. So you're six years old, you're reading Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, and it becomes rapidly obvious that there are only two kinds of men in the world: dwarves and Prince Charmings. And the odds are seven to one against your finding the prince. (Laughter) That's why little girls don't do math. It's too depressing. (Laughter) Of course, by talking about science I also may, as I did the other night, incur the violent wrath of some scientists who were very upset with me. I used the word postmodern as if it were OK. And they got very upset. One of them, to his credit, I think really just wanted to engage me in a serious argument. But I don't engage in serious arguments. I don't approve of them because arguments, of course, are all about contradiction, and they're shaped by the values that I have questions with. I have questions with the values of Newtonian science, like rationality. You're supposed to be rational in an argument. Well rationality is constructed by what Christie Hefner was talking about today, that mind-body split, you know? The head is good, body bad. Head is ego, body id. When we say "I," -- as when Rene Descartes said, "I think therefore I am," -- we mean the head. And as David Lee Roth sang in "Just a Gigolo," "I ain't got no body." That's how you get rationality. And that's why so much of humor is the body asserting itself against the head. That's why you have toilet humor and sexual humor. That's why you have the Raspyni Brothers whacking Richard in the genital area. And we're laughing doubly then because he's the body, but it's also -- Voice offstage: Richard. Emily Levine: Richard. What did I say? (Laughter) Richard. Yes but it's also the head, the head of the conference. That's the other way that humor -- like Art Buchwald takes shots at the heads of state. It doesn't make quite as much money as body humor I'm sure -- (Laughter) but nevertheless, what makes us treasure you and adore you. There's also a contradiction in rationality in this country though, which is, as much as we revere the head, we are very anti-intellectual. I know this because I read in the New York Times, the Ayn Rand foundation took out a full-page ad after September 11, in which they said, "The problem is not Iraq or Iran, the problem in this country, facing this country is the university professors and their spawn." (Laughter) So I went back and re-read "The Fountainhead." (Laughter) I don't know how many of you have read it. And I'm not an expert on sadomasochism. (Laughter) But let me just read you a couple of random passages from page 217. "The act of a master taking painful contemptuous possession of her, was the kind of rapture she wanted. When they lay together in bed it was, as it had to be, as the nature of the act demanded, an act of violence. It was an act of clenched teeth and hatred. It was the unendurable. Not a caress, but a wave of pain. The agony as an act of passion." So you can imagine my surprise on reading in The New Yorker that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, claims Ayn Rand as his intellectual mentor. (Laughter) It's like finding out your nanny is a dominatrix. (Laughter) Bad enough we had to see J. Edgar Hoover in a dress. Now we have to picture Alan Greenspan in a black leather corset, with a butt tattoo that says, "Whip inflation now." (Laughter) And Ayn Rand of course, Ayn Rand is famous for a philosophy called Objectivism, which reflects another value of Newtonian physics, which is objectivity. Objectivity basically is constructed in that same S&M way. It's the subject subjugating the object. That's how you assert yourself. You make yourself the active voice. And the object is the passive no-voice. I was so fascinated by that Oxygen commercial. I don't know if you know this but -- maybe it's different now, or maybe you were making a statement -- but in many hospital nurseries across the country, until very recently anyway, according to a book by Jessica Benjamin, the signs over the little boys cribs read, "I'm a boy," and the signs over the little girls cribs read, "It's a girl." Yeah. So the passivity was culturally projected onto the little girls. And this still goes on as I think I told you last year. There's a poll that proves -- there was a poll that was given by Time magazine, in which only men were asked, "Have you ever had sex with a woman you actively disliked?" And well, yeah. Well, 58 percent said yes, which I think is overinflated though because so many men if you just say, "Have you ever had sex ... " "Yes!" They don't even wait for the rest of it. (Laughter) And of course two percent did not know whether they'd had -- (Laughter) That's the first callback, of my attempted quadruple. (Laughter) So this subject-object thing, is part of something I'm very interested in because this is why, frankly, I believe in political correctness. I do. I think it can go too far. I think Ringling Brothers may have gone too far with an ad they took out in the New York Times Magazine. "We have a lifelong emotional and financial commitment to our Asian Elephant partners." (Laughter) Maybe too far. But you know -- I don't think that a person of color making fun of white people is the same thing as a white person making fun of people of color. Or women making fun of men is the same as men making fun of women. Or poor people making fun of rich people, the same as rich people. I think you can make fun of the have but not the have-nots, which is why you don't see me making fun of Kenneth Lay and his charming wife. (Laughter) What's funny about being down to four houses? (Laughter) And I really learned this lesson during the sex scandals of the Clinton administration or, Or as I call them, the good ol' days. (Laughter) When people I knew, you know, people who considered themselves liberal, and everything else, were making fun of Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. Basically, they were making fun of them for being trailer trash or white trash. It seems, I suppose, a harmless prejudice and that you're not really hurting anybody. Until you read, as I did, an ad in the Los Angeles Times. "For sale: White trash compactor." (Laughter) So this whole subject-object thing has relevance to humor in this way. I read a book by a woman named Amy Richlin, who is the chair of the Classics department at USC. And the book is called "The Garden of Priapus." And she says that Roman humor mirrors the construction of Roman society. So that Roman society was very top/bottom, as ours is to some degree. And so was humor. There always had to be the butt of a joke. So it was always the satirist, like Juvenal or Martial, represented the audience, and he was going to make fun of the outsider, the person who didn't share that subject status. And in stand-up of course, the stand-up comedian is supposed to dominate the audience. A lot of heckling is the tension of trying to make sure that the comedian is going to be able to dominate, and overcome the heckler. And I got good at that when I was in stand up. But I always hated it because they were dictating the terms of the interaction, in the same way that engaging in a serious argument determines the content, to some degree, of what you're talking about. And I was looking for a form that didn't have that. And so I wanted something that was more interactive. I know that word is so debased now by the use of it by Internet marketers. I really miss the old telemarketers now, I'll tell you that. (Laughter) I do, because at least there you stood a chance. You know? I used to actually hang up on them. But then I read in "Dear Abby" that that was rude. So the next time that one called I let him get halfway through his spiel and then I said, "You sound sexy." (Laughter) He hung up on me! (Laughter) But the interactivity allows the audience to shape what you're going to do as much as you shape their experience of the world. And that's really what I'm looking for. And I was sort of, as I was starting to analyze what exactly it is that I do, I read a book called "Trickster Makes This World," by Lewis Hyde. And it was like being psychoanalyzed. I mean he had laid it all out. And then coming to this conference, I realized that most everybody here shared those same qualities because really what trickster is is an agent of change. Trickster is a change agent. And the qualities that I'm about to describe are the qualities that make it possible to make change happen. And one of these is boundary crossing. I think this is what so, in fact, infuriated the scientists. But I like to cross boundaries. I like to, as I said, talk about things I know nothing about. (Phone Ringing) I hope that's my agent, because you aren't paying me anything. (Laughter) And I think it's good to talk about things I know nothing about because I bring a fresh viewpoint to it, you know? I'm able to see the contradiction that you may not be able to see. Like for instance a mime once -- or a meme as he called himself. He was a very selfish meme. And he said that I had to show more respect because it took up to 18 years to learn how to do mime properly. And I said, "Well, that's how you know only stupid people go into it." (Laughter) It only takes two years to learn how to talk. (Laughter) (Applause) And you know people, this is the problem with quote, objectivity, unquote. When you're only surrounded by people who speak the same vocabulary as you, or share the same set of assumptions as you, you start to think that that's reality. Like economists, you know, their definition of rational, that we all act out of our own economic self-interest. Well, look at Michael Hawley, or look at Dean Kamen, or look at my grandmother. My grandmother always acted in other people's interests, whether they wanted her to or not. (Laughter) If they had had an Olympics in martyrdom, my grandmother would have lost on purpose. (Laughter) "No, you take the prize. You're young. I'm old. Who's going to see it? Where am I going? I'm going to die soon." (Laughter) So that's one -- this boundary crossing, this go-between which -- Fritz Lanting, is that his name, actually said that he was a go-between. That's an actual quality of the trickster. And another is, non-oppositional strategies. And this is instead of contradiction. Where you deny the other person's reality, you have paradox where you allow more than one reality to coexist, I think there's another philosophical construction. I'm not sure what it's called. But my example of it is a sign that I saw in a jewelry store. It said, "Ears pierced while you wait." (Laughter) There the alternative just boggles the imagination. (Laughter) "Oh no. Thanks though, I'll leave them here. Thanks very much. I have some errands to run. So I'll be back to pick them up around five, if that's OK with you. Huh? Huh? What? Can't hear you." (Laughter) And another attribute of the trickster is smart luck. That accidents, that Louis Kahn, who talked about accidents, this is another quality of the trickster. The trickster has a mind that is prepared for the unprepared. That, and I will say this to the scientists, that the trickster has the ability to hold his ideas lightly so that he can let room in for new ideas or to see the contradictions or the hidden problems with his ideas. I had no joke for that. I just wanted to put the scientists in their place. (Laughter) But here's how I think I like to make change, and that is in making connections. This is what I tend to see almost more than contradictions. Like the, what do you call those toes of the gecko? You know, the toes of the gecko, curling and uncurling like the fingers of Michael Moschen. I love connections. Like I'll read that one of the two attributes of matter in the Newtonian universe -- there are two attributes of matter in the Newtonian universe -- one is space occupancy. Matter takes up space. I guess the more you matter the more space you take up, which explains the whole SUV phenomenon. (Laughter) And the other one though is impenetrability. Well, in ancient Rome, impenetrability was the criterion of masculinity. Masculinity depended on you being the active penetrator. And then, in economics, there's an active producer and a passive consumer, which explains why business always has to penetrate new markets. Well yeah, I mean why we forced China to open her markets. And didn't that feel good? (Laughter) And now we're being penetrated. You know the biotech companies are actually going inside us and planting their little flags on our genes. You know we're being penetrated. And I suspect, by someone who actively dislikes us. (Laughter) That's the second of the quadruple. Yes of course you got that. Thank you very much. I still have a way to go. (Laughter) And what I hope to do, when I make these connections, is short circuit people's thinking. You know, make you not follow your usual train of association, but make you rewire. It literally -- when people say about the shock of recognition, it's literally re-cognition, rewiring how you think -- I had a joke to go with this and I forgot it. I'm so sorry. I'm getting like the woman in that joke about -- have you heard this joke about the woman driving with her mother? And the mother is elderly. And the mother goes right through a red light. And the daughter doesn't want to say anything. She doesn't want to be like, "You're too old to drive." And the mother goes through a second red light. And the daughter says, as tactfully as possible, "Mom, are you aware that you just went through two red lights?" And the mother says, "Oh! Am I driving?" (Laughter) And that's the shock of recognition at the shock of recognition. That completes the quadruple. (Laughter) I just want to say two more things. One is, another characteristic of trickster is that the trickster has to walk this fine line. He has to have poise. And you know the biggest hurdle for me, in doing what I do, is constructing my performance so that it's prepared and unprepared. Finding the balance between those things is always dangerous because you might tip off too much in the direction of unprepared. But being too prepared doesn't leave room for the accidents to happen. I was thinking about what Moshe Safdie said yesterday about beauty because in his book, Hyde says that sometimes trickster can tip over into beauty. But to do that you have to lose all the other qualities because once you're into beauty you're into a finished thing. You're into something that occupies space and inhabits time. It's an actual thing. And it is always extraordinary to see a thing of beauty. But if you don't do that, if you allow for the accident to keep on happening, you have the possibility of getting on a wavelength. I like to think of what I do as a probability wave. When you go into beauty the probability wave collapses into one possibility. And I like to explore all the possibilities in the hope that you'll be on the wavelength of your audience. And the one final quality I want to say about trickster is that he doesn't have a home. He's always on the road. I want to say to you Richard, in closing, that in TED you've created a home. And thank you for inviting me into it. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I'm going to be talking to you about how we can tap a really underutilized resource in health care, which is the patient, or, as I like to use the scientific term, people. Because we are all patients, we are all people. Even doctors are patients at some point. So I want to talk about that as an opportunity that we really have failed to engage with very well in this country and, in fact, worldwide. If you want to get at the big part -- I mean from a public health level, where my training is -- you're looking at behavioral issues. You're looking at things where people are actually given information, and they're not following through with it. It's a problem that manifests itself in diabetes, obesity, many forms of heart disease, even some forms of cancer -- when you think of smoking. Those are all behaviors where people know what they're supposed to do. They know what they're supposed to be doing, but they're not doing it. Now behavior change is something that is a long-standing problem in medicine. It goes all the way back to Aristotle. And doctors hate it, right? I mean, they complain about it all the time. We talk about it in terms of engagement, or non-compliance. When people don't take their pills, when people don't follow doctors' orders -- these are behavior problems. But for as much as clinical medicine agonizes over behavior change, there's not a lot of work done in terms of trying to fix that problem. So the crux of it comes down to this notion of decision-making -- giving information to people in a form that doesn't just educate them or inform them, but actually leads them to make better decisions, better choices in their lives. One part of medicine, though, has faced the problem of behavior change pretty well, and that's dentistry. Dentistry might seem -- and I think it is -- many dentists would have to acknowledge it's somewhat of a mundane backwater of medicine. Not a lot of cool, sexy stuff happening in dentistry. But they have really taken this problem of behavior change and solved it. It's the one great preventive health success we have in our health care system. People brush and floss their teeth. They don't do it as much as they should, but they do it. So I'm going to talk about one experiment that a few dentists in Connecticut cooked up about 30 years ago. So this is an old experiment, but it's a really good one, because it was very simple, so it's an easy story to tell. So these Connecticut dentists decided that they wanted to get people to brush their teeth and floss their teeth more often, and they were going to use one variable: they wanted to scare them. They wanted to tell them how bad it would be if they didn't brush and floss their teeth. They had a big patient population. They divided them up into two groups. They had a low-fear population, where they basically gave them a 13-minute presentation, all based in science, but told them that, if you didn't brush and floss your teeth, you could get gum disease. If you get gum disease, you will lose your teeth, but you'll get dentures, and it won't be that bad. So that was the low-fear group. The high-fear group, they laid it on really thick. They showed bloody gums. They showed puss oozing out from between their teeth. They told them that their teeth were going to fall out. They said that they could have infections that would spread from their jaws to other parts of their bodies, and ultimately, yes, they would lose their teeth. They would get dentures, and if you got dentures, you weren't going to be able to eat corn-on-the-cob, you weren't going to be able to eat apples, you weren't going to be able to eat steak. You'll eat mush for the rest of your life. So go brush and floss your teeth. That was the message. That was the experiment. Now they measured one other variable. They wanted to capture one other variable, which was the patients' sense of efficacy. This was the notion of whether the patients felt that they actually would go ahead and brush and floss their teeth. So they asked them at the beginning, "Do you think you'll actually be able to stick with this program?" And the people who said, "Yeah, yeah. I'm pretty good about that," they were characterized as high efficacy, and the people who said, "Eh, I never get around to brushing and flossing as much as I should," they were characterized as low efficacy. So the upshot was this. The upshot of this experiment was that fear was not really a primary driver of the behavior at all. The people who brushed and flossed their teeth were not necessarily the people who were really scared about what would happen -- it's the people who simply felt that they had the capacity to change their behavior. So fear showed up as not really the driver. It was the sense of efficacy. So I want to isolate this, because it was a great observation -- 30 years ago, right, 30 years ago -- and it's one that's laid fallow in research. It was a notion that really came out of Albert Bandura's work, who studied whether people could get a sense of empowerment. The notion of efficacy basically boils down to one -- that if somebody believes that they have the capacity to change their behavior. In health care terms, you could characterize this as whether or not somebody feels that they see a path towards better health, that they can actually see their way towards getting better health, and that's a very important notion. It's an amazing notion. We don't really know how to manipulate it, though, that well. Except, maybe we do. So fear doesn't work, right? Fear doesn't work. And this is a great example of how we haven't learned that lesson at all. This is a campaign from the American Diabetes Association. This is still the way we're communicating messages about health. I mean, I showed my three-year-old this slide last night, and he's like, "Papa, why is an ambulance in these people's homes?" And I had to explain, "They're trying to scare people." And I don't know if it works. Now here's what does work: personalized information works. Again, Bandura recognized this years ago, decades ago. When you give people specific information about their health, where they stand, and where they want to get to, where they might get to, that path, that notion of a path -- that tends to work for behavior change. So let me just spool it out a little bit. So you start with personalized data, personalized information that comes from an individual, and then you need to connect it to their lives. You need to connect it to their lives, hopefully not in a fear-based way, but one that they understand. Okay, I know where I sit. I know where I'm situated. And that doesn't just work for me in terms of abstract numbers -- this overload of health information that we're inundated with. But it actually hits home. It's not just hitting us in our heads; it's hitting us in our hearts. There's an emotional connection to information because it's from us. That information then needs to be connected to choices, needs to be connected to a range of options, directions that we might go to -- trade-offs, benefits. Finally, we need to be presented with a clear point of action. We need to connect the information always with the action, and then that action feeds back into different information, and it creates, of course, a feedback loop. Now this is a very well-observed and well-established notion for behavior change. But the problem is that things -- in the upper-right corner there -- personalized data, it's been pretty hard to come by. It's a difficult and expensive commodity, until now. So I'm going to give you an example, a very simple example of how this works. So we've all seen these. These are the "your speed limit" signs. You've seen them all around, especially these days as radars are cheaper. And here's how they work in the feedback loop. So you start with the personalized data where the speed limit on the road that you are at that point is 25, and, of course, you're going faster than that. We always are. We're always going above the speed limit. The choice in this case is pretty simple. We either keep going fast, or we slow down. We should probably slow down, and that point of action is probably now. We should take our foot off the pedal right now, and generally we do. These things are shown to be pretty effective in terms of getting people to slow down. They reduce speeds by about five to 10 percent. They last for about five miles, in which case we put our foot back on the pedal. But it works, and it even has some health repercussions. Your blood pressure might drop a little bit. Maybe there's fewer accidents, so there's public health benefits. But by and large, this is a feedback loop that's so nifty and too rare. Because in health care, most health care, the data is very removed from the action. It's very difficult to line things up so neatly. But we have an opportunity. So I want to talk about, I want to shift now to think about how we deliver health information in this country, how we actually get information. This is a pharmaceutical ad. Actually, it's a spoof. It's not a real pharmaceutical ad. Nobody's had the brilliant idea of calling their drug Havidol quite yet. But it looks completely right. So it's exactly the way we get health information and pharmaceutical information, and it just sounds perfect. And then we turn the page of the magazine, and we see this -- now this is the page the FDA requires pharmaceutical companies to put into their ads, or to follow their ads, and to me, this is one of the most cynical exercises in medicine. Because we know. Who among us would actually say that people read this? And who among us would actually say that people who do try to read this actually get anything out of it? This is a bankrupt effort at communicating health information. There is no good faith in this. So this is a different approach. This is an approach that has been developed by a couple researchers at Dartmouth Medical School, Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin. And they created this thing called the "drug facts box." They took inspiration from, of all things, Cap'n Crunch. They went to the nutritional information box and saw that what works for cereal, works for our food, actually helps people understand what's in their food. God forbid we should use that same standard that we make Cap'n Crunch live by and bring it to drug companies. So let me just walk through this quickly. It says very clearly what the drug is for, specifically who it is good for, so you can start to personalize your understanding of whether the information is relevant to you or whether the drug is relevant to you. You can understand exactly what the benefits are. It isn't this kind of vague promise that it's going to work no matter what, but you get the statistics for how effective it is. And finally, you understand what those choices are. You can start to unpack the choices involved because of the side effects. Every time you take a drug, you're walking into a possible side effect. So it spells those out in very clean terms, and that works. So I love this. I love that drug facts box. And so I was thinking about, what's an opportunity that I could have to help people understand information? What's another latent body of information that's out there that people are really not putting to use? And so I came up with this: lab test results. Blood test results are this great source of information. They're packed with information. They're just not for us. They're not for people. They're not for patients. They go right to doctors. And God forbid -- I think many doctors, if you really asked them, they don't really understand all this stuff either. This is the worst presented information. You ask Tufte, and he would say, "Yes, this is the absolute worst presentation of information possible." What we did at Wired was we went, and I got our graphic design department to re-imagine these lab reports. So that's what I want to walk you through. So this is the general blood work before, and this is the after, this is what we came up with. The after takes what was four pages -- that previous slide was actually the first of four pages of data that's just the general blood work. It goes on and on and on, all these values, all these numbers you don't know. This is our one-page summary. We use the notion of color. It's an amazing notion that color could be used. So on the top-level you have your overall results, the things that might jump out at you from the fine print. Then you can drill down and understand how actually we put your level in context, and we use color to illustrate exactly where your value falls. In this case, this patient is slightly at risk of diabetes because of their glucose level. Likewise, you can go over your lipids and, again, understand what your overall cholesterol level is and then break down into the HDL and the LDL if you so choose. But again, always using color and personalized proximity to that information. All those other values, all those pages and pages of values that are full of nothing, we summarize. We tell you that you're okay, you're normal. But you don't have to wade through it. You don't have to go through the junk. And then we do two other very important things that kind of help fill in this feedback loop: we help people understand in a little more detail what these values are and what they might indicate. And then we go a further step -- we tell them what they can do. We give them some insight into what choices they can make, what actions they can take. So that's our general blood work test. Then we went to CRP test. In this case, it's a sin of omission. They have this huge amount of space, and they don't use it for anything, so we do. Now the CRP test is often done following a cholesterol test, or in conjunction with a cholesterol test. So we take the bold step of putting the cholesterol information on the same page, which is the way the doctor is going to evaluate it. So we thought the patient might actually want to know the context as well. It's a protein that shows up when your blood vessels might be inflamed, which might be a risk for heart disease. What you're actually measuring is spelled out in clean language. Then we use the information that's already in the lab report. We use the person's age and their gender to start to fill in the personalized risks. So we start to use the data we have to run a very simple calculation that's on all sorts of online calculators to get a sense of what the actual risk is. The last one I'll show you is a PSA test. Here's the before, and here's the after. Now a lot of our effort on this one -- as many of you probably know, a PSA test is a very controversial test. It's used to test for prostate cancer, but there are all sorts of reasons why your prostate might be enlarged. And so we spent a good deal of our time indicating that. We again personalized the risks. So this patient is in their 50s, so we can actually give them a very precise estimate of what their risk for prostate cancer is. In this case it's about 25 percent, based on that. And then again, the follow-up actions. So our cost for this was less than 10,000 dollars, all right. That's what Wired magazine spent on this. Why is Wired magazine doing this? (Laughter) Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp, the two largest lab testing companies -- last year, they made profits of over 700 million dollars and over 500 million dollars respectively. Now this is not a problem of resources; this is a problem of incentives. We need to recognize that the target of this information should not be the doctor, should not be the insurance company. It should be the patient. It's the person who actually, in the end, is going to be having to change their lives and then start adopting new behaviors. This is information that is incredibly powerful. It's an incredibly powerful catalyst to change. But we're not using it. It's just sitting there. It's being lost. So I want to just offer four questions that every patient should ask, because I don't actually expect people to start developing these lab test reports. But you can create your own feedback loop. Anybody can create their feedback loop by asking these simple questions: Can I have my results? And the only acceptable answer is -- (Audience: Yes.) -- yes. What does this mean? Help me understand what the data is. What are my options? What choices are now on the table? And then, what's next? How do I integrate this information into the longer course of my life? So I want to wind up by just showing that people have the capacity to understand this information. This is not beyond the grasp of ordinary people. You do not need to have the education level of people in this room. Ordinary people are capable of understanding this information, if we only go to the effort of presenting it to them in a form that they can engage with. And engagement is essential here, because it's not just giving them information; it's giving them an opportunity to act. That's what engagement is. It's different from compliance. It works totally different from the way we talk about behavior in medicine today. And this information is out there. I've been talking today about latent information, all this information that exists in the system that we're not putting to use. But there are all sorts of other bodies of information that are coming online, and we need to recognize the capacity of this information to engage people, to help people and to change the course of their lives. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I want to talk to you today about prosperity, about our hopes for a shared and lasting prosperity. And not just us, but the two billion people worldwide who are still chronically undernourished. And hope actually is at the heart of this. In fact, the Latin word for hope is at the heart of the word prosperity. "Pro-speras," "speras," hope -- in accordance with our hopes and expectations. The irony is, though, that we have cashed-out prosperity almost literally in terms of money and economic growth. And we've grown our economies so much that we now stand in a real danger of undermining hope -- running down resources, cutting down rainforests, spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico, changing the climate -- and the only thing that has actually remotely slowed down the relentless rise of carbon emissions over the last two to three decades is recession. And recession, of course, isn't exactly a recipe for hope either, as we're busy finding out. So we're caught in a kind of trap. It's a dilemma, a dilemma of growth. We can't live with it; we can't live without it. Trash the system or crash the planet -- it's a tough choice; it isn't much of a choice. And our best avenue of escape from this actually is a kind of blind faith in our own cleverness and technology and efficiency and doing things more efficiently. Now I haven't got anything against efficiency. And I think we are a clever species sometimes. But I think we should also just check the numbers, take a reality check here. So I want you to imagine a world, in 2050, of around nine billion people, all aspiring to Western incomes, Western lifestyles. And I want to ask the question -- and we'll give them that two percent hike in income, in salary each year as well, because we believe in growth. And I want to ask the question: how far and how fast would be have to move? How clever would we have to be? How much technology would we need in this world to deliver our carbon targets? And here in my chart -- on the left-hand side is where we are now. This is the carbon intensity of economic growth in the economy at the moment. It's around about 770 grams of carbon. In the world I describe to you, we have to be right over here at the right-hand side at six grams of carbon. It's a 130-fold improvement, and that is 10 times further and faster than anything we've ever achieved in industrial history. Maybe we can do it, maybe it's possible -- who knows? Maybe we can even go further and get an economy that pulls carbon out of the atmosphere, which is what we're going to need to be doing by the end of the century. But shouldn't we just check first that the economic system that we have is remotely capable of delivering this kind of improvement? So I want to just spend a couple of minutes on system dynamics. It's a bit complex, and I apologize for that. What I'll try and do, is I'll try and paraphrase it is sort of human terms. So it looks a little bit like this. Firms produce goods for households -- that's us -- and provide us with incomes, and that's even better, because we can spend those incomes on more goods and services. That's called the circular flow of the economy. It looks harmless enough. I just want to highlight one key feature of this system, which is the role of investment. Now investment constitutes only about a fifth of the national income in most modern economies, but it plays an absolutely vital role. And what it does essentially is to stimulate further consumption growth. It does this in a couple of ways -- chasing productivity, which drives down prices and encourages us to buy more stuff. But I want to concentrate on the role of investment in seeking out novelty, the production and consumption of novelty. Joseph Schumpeter called this "the process of creative destruction." It's a process of the production and reproduction of novelty, continually chasing expanding consumer markets, consumer goods, new consumer goods. And this, this is where it gets interesting, because it turns out that human beings have something of an appetite for novelty. We love new stuff -- new material stuff for sure -- but also new ideas, new adventures, new experiences. But the materiality matters too, because in every society that anthropologists have looked at, material stuff operates as a kind of language -- a language of goods, a symbolic language that we use to tell each other stories -- stories, for example, about how important we are. Status-driven, conspicuous consumption thrives from the language of novelty. And here, all of a sudden, we have a system that is locking economic structure with social logic -- the economic institutions, and who we are as people, locked together to drive an engine of growth. And this engine is not just economic value; it is pulling material resources relentlessly through the system, driven by our own insatiable appetites, driven in fact by a sense of anxiety. Adam Smith, 200 years ago, spoke about our desire for a life without shame. A life without shame: in his day, what that meant was a linen shirt, and today, well, you still need the shirt, but you need the hybrid car, the HDTV, two holidays a year in the sun, the netbook and iPad, the list goes on -- an almost inexhaustible supply of goods, driven by this anxiety. And even if we don't want them, we need to buy them, because, if we don't buy them, the system crashes. And to stop it crashing over the last two to three decades, we've expanded the money supply, expanded credit and debt, so that people can keep buying stuff. And of course, that expansion was deeply implicated in the crisis. But this -- I just want to show you some data here. This is what it looks like, essentially, this credit and debt system, just for the U.K. This was the last 15 years before the crash, and you can see there, consumer debt rose dramatically. It was above the GDP for three years in a row just before the crisis. And in the mean time, personal savings absolutely plummeted. The savings ratio, net savings, were below zero in the middle of 2008, just before the crash. This is people expanding debt, drawing down their savings, just to stay in the game. This is a strange, rather perverse, story, just to put it in very simple terms. It's a story about us, people, being persuaded to spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about. (Laughter) (Applause) But before we consign ourselves to despair, maybe we should just go back and say, "Did we get this right? Is this really how people are? Is this really how economies behave?" And almost straightaway we actually run up against a couple of anomalies. The first one is in the crisis itself. In the crisis, in the recession, what do people want to do? They want to hunker down, they want to look to the future. They want to spend less and save more. But saving is exactly the wrong thing to do from the system point of view. Keynes called this the "paradox of thrift" -- saving slows down recovery. And politicians call on us continually to draw down more debt, to draw down our own savings even further, just so that we can get the show back on the road, so we can keep this growth-based economy going. It's an anomaly, it's a place where the system actually is at odds with who we are as people. Here's another one -- completely different one: Why is it that we don't do the blindingly obvious things we should do to combat climate change, very, very simple things like buying energy-efficient appliances, putting in efficient lights, turning the lights off occasionally, insulating our homes? These things save carbon, they save energy, they save us money. So is it that, though they make perfect economic sense, we don't do them? Well, I had my own personal insight into this a few years ago. It was a Sunday evening, Sunday afternoon, and it was just after -- actually, to be honest, too long after -- we had moved into a new house. And I had finally got around to doing some draft stripping, installing insulation around the windows and doors to keep out the drafts. And my, then, five year-old daughter was helping me in the way that five year-olds do. And we'd been doing this for a while, when she turned to me very solemnly and said, "Will this really keep out the giraffes?" (Laughter) "Here they are, the giraffes." You can hear the five-year-old mind working. These ones, interestingly, are 400 miles north of here outside Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. Goodness knows what they make of the Lake District weather. But actually that childish misrepresentation stuck with me, because it suddenly became clear to me why we don't do the blindingly obvious things. We're too busy keeping out the giraffes -- putting the kids on the bus in the morning, getting ourselves to work on time, surviving email overload and shop floor politics, foraging for groceries, throwing together meals, escaping for a couple of precious hours in the evening into prime-time TV or TED online, getting from one end of the day to the other, keeping out the giraffes. (Laughter) What is the objective? "What is the objective of the consumer?" Mary Douglas asked in an essay on poverty written 35 years ago. "It is," she said, "to help create the social world and find a credible place in it." That is a deeply humanizing vision of our lives, and it's a completely different vision than the one that lies at the heart of this economic model. So who are we? Who are these people? Are we these novelty-seeking, hedonistic, selfish individuals? Or might we actually occasionally be something like the selfless altruist depicted in Rembrandt's lovely, lovely sketch here? Well psychology actually says there is a tension -- a tension between self-regarding behaviors and other regarding behaviors. And these tensions have deep evolutionary roots, so selfish behavior is adaptive in certain circumstances -- fight or flight. But other regarding behaviors are essential to our evolution as social beings. And perhaps even more interesting from our point of view, another tension between novelty-seeking behaviors and tradition or conservation. Novelty is adaptive when things are changing and you need to adapt yourself. Tradition is essential to lay down the stability to raise families and form cohesive social groups. So here, all of a sudden, we're looking at a map of the human heart. And it reveals to us, suddenly, the crux of the matter. What we've done is we've created economies. We've created systems, which systematically privilege, encourage, one narrow quadrant of the human soul and left the others unregarded. And in the same token, the solution becomes clear, because this isn't, therefore, about changing human nature. It isn't, in fact, about curtailing possibilities. It is about opening up. It is about allowing ourselves the freedom to become fully human, recognizing the depth and the breadth of the human psyche and building institutions to protect Rembrandt's fragile altruist within. What does all this mean for economics? What would economies look like if we took that vision of human nature at their heart and stretched them along these orthogonal dimensions of the human psyche? Well, it might look a little bit like the 4,000 community-interest companies that have sprung up in the U.K. over the last five years and a similar rise in B corporations in the United States, enterprises that have ecological and social goals written into their constitution at their heart -- companies, in fact, like this one, Ecosia. And I just want to, very quickly, show you this. Ecosia is an Internet search engine. Internet search engines work by drawing revenues from sponsored links that appear when you do a search. And Ecosia works in pretty much the same way. So we can do that here -- we can just put in a little search term. There you go, Oxford, that's where we are. See what comes up. The difference with Ecosia though is that, in Ecosia's case, it draws the revenues in the same way, but it allocates 80 percent of those revenues to a rainforest protection project in the Amazon. And we're going to do it. We're just going to click on Naturejobs.uk. In case anyone out there is looking for a job in a recession, that's the page to go to. And what happened then was the sponsor gave revenues to Ecosia, and Ecosia is giving 80 percent of those revenues to a rainforest protection project. It's taking profits from one place and allocating them into the protection of ecological resources. It's a different kind of enterprise for a new economy. It's a form, if you like, of ecological altruism -- perhaps something along those lines. Maybe it's that. Whatever it is, whatever this new economy is, what we need the economy to do, in fact, is to put investment back into the heart of the model, to re-conceive investment. Only now, investment isn't going to be about the relentless and mindless pursuit of consumption growth. Investment has to be a different beast. Investment has to be, in the new economy, protecting and nurturing the ecological assets on which our future depends. It has to be about transition. It has to be investing in low-carbon technologies and infrastructures. We have to invest, in fact, in the idea of a meaningful prosperity, providing capabilities for people to flourish. And of course, this task has material dimensions. It would be nonsense to talk about people flourishing if they didn't have food, clothing and shelter. But it's also clear that prosperity goes beyond this. It has social and psychological aims -- family, friendship, commitments, society, participating in the life of that society. And this too requires investment, investment -- for example, in places -- places where we can connect, places where we can participate, shared spaces, concert halls, gardens, public parks, libraries, museums, quiet centers, places of joy and celebration, places of tranquility and contemplation, sites for the "cultivation of a common citizenship," in Michael Sandel's lovely phrase. An investment -- investment, after all, is just such a basic economic concept -- is nothing more nor less than a relationship between the present and the future, a shared present and a common future. And we need that relationship to reflect, to reclaim hope. So let me come back, with this sense of hope, to the two billion people still trying to live each day on less than the price of a skinny latte from the cafe next door. What can we offer those people? It's clear that we have a responsibility to help lift them out of poverty. It's clear that we have a responsibility to make room for growth where growth really matters in those poorest nations. And it's also clear that we will never achieve that unless we're capable of redefining a meaningful sense of prosperity in the richer nations, a prosperity that is more meaningful and less materialistic than the growth-based model. So this is not just a Western post-materialist fantasy. In fact, an African philosopher wrote to me, when "Prosperity Without Growth" was published, pointing out the similarities between this view of prosperity and the traditional African concept of ubuntu. Ubuntu says, "I am because we are." Prosperity is a shared endeavor. Its roots are long and deep -- its foundations, I've tried to show, exist already, inside each of us. So this is not about standing in the way of development. It's not about overthrowing capitalism. It's not about trying to change human nature. What we're doing here is we're taking a few simple steps towards an economics fit for purpose. And at the heart of that economics, we're placing a more credible, more robust, and more realistic vision of what it means to be human. Thank you very much. (Applause) Chris Anderson: While they're taking the podium away, just a quick question. First of all, economists aren't supposed to be inspiring, so you may need to work on the tone a little. (Laughter) Can you picture the politicians ever buying into this? I mean, can you picture a politician standing up in Britain and saying, "GDP fell two percent this year. Good news! We're actually all happier, and a country's more beautiful, and our lives are better." Tim Jackson: Well that's clearly not what you're doing. You're not making news out of things falling down. You're making news out of the things that tell you that we're flourishing. Can I picture politicians doing it? Actually, I already am seeing a little bit of it. When we first started this kind of work, politicians would stand up, treasury spokesmen would stand up, and accuse us of wanting to go back and live in caves. And actually in the period through which we've been working over the last 18 years -- partly because of the financial crisis and a little bit of humility in the profession of economics -- actually people are engaging in this issue in all sorts of countries around the world. CA: But is it mainly politicians who are going to have to get their act together, or is it going to be more just civil society and companies? TJ: It has to be companies. It has to be civil society. But it has to have political leadership. This is a kind of agenda, which actually politicians themselves are kind of caught in that dilemma, because they're hooked on the growth model themselves. But actually opening up the space to think about different ways of governing, different kinds of politics, and creating the space for civil society and businesses to operate differently -- absolutely vital. CA: And if someone could convince you that we actually can make the -- what was it? -- the 130-fold improvement in efficiency, of reduction of carbon footprint, would you then actually like that picture of economic growth into more knowledge-based goods? TJ: I would still want to know that you could do that and get below zero by the end of the century, in terms of taking carbon out of the atmosphere, and solve the problem of biodiversity and reduce the impact on land use and do something about the erosion of topsoils and the quality of water. If you can convince me we can do all that, then, yes, I would take the two percent. CA: Tim, thank you for a very important talk. Thank you. (Applause)

So security is two different things: it's a feeling, and it's a reality. And they're different. You could feel secure even if you're not. And you can be secure even if you don't feel it. Really, we have two separate concepts mapped onto the same word. And what I want to do in this talk is to split them apart -- figuring out when they diverge and how they converge. And language is actually a problem here. There aren't a lot of good words for the concepts we're going to talk about. So if you look at security from economic terms, it's a trade-off. Every time you get some security, you're always trading off something. Whether this is a personal decision -- whether you're going to install a burglar alarm in your home -- or a national decision -- where you're going to invade some foreign country -- you're going to trade off something, either money or time, convenience, capabilities, maybe fundamental liberties. And the question to ask when you look at a security anything is not whether this makes us safer, but whether it's worth the trade-off. You've heard in the past several years, the world is safer because Saddam Hussein is not in power. That might be true, but it's not terribly relevant. The question is, was it worth it? And you can make your own decision, and then you'll decide whether the invasion was worth it. That's how you think about security -- in terms of the trade-off. Now there's often no right or wrong here. Some of us have a burglar alarm system at home, and some of us don't. And it'll depend on where we live, whether we live alone or have a family, how much cool stuff we have, how much we're willing to accept the risk of theft. In politics also, there are different opinions. A lot of times, these trade-offs are about more than just security, and I think that's really important. Now people have a natural intuition about these trade-offs. We make them every day -- last night in my hotel room, when I decided to double-lock the door, or you in your car when you drove here, when we go eat lunch and decide the food's not poison and we'll eat it. We make these trade-offs again and again, multiple times a day. We often won't even notice them. They're just part of being alive; we all do it. Every species does it. Imagine a rabbit in a field, eating grass, and the rabbit's going to see a fox. That rabbit will make a security trade-off: "Should I stay, or should I flee?" And if you think about it, the rabbits that are good at making that trade-off will tend to live and reproduce, and the rabbits that are bad at it will get eaten or starve. So you'd think that us, as a successful species on the planet -- you, me, everybody -- would be really good at making these trade-offs. Yet it seems, again and again, that we're hopelessly bad at it. And I think that's a fundamentally interesting question. I'll give you the short answer. The answer is, we respond to the feeling of security and not the reality. Now most of the time, that works. Most of the time, feeling and reality are the same. Certainly that's true for most of human prehistory. We've developed this ability because it makes evolutionary sense. One way to think of it is that we're highly optimized for risk decisions that are endemic to living in small family groups in the East African highlands in 100,000 B.C. 2010 New York, not so much. Now there are several biases in risk perception. A lot of good experiments in this. And you can see certain biases that come up again and again. So I'll give you four. We tend to exaggerate spectacular and rare risks and downplay common risks -- so flying versus driving. The unknown is perceived to be riskier than the familiar. One example would be, people fear kidnapping by strangers when the data supports kidnapping by relatives is much more common. This is for children. Third, personified risks are perceived to be greater than anonymous risks -- so Bin Laden is scarier because he has a name. And the fourth is people underestimate risks in situations they do control and overestimate them in situations they don't control. So once you take up skydiving or smoking, you downplay the risks. If a risk is thrust upon you -- terrorism was a good example -- you'll overplay it because you don't feel like it's in your control. There are a bunch of other of these biases, these cognitive biases, that affect our risk decisions. There's the availability heuristic, which basically means we estimate the probability of something by how easy it is to bring instances of it to mind. So you can imagine how that works. If you hear a lot about tiger attacks, there must be a lot of tigers around. You don't hear about lion attacks, there aren't a lot of lions around. This works until you invent newspapers. Because what newspapers do is they repeat again and again rare risks. I tell people, if it's in the news, don't worry about it. Because by definition, news is something that almost never happens. (Laughter) When something is so common, it's no longer news -- car crashes, domestic violence -- those are the risks you worry about. We're also a species of storytellers. We respond to stories more than data. And there's some basic innumeracy going on. I mean, the joke "One, Two, Three, Many" is kind of right. We're really good at small numbers. One mango, two mangoes, three mangoes, 10,000 mangoes, 100,000 mangoes -- it's still more mangoes you can eat before they rot. So one half, one quarter, one fifth -- we're good at that. One in a million, one in a billion -- they're both almost never. So we have trouble with the risks that aren't very common. And what these cognitive biases do is they act as filters between us and reality. And the result is that feeling and reality get out of whack, they get different. Now you either have a feeling -- you feel more secure than you are. There's a false sense of security. Or the other way, and that's a false sense of insecurity. I write a lot about "security theater," which are products that make people feel secure, but don't actually do anything. There's no real word for stuff that makes us secure, but doesn't make us feel secure. Maybe it's what the CIA's supposed to do for us. So back to economics. If economics, if the market, drives security, and if people make trade-offs based on the feeling of security, then the smart thing for companies to do for the economic incentives are to make people feel secure. And there are two ways to do this. One, you can make people actually secure and hope they notice. Or two, you can make people just feel secure and hope they don't notice. So what makes people notice? Well a couple of things: understanding of the security, of the risks, the threats, the countermeasures, how they work. But if you know stuff, you're more likely to have your feelings match reality. Enough real world examples helps. Now we all know the crime rate in our neighborhood, because we live there, and we get a feeling about it that basically matches reality. Security theater's exposed when it's obvious that it's not working properly. Okay, so what makes people not notice? Well, a poor understanding. If you don't understand the risks, you don't understand the costs, you're likely to get the trade-off wrong, and your feeling doesn't match reality. Not enough examples. There's an inherent problem with low probability events. If, for example, terrorism almost never happens, it's really hard to judge the efficacy of counter-terrorist measures. This is why you keep sacrificing virgins, and why your unicorn defenses are working just great. There aren't enough examples of failures. Also, feelings that are clouding the issues -- the cognitive biases I talked about earlier, fears, folk beliefs, basically an inadequate model of reality. So let me complicate things. I have feeling and reality. I want to add a third element. I want to add model. Feeling and model in our head, reality is the outside world. It doesn't change; it's real. So feeling is based on our intuition. Model is based on reason. That's basically the difference. In a primitive and simple world, there's really no reason for a model because feeling is close to reality. You don't need a model. But in a modern and complex world, you need models to understand a lot of the risks we face. There's no feeling about germs. You need a model to understand them. So this model is an intelligent representation of reality. It's, of course, limited by science, by technology. We couldn't have a germ theory of disease before we invented the microscope to see them. It's limited by our cognitive biases. But it has the ability to override our feelings. Where do we get these models? We get them from others. We get them from religion, from culture, teachers, elders. A couple years ago, I was in South Africa on safari. The tracker I was with grew up in Kruger National Park. He had some very complex models of how to survive. And it depended on if you were attacked by a lion or a leopard or a rhino or an elephant -- and when you had to run away, and when you couldn't run away, and when you had to climb a tree -- when you could never climb a tree. I would have died in a day, but he was born there, and he understood how to survive. I was born in New York City. I could have taken him to New York, and he would have died in a day. (Laughter) Because we had different models based on our different experiences. Models can come from the media, from our elected officials. Think of models of terrorism, child kidnapping, airline safety, car safety. Models can come from industry. The two I'm following are surveillance cameras, ID cards, quite a lot of our computer security models come from there. A lot of models come from science. Health models are a great example. Think of cancer, of bird flu, swine flu, SARS. All of our feelings of security about those diseases come from models given to us, really, by science filtered through the media. So models can change. Models are not static. As we become more comfortable in our environments, our model can move closer to our feelings. So an example might be, if you go back 100 years ago when electricity was first becoming common, there were a lot of fears about it. I mean, there were people who were afraid to push doorbells, because there was electricity in there, and that was dangerous. For us, we're very facile around electricity. We change light bulbs without even thinking about it. Our model of security around electricity is something we were born into. It hasn't changed as we were growing up. And we're good at it. Or think of the risks on the Internet across generations -- how your parents approach Internet security, versus how you do, versus how our kids will. Models eventually fade into the background. Intuitive is just another word for familiar. So as your model is close to reality, and it converges with feelings, you often don't know it's there. So a nice example of this came from last year and swine flu. When swine flu first appeared, the initial news caused a lot of overreaction. Now it had a name, which made it scarier than the regular flu, even though it was more deadly. And people thought doctors should be able to deal with it. So there was that feeling of lack of control. And those two things made the risk more than it was. As the novelty wore off, the months went by, there was some amount of tolerance, people got used to it. There was no new data, but there was less fear. By autumn, people thought the doctors should have solved this already. And there's kind of a bifurcation -- people had to choose between fear and acceptance -- actually fear and indifference -- they kind of chose suspicion. And when the vaccine appeared last winter, there were a lot of people -- a surprising number -- who refused to get it -- as a nice example of how people's feelings of security change, how their model changes, sort of wildly with no new information, with no new input. This kind of thing happens a lot. I'm going to give one more complication. We have feeling, model, reality. I have a very relativistic view of security. I think it depends on the observer. And most security decisions have a variety of people involved. And stakeholders with specific trade-offs will try to influence the decision. And I call that their agenda. And you see agenda -- this is marketing, this is politics -- trying to convince you to have one model versus another, trying to convince you to ignore a model and trust your feelings, marginalizing people with models you don't like. This is not uncommon. An example, a great example, is the risk of smoking. In the history of the past 50 years, the smoking risk shows how a model changes, and it also shows how an industry fights against a model it doesn't like. Compare that to the secondhand smoke debate -- probably about 20 years behind. Think about seat belts. When I was a kid, no one wore a seat belt. Nowadays, no kid will let you drive if you're not wearing a seat belt. Compare that to the airbag debate -- probably about 30 years behind. All examples of models changing. What we learn is that changing models is hard. Models are hard to dislodge. If they equal your feelings, you don't even know you have a model. And there's another cognitive bias I'll call confirmation bias, where we tend to accept data that confirms our beliefs and reject data that contradicts our beliefs. So evidence against our model, we're likely to ignore, even if it's compelling. It has to get very compelling before we'll pay attention. New models that extend long periods of time are hard. Global warming is a great example. We're terrible at models that span 80 years. We can do to the next harvest. We can often do until our kids grow up. But 80 years, we're just not good at. So it's a very hard model to accept. We can have both models in our head simultaneously, right, that kind of problem where we're holding both beliefs together, right, the cognitive dissonance. Eventually, the new model will replace the old model. Strong feelings can create a model. September 11th created a security model in a lot of people's heads. Also, personal experiences with crime can do it, personal health scare, a health scare in the news. You'll see these called flashbulb events by psychiatrists. They can create a model instantaneously, because they're very emotive. So in the technological world, we don't have experience to judge models. And we rely on others. We rely on proxies. I mean, this works as long as it's to correct others. We rely on government agencies to tell us what pharmaceuticals are safe. I flew here yesterday. I didn't check the airplane. I relied on some other group to determine whether my plane was safe to fly. We're here, none of us fear the roof is going to collapse on us, not because we checked, but because we're pretty sure the building codes here are good. It's a model we just accept pretty much by faith. And that's okay. Now, what we want is people to get familiar enough with better models -- have it reflected in their feelings -- to allow them to make security trade-offs. Now when these go out of whack, you have two options. One, you can fix people's feelings, directly appeal to feelings. It's manipulation, but it can work. The second, more honest way is to actually fix the model. Change happens slowly. The smoking debate took 40 years, and that was an easy one. Some of this stuff is hard. I mean really though, information seems like our best hope. And I lied. Remember I said feeling, model, reality; I said reality doesn't change. It actually does. We live in a technological world; reality changes all the time. So we might have -- for the first time in our species -- feeling chases model, model chases reality, reality's moving -- they might never catch up. We don't know. But in the long-term, both feeling and reality are important. And I want to close with two quick stories to illustrate this. 1982 -- I don't know if people will remember this -- there was a short epidemic of Tylenol poisonings in the United States. It's a horrific story. Someone took a bottle of Tylenol, put poison in it, closed it up, put it back on the shelf. Someone else bought it and died. This terrified people. There were a couple of copycat attacks. There wasn't any real risk, but people were scared. And this is how the tamper-proof drug industry was invented. Those tamper-proof caps, that came from this. It's complete security theater. As a homework assignment, think of 10 ways to get around it. I'll give you one, a syringe. But it made people feel better. It made their feeling of security more match the reality. Last story, a few years ago, a friend of mine gave birth. I visit her in the hospital. It turns out when a baby's born now, they put an RFID bracelet on the baby, put a corresponding one on the mother, so if anyone other than the mother takes the baby out of the maternity ward, an alarm goes off. I said, "Well, that's kind of neat. I wonder how rampant baby snatching is out of hospitals." I go home, I look it up. It basically never happens. But if you think about it, if you are a hospital, and you need to take a baby away from its mother, out of the room to run some tests, you better have some good security theater, or she's going to rip your arm off. (Laughter) So it's important for us, those of us who design security, who look at security policy, or even look at public policy in ways that affect security. It's not just reality; it's feeling and reality. What's important is that they be about the same. It's important that, if our feelings match reality, we make better security trade-offs. Thank you. (Applause)

Welcome. If I could have the first slide, please? Contrary to calculations made by some engineers, bees can fly, dolphins can swim, and geckos can even climb up the smoothest surfaces. Now, what I want to do, in the short time I have, is to try to allow each of you to experience the thrill of revealing nature's design. I get to do this all the time, and it's just incredible. I want to try to share just a little bit of that with you in this presentation. The challenge of looking at nature's designs -- and I'll tell you the way that we perceive it, and the way we've used it. The challenge, of course, is to answer this question: what permits this extraordinary performance of animals that allows them basically to go anywhere? And if we could figure that out, how can we implement those designs? Well, many biologists will tell engineers, and others, organisms have millions of years to get it right; they're spectacular; they can do everything wonderfully well. So, the answer is bio-mimicry: just copy nature directly. We know from working on animals that the truth is that's exactly what you don't want to do -- because evolution works on the just-good-enough principle, not on a perfecting principle. And the constraints in building any organism, when you look at it, are really severe. Natural technologies have incredible constraints. Think about it. If you were an engineer and I told you that you had to build an automobile, but it had to start off to be this big, then it had to grow to be full size and had to work every step along the way. Or think about the fact that if you build an automobile, I'll tell you that you also -- inside it -- have to put a factory that allows you to make another automobile. (Laughter) And you can absolutely never, absolutely never, because of history and the inherited plan, start with a clean slate. So, organisms have this important history. Really evolution works more like a tinkerer than an engineer. And this is really important when you begin to look at animals. Instead, we believe you need to be inspired by biology. You need to discover the general principles of nature, and then use these analogies when they're advantageous. This is a real challenge to do this, because animals, when you start to really look inside them -- how they work -- appear hopelessly complex. There's no detailed history of the design plans, you can't go look it up anywhere. They have way too many motions for their joints, too many muscles. Even the simplest animal we think of, something like an insect, and they have more neurons and connections than you can imagine. How can you make sense of this? Well, we believed -- and we hypothesized -- that one way animals could work simply, is if the control of their movements tended to be built into their bodies themselves. What we discovered was that two-, four-, six- and eight-legged animals all produce the same forces on the ground when they move. They all work like this kangaroo, they bounce. And they can be modeled by a spring-mass system that we call the spring mass system because we're biomechanists. It's actually a pogo stick. They all produce the pattern of a pogo stick. How is that true? Well, a human, one of your legs works like two legs of a trotting dog, or works like three legs, together as one, of a trotting insect, or four legs as one of a trotting crab. And then they alternate in their propulsion, but the patterns are all the same. Almost every organism we've looked at this way -- you'll see next week, I'll give you a hint, there'll be an article coming out that says that really big things like T. rex probably couldn't do this, but you'll see that next week. Now, what's interesting is the animals, then -- we said -- bounce along the vertical plane this way, and in our collaborations with Pixar, in "A Bug's Life," we discussed the bipedal nature of the characters of the ants. And we told them, of course, they move in another plane as well. And they asked us this question. They say, "Why model just in the sagittal plane or the vertical plane, when you're telling us these animals are moving in the horizontal plane?" This is a good question. Nobody in biology ever modeled it this way. We took their advice and we modeled the animals moving in the horizontal plane as well. We took their three legs, we collapsed them down as one. We got some of the best mathematicians in the world from Princeton to work on this problem. And we were able to create a model where animals are not only bouncing up and down, but they're also bouncing side to side at the same time. And many organisms fit this kind of pattern. Now, why is this important to have this model? Because it's very interesting. When you take this model and you perturb it, you give it a push, as it bumps into something, it self-stabilizes, with no brain or no reflexes, just by the structure alone. It's a beautiful model. Let's look at the mathematics. (Laughter) That's enough! (Laughter) The animals, when you look at them running, appear to be self-stabilizing like this, using basically springy legs. That is, the legs can do computations on their own; the control algorithms, in a sense, are embedded in the form of the animal itself. Why haven't we been more inspired by nature and these kinds of discoveries? Well, I would argue that human technologies are really different from natural technologies, at least they have been so far. Think about the typical kind of robot that you see. Human technologies have tended to be large, flat, with right angles, stiff, made of metal. They have rolling devices and axles. There are very few motors, very few sensors. Whereas nature tends to be small, and curved, and it bends and twists, and has legs instead, and appendages, and has many muscles and many, many sensors. So it's a very different design. However, what's changing, what's really exciting -- and I'll show you some of that next -- is that as human technology takes on more of the characteristics of nature, then nature really can become a much more useful teacher. And here's one example that's really exciting. This is a collaboration we have with Stanford. And they developed this new technique, called Shape Deposition Manufacturing. It's a technique where they can mix materials together and mold any shape that they like, and put in the material properties. They can embed sensors and actuators right in the form itself. For example, here's a leg: the clear part is stiff, the white part is compliant, and you don't need any axles there or anything. It just bends by itself beautifully. So, you can put those properties in. It inspired them to show off this design by producing a little robot they named Sprawl. Our work has also inspired another robot, a biologically inspired bouncing robot, from the University of Michigan and McGill named RHex, for robot hexapod, and this one's autonomous. Let's go to the video, and let me show you some of these animals moving and then some of the simple robots that have been inspired by our discoveries. Here's what some of you did this morning, although you did it outside, not on a treadmill. Here's what we do. (Laughter) This is a death's head cockroach. This is an American cockroach you think you don't have in your kitchen. This is an eight-legged scorpion, six-legged ant, forty-four-legged centipede. Now, I said all these animals are sort of working like pogo sticks -- they're bouncing along as they move. And you can see that in this ghost crab, from the beaches of Panama and North Carolina. It goes up to four meters per second when it runs. It actually leaps into the air, and has aerial phases when it does it, like a horse, and you'll see it's bouncing here. What we discovered is whether you look at the leg of a human like Richard, or a cockroach, or a crab, or a kangaroo, the relative leg stiffness of that spring is the same for everything we've seen so far. Now, what good are springy legs then? What can they do? Well, we wanted to see if they allowed the animals to have greater stability and maneuverability. So, we built a terrain that had obstacles three times the hip height of the animals that we're looking at. And we were certain they couldn't do this. And here's what they did. The animal ran over it and it didn't even slow down! It didn't decrease its preferred speed at all. We couldn't believe that it could do this. It said to us that if you could build a robot with very simple, springy legs, you could make it as maneuverable as any that's ever been built. Here's the first example of that. This is the Stanford Shape Deposition Manufactured robot, named Sprawl. It has six legs -- there are the tuned, springy legs. It moves in a gait that an insect uses, and here it is going on the treadmill. Now, what's important about this robot, compared to other robots, is that it can't see anything, it can't feel anything, it doesn't have a brain, yet it can maneuver over these obstacles without any difficulty whatsoever. It's this technique of building the properties into the form. This is a graduate student. This is what he's doing to his thesis project -- very robust, if a graduate student does that to his thesis project. (Laughter) This is from McGill and University of Michigan. This is the RHex, making its first outing in a demo. (Laughter) Same principle: it only has six moving parts, six motors, but it has springy, tuned legs. It moves in the gait of the insect. It has the middle leg moving in synchrony with the front, and the hind leg on the other side. Sort of an alternating tripod, and they can negotiate obstacles just like the animal. (Laughter) (Voice: Oh my God.) (Applause) Robert Full: It'll go on different surfaces -- here's sand -- although we haven't perfected the feet yet, but I'll talk about that later. Here's RHex entering the woods. (Laughter) Again, this robot can't see anything, it can't feel anything, it has no brain. It's just working with a tuned mechanical system, with very simple parts, but inspired from the fundamental dynamics of the animal. (Voice: Ah, I love him, Bob.) RF: Here's it going down a pathway. I presented this to the jet propulsion lab at NASA, and they said that they had no ability to go down craters to look for ice, and life, ultimately, on Mars. And he said -- especially with legged-robots, because they're way too complicated. Nothing can do that. And I talk next. I showed them this video with the simple design of RHex here. And just to convince them we should go to Mars in 2011, I tinted the video orange just to give them the sense of being on Mars. (Laughter) (Applause) Another reason why animals have extraordinary performance, and can go anywhere, is because they have an effective interaction with the environment. The animal I'm going to show you, that we studied to look at this, is the gecko. We have one here and notice its position. It's holding on. Now I'm going to challenge you. I'm going show you a video. One of the animals is going to be running on the level, and the other one's going to be running up a wall. Which one's which? They're going at a meter a second. How many think the one on the left is running up the wall? (Applause) Okay. The point is it's really hard to tell, isn't it? It's incredible, we looked at students do this and they couldn't tell. They can run up a wall at a meter a second, 15 steps per second, and they look like they're running on the level. How do they do this? It's just phenomenal. The one on the right was going up the hill. How do they do this? They have bizarre toes. They have toes that uncurl like party favors when you blow them out, and then peel off the surface, like tape. Like if we had a piece of tape now, we'd peel it this way. They do this with their toes. It's bizarre! This peeling inspired iRobot -- that we work with -- to build Mecho-Geckos. Here's a legged version and a tractor version, or a bulldozer version. Let's see some of the geckos move with some video, and then I'll show you a little bit of a clip of the robots. Here's the gecko running up a vertical surface. There it goes, in real time. There it goes again. Obviously, we have to slow this down a little bit. You can't use regular cameras. You have to take 1,000 pictures per second to see this. And here's some video at 1,000 frames per second. Now, I want you to look at the animal's back. Do you see how much it's bending like that? We can't figure that out -- that's an unsolved mystery. We don't know how it works. If you have a son or a daughter that wants to come to Berkeley, come to my lab and we'll figure this out. Okay, send them to Berkeley because that's the next thing I want to do. Here's the gecko mill. (Laughter) It's a see-through treadmill with a see-through treadmill belt, so we can watch the animal's feet, and videotape them through the treadmill belt, to see how they move. Here's the animal that we have here, running on a vertical surface. Pick a foot and try to watch a toe, and see if you can see what the animal's doing. See it uncurl and then peel these toes. It can do this in 14 milliseconds. It's unbelievable. Here are the robots that they inspire, the Mecho-Geckos from iRobot. First we'll see the animals toes peeling -- look at that. And here's the peeling action of the Mecho-Gecko. It uses a pressure-sensitive adhesive to do it. Peeling in the animal. Peeling in the Mecho-Gecko -- that allows them climb autonomously. Can go on the flat surface, transition to a wall, and then go onto a ceiling. There's the bulldozer version. Now, it doesn't use pressure-sensitive glue. The animal does not use that. But that's what we're limited to, at the moment. What does the animal do? The animal has weird toes. And if you look at the toes, they have these little leaves there, and if you blow them up and zoom in, you'll see that's there's little striations in these leaves. And if you zoom in 270 times, you'll see it looks like a rug. And if you blow that up, and zoom in 900 times, you see there are hairs there, tiny hairs. And if you look carefully, those tiny hairs have striations. And if you zoom in on those 30,000 times, you'll see each hair has split ends. And if you blow those up, they have these little structures on the end. The smallest branch of the hairs looks like spatulae, and an animal like that has one billion of these nano-size split ends, to get very close to the surface. In fact, there's the diameter of your hair -- a gecko has two million of these, and each hair has 100 to 1,000 split ends. Think of the contact of that that's possible. We were fortunate to work with another group at Stanford that built us a special manned sensor, that we were able to measure the force of an individual hair. Here's an individual hair with a little split end there. When we measured the forces, they were enormous. They were so large that a patch of hairs about this size -- the gecko's foot could support the weight of a small child, about 40 pounds, easily. Now, how do they do it? We've recently discovered this. Do they do it by friction? No, force is too low. Do they do it by electrostatics? No, you can change the charge -- they still hold on. Do they do it by interlocking? That's kind of a like a Velcro-like thing. No, you can put them on molecular smooth surfaces -- they don't do it. How about suction? They stick on in a vacuum. How about wet adhesion? Or capillary adhesion? They don't have any glue, and they even stick under water just fine. If you put their foot under water, they grab on. How do they do it then? Believe it or not, they grab on by intermolecular forces, by Van der Waals forces. You know, you probably had this a long time ago in chemistry, where you had these two atoms, they're close together, and the electrons are moving around. That tiny force is sufficient to allow them to do that because it's added up so many times with these small structures. What we're doing is, we're taking that inspiration of the hairs, and with another colleague at Berkeley, we're manufacturing them. And just recently we've made a breakthrough, where we now believe we're going to be able to create the first synthetic, self-cleaning, dry adhesive. Many companies are interested in this. (Laughter) We also presented to Nike even. (Laughter) (Applause) We'll see where this goes. We were so excited about this that we realized that that small-size scale -- and where everything gets sticky, and gravity doesn't matter anymore -- we needed to look at ants and their feet, because one of my other colleagues at Berkeley has built a six-millimeter silicone robot with legs. But it gets stuck. It doesn't move very well. But the ants do, and we'll figure out why, so that ultimately we'll make this move. And imagine: you're going to be able to have swarms of these six-millimeter robots available to run around. Where's this going? I think you can see it already. Clearly, the Internet is already having eyes and ears, you have web cams and so forth. But it's going to also have legs and hands. You're going to be able to do programmable work through these kinds of robots, so that you can run, fly and swim anywhere. We saw David Kelly is at the beginning of that with his fish. So, in conclusion, I think the message is clear. If you need a message, if nature's not enough, if you care about search and rescue, or mine clearance, or medicine, or the various things we're working on, we must preserve nature's designs, otherwise these secrets will be lost forever. Thank you. (Applause)

I have given the slide show that I gave here two years ago about 2,000 times. I'm giving a short slide show this morning that I'm giving for the very first time, so -- well it's -- I don't want or need to raise the bar, I'm actually trying to lower the bar. Because I've cobbled this together to try to meet the challenge of this session. And I was reminded by Karen Armstrong's fantastic presentation that religion really properly understood is not about belief, but about behavior. Perhaps we should say the same thing about optimism. How dare we be optimistic? Optimism is sometimes characterized as a belief, an intellectual posture. As Mahatma Gandhi famously said, "You must become the change you wish to see in the world." And the outcome about which we wish to be optimistic is not going to be created by the belief alone, except to the extent that the belief brings about new behavior. But the word "behavior" is also, I think, sometimes misunderstood in this context. I'm a big advocate of changing the lightbulbs and buying hybrids, and Tipper and I put 33 solar panels on our house, and dug the geothermal wells, and did all of that other stuff. But, as important as it is to change the lightbulbs, it is more important to change the laws. And when we change our behavior in our daily lives, we sometimes leave out the citizenship part and the democracy part. In order to be optimistic about this, we have to become incredibly active as citizens in our democracy. In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the democracy crisis. And we have one. I have been trying to tell this story for a long time. I was reminded of that recently, by a woman who walked past the table I was sitting at, just staring at me as she walked past. She was in her 70s, looked like she had a kind face. I thought nothing of it until I saw from the corner of my eye she was walking from the opposite direction, also just staring at me. And so I said, "How do you do?" And she said, "You know, if you dyed your hair black, you would look just like Al Gore." (Laughter) Many years ago, when I was a young congressman, I spent an awful lot of time dealing with the challenge of nuclear arms control -- the nuclear arms race. And the military historians taught me, during that quest, that military conflicts are typically put into three categories: local battles, regional or theater wars, and the rare but all-important global, world war -- strategic conflicts. And each level of conflict requires a different allocation of resources, a different approach, a different organizational model. Environmental challenges fall into the same three categories, and most of what we think about are local environmental problems: air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste dumps. But there are also regional environmental problems, like acid rain from the Midwest to the Northeast, and from Western Europe to the Arctic, and from the Midwest out the Mississippi into the dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico. And there are lots of those. But the climate crisis is the rare but all-important global, or strategic, conflict. Everything is affected. And we have to organize our response appropriately. We need a worldwide, global mobilization for renewable energy, conservation, efficiency and a global transition to a low-carbon economy. We have work to do. And we can mobilize resources and political will. But the political will has to be mobilized, in order to mobilize the resources. Let me show you these slides here. I thought I would start with the logo. What's missing here, of course, is the North Polar ice cap. Greenland remains. Twenty-eight years ago, this is what the polar ice cap -- the North Polar ice cap -- looked like at the end of the summer, at the fall equinox. This last fall, I went to the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, and talked to the researchers here in Monterey at the Naval Postgraduate Laboratory. This is what's happened in the last 28 years. To put it in perspective, 2005 was the previous record. Here's what happened last fall that has really unnerved the researchers. The North Polar ice cap is the same size geographically -- doesn't look quite the same size -- but it is exactly the same size as the United States, minus an area roughly equal to the state of Arizona. The amount that disappeared in 2005 was equivalent to everything east of the Mississippi. The extra amount that disappeared last fall was equivalent to this much. It comes back in the winter, but not as permanent ice, as thin ice -- vulnerable. The amount remaining could be completely gone in summer in as little as five years. That puts a lot of pressure on Greenland. Already, around the Arctic Circle -- this is a famous village in Alaska. This is a town in Newfoundland. Antarctica. Latest studies from NASA. The amount of a moderate-to-severe snow melting of an area equivalent to the size of California. "They were the best of times, they were the worst of times": the most famous opening sentence in English literature. I want to share briefly a tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are exactly the same size. Earth's diameter is about 400 kilometers larger, but essentially the same size. They have exactly the same amount of carbon. But the difference is, on Earth, most of the carbon has been leeched over time out of the atmosphere, deposited in the ground as coal, oil, natural gas, etc. On Venus, most of it is in the atmosphere. The difference is that our temperature is 59 degrees on average. On Venus, it's 855. This is relevant to our current strategy of taking as much carbon out of the ground as quickly as possible, and putting it into the atmosphere. It's not because Venus is slightly closer to the Sun. It's three times hotter than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. Now, briefly, here's an image you've seen, as one of the only old images, but I show it because I want to briefly give you CSI: Climate. The global scientific community says: man-made global warming pollution, put into the atmosphere, thickening this, is trapping more of the outgoing infrared. You all know that. At the last IPCC summary, the scientists wanted to say, "How certain are you?" They wanted to answer that "99 percent." The Chinese objected, and so the compromise was "more than 90 percent." Now, the skeptics say, "Oh, wait a minute, this could be variations in this energy coming in from the sun." If that were true, the stratosphere would be heated as well as the lower atmosphere, if it's more coming in. If it's more being trapped on the way out, then you would expect it to be warmer here and cooler here. Here is the lower atmosphere. Here's the stratosphere: cooler. CSI: Climate. Now, here's the good news. Sixty-eight percent of Americans now believe that human activity is responsible for global warming. Sixty-nine percent believe that the Earth is heating up in a significant way. There has been progress, but here is the key: when given a list of challenges to confront, global warming is still listed at near the bottom. What is missing is a sense of urgency. If you agree with the factual analysis, but you don't feel the sense of urgency, where does that leave you? Well, the Alliance for Climate Protection, which I head in conjunction with Current TV -- who did this pro bono -- did a worldwide contest to do commercials on how to communicate this. This is the winner. NBC -- I'll show all of the networks here -- the top journalists for NBC asked 956 questions in 2007 of the presidential candidates: two of them were about the climate crisis. ABC: 844 questions, two about the climate crisis. Fox: two. CNN: two. CBS: zero. From laughs to tears -- this is one of the older tobacco commercials. So here's what we're doing. This is gasoline consumption in all of these countries. And us. But it's not just the developed nations. The developing countries are now following us and accelerating their pace. And actually, their cumulative emissions this year are the equivalent to where we were in 1965. And they're catching up very dramatically. The total concentrations: by 2025, they will be essentially where we were in 1985. If the wealthy countries were completely missing from the picture, we would still have this crisis. But we have given to the developing countries the technologies and the ways of thinking that are creating the crisis. This is in Bolivia -- over thirty years. This is peak fishing in a few seconds. The '60s. '70s. '80s. '90s. We have to stop this. And the good news is that we can. We have the technologies. We have to have a unified view of how to go about this: the struggle against poverty in the world and the challenge of cutting wealthy country emissions, all has a single, very simple solution. People say, "What's the solution?" Here it is. Put a price on carbon. We need a CO2 tax, revenue neutral, to replace taxation on employment, which was invented by Bismarck -- and some things have changed since the 19th century. In the poor world, we have to integrate the responses to poverty with the solutions to the climate crisis. Plans to fight poverty in Uganda are mooted, if we do not solve the climate crisis. But responses can actually make a huge difference in the poor countries. This is a proposal that has been talked about a lot in Europe. This was from Nature magazine. These are concentrating solar, renewable energy plants, linked in a so-called "supergrid" to supply all of the electrical power to Europe, largely from developing countries -- high-voltage DC currents. This is not pie in the sky; this can be done. We need to do it for our own economy. The latest figures show that the old model is not working. There are a lot of great investments that you can make. If you are investing in tar sands or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these, so I'll have a disclaimer there. But geothermal, concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency and conservation. You've seen this slide before, but there's a change. The only two countries that didn't ratify -- and now there's only one. Australia had an election. And there was a campaign in Australia that involved television and Internet and radio commercials to lift the sense of urgency for the people there. And we trained 250 people to give the slide show in every town and village and city in Australia. Lot of other things contributed to it, but the new Prime Minister announced that his very first priority would be to change Australia's position on Kyoto, and he has. Now, they came to an awareness partly because of the horrible drought that they have had. This is Lake Lanier. My friend Heidi Cullen said that if we gave droughts names the way we give hurricanes names, we'd call the one in the southeast now Katrina, and we would say it's headed toward Atlanta. We can't wait for the kind of drought Australia had to change our political culture. Here's more good news. The cities supporting Kyoto in the U.S. are up to 780 -- and I thought I saw one go by there, just to localize this -- which is good news. Now, to close, we heard a couple of days ago about the value of making individual heroism so commonplace that it becomes banal or routine. What we need is another hero generation. Those of us who are alive in the United States of America today especially, but also the rest of the world, have to somehow understand that history has presented us with a choice -- just as Jill [Bolte] Taylor was figuring out how to save her life while she was distracted by the amazing experience that she was going through. We now have a culture of distraction. But we have a planetary emergency. And we have to find a way to create, in the generation of those alive today, a sense of generational mission. I wish I could find the words to convey this. This was another hero generation that brought democracy to the planet. Another that ended slavery. And that gave women the right to vote. We can do this. Don't tell me that we don't have the capacity to do it. If we had just one week's worth of what we spend on the Iraq War, we could be well on the way to solving this challenge. We have the capacity to do it. One final point: I'm optimistic, because I believe we have the capacity, at moments of great challenge, to set aside the causes of distraction and rise to the challenge that history is presenting to us. Sometimes I hear people respond to the disturbing facts of the climate crisis by saying, "Oh, this is so terrible. What a burden we have." I would like to ask you to reframe that. How many generations in all of human history have had the opportunity to rise to a challenge that is worthy of our best efforts? A challenge that can pull from us more than we knew we could do? I think we ought to approach this challenge with a sense of profound joy and gratitude that we are the generation about which, a thousand years from now, philharmonic orchestras and poets and singers will celebrate by saying, they were the ones that found it within themselves to solve this crisis and lay the basis for a bright and optimistic human future. Let's do that. Thank you very much. Chris Anderson: For so many people at TED, there is deep pain that basically a design issue on a voting form -- one bad design issue meant that your voice wasn't being heard like that in the last eight years in a position where you could make these things come true. That hurts. Al Gore: You have no idea. (Laughter) CA: When you look at what the leading candidates in your own party are doing now -- I mean, there's -- are you excited by their plans on global warming? AG: The answer to the question is hard for me because, on the one hand, I think that we should feel really great about the fact that the Republican nominee -- certain nominee -- John McCain, and both of the finalists for the Democratic nomination -- all three have a very different and forward-leaning position on the climate crisis. All three have offered leadership, and all three are very different from the approach taken by the current administration. And I think that all three have also been responsible in putting forward plans and proposals. But the campaign dialogue that -- as illustrated by the questions -- that was put together by the League of Conservation Voters, by the way, the analysis of all the questions -- and, by the way, the debates have all been sponsored by something that goes by the Orwellian label, "Clean Coal." Has anybody noticed that? Every single debate has been sponsored by "Clean Coal." "Now, even lower emissions!" The richness and fullness of the dialogue in our democracy has not laid the basis for the kind of bold initiative that is really needed. So they're saying the right things and they may -- whichever of them is elected -- may do the right thing, but let me tell you: when I came back from Kyoto in 1997, with a feeling of great happiness that we'd gotten that breakthrough there, and then confronted the United States Senate, only one out of 100 senators was willing to vote to confirm, to ratify that treaty. Whatever the candidates say has to be laid alongside what the people say. This challenge is part of the fabric of our whole civilization. CO2 is the exhaling breath of our civilization, literally. And now we mechanized that process. Changing that pattern requires a scope, a scale, a speed of change that is beyond what we have done in the past. So that's why I began by saying, be optimistic in what you do, but be an active citizen. Demand -- change the light bulbs, but change the laws. Change the global treaties. We have to speak up. We have to solve this democracy -- this -- We have sclerosis in our democracy. And we have to change that. Use the Internet. Go on the Internet. Connect with people. Become very active as citizens. Have a moratorium -- we shouldn't have any new coal-fired generating plants that aren't able to capture and store CO2, which means we have to quickly build these renewable sources. Now, nobody is talking on that scale. But I do believe that between now and November, it is possible. This Alliance for Climate Protection is going to launch a nationwide campaign -- grassroots mobilization, television ads, Internet ads, radio, newspaper -- with partnerships with everybody from the Girl Scouts to the hunters and fishermen. We need help. We need help. CA: In terms of your own personal role going forward, Al, is there something more than that you would like to be doing? AG: I have prayed that I would be able to find the answer to that question. What can I do? Buckminster Fuller once wrote, "If the future of all human civilization depended on me, what would I do? How would I be?" It does depend on all of us, but again, not just with the light bulbs. We, most of us here, are Americans. We have a democracy. We can change things, but we have to actively change. What's needed really is a higher level of consciousness. And that's hard to -- that's hard to create -- but it is coming. There's an old African proverb that some of you know that says, "If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together." We have to go far, quickly. So we have to have a change in consciousness. A change in commitment. A new sense of urgency. A new appreciation for the privilege that we have of undertaking this challenge. CA: Al Gore, thank you so much for coming to TED. AG: Thank you. Thank you very much.

"People do stupid things. That's what spreads HIV." This was a headline in a U.K. newspaper, The Guardian, not that long ago. I'm curious, show of hands, who agrees with it? Well, one or two brave souls. This is actually a direct quote from an epidemiologist who's been in field of HIV for 15 years, worked on four continents, and you're looking at her. And I am now going to argue that this is only half true. People do get HIV because they do stupid things, but most of them are doing stupid things for perfectly rational reasons. Now, "rational" is the dominant paradigm in public health, and if you put your public health nerd glasses on, you'll see that if we give people the information that they need about what's good for them and what's bad for them, if you give them the services that they can use to act on that information, and a little bit of motivation, people will make rational decisions and live long and healthy lives. Wonderful. That's slightly problematic for me because I work in HIV, and although I'm sure you all know that HIV is about poverty and gender inequality, and if you were at TED '07 it's about coffee prices ... Actually, HIV's about sex and drugs, and if there are two things that make human beings a little bit irrational, they are erections and addiction. (Laughter) So, let's start with what's rational for an addict. Now, I remember speaking to an Indonesian friend of mine, Frankie. We were having lunch and he was telling me about when he was in jail in Bali for a drug injection. It was someone's birthday, and they had very kindly smuggled some heroin into jail, and he was very generously sharing it out with all of his colleagues. And so everyone lined up, all the smackheads in a row, and the guy whose birthday it was filled up the fit, and he went down and started injecting people. So he injects the first guy, and then he's wiping the needle on his shirt, and he injects the next guy. And Frankie says, "I'm number 22 in line, and I can see the needle coming down towards me, and there is blood all over the place. It's getting blunter and blunter. And a small part of my brain is thinking, 'That is so gross and really dangerous,' but most of my brain is thinking, 'Please let there be some smack left by the time it gets to me. Please let there be some left.'" And then, telling me this story, Frankie said, "You know ... God, drugs really make you stupid." And, you know, you can't fault him for accuracy. But, actually, Frankie, at that time, was a heroin addict and he was in jail. So his choice was either to accept that dirty needle or not to get high. And if there's one place you really want to get high, it's when you're in jail. But I'm a scientist and I don't like to make data out of anecdotes, so let's look at some data. We talked to 600 drug addicts in three cities in Indonesia, and we said, "Well, do you know how you get HIV?" "Oh yeah, by sharing needles." I mean, nearly 100 percent. Yeah, by sharing needles. And, "Do you know where you can get a clean needle at a price you can afford to avoid that?" "Oh yeah." Hundred percent. "We're smackheads; we know where to get clean needles." "So are you carrying a needle?" We're actually interviewing people on the street, in the places where they're hanging out and taking drugs. "Are you carrying clean needles?" One in four, maximum. So no surprises then that the proportion that actually used clean needles every time they injected in the last week is just about one in 10, and the other nine in 10 are sharing. So you've got this massive mismatch; everyone knows that if they share they're going to get HIV, but they're all sharing anyway. So what's that about? Is it like you get a better high if you share or something? We asked that to a junkie and they're like, "Are you nuts?" You don't want to share a needle anymore than you want to share a toothbrush even with someone you're sleeping with. There's just kind of an ick factor there. "No, no. We share needles because we don't want to go to jail." So, in Indonesia at this time, if you were carrying a needle and the cops rounded you up, they could put you into jail. And that changes the equation slightly, doesn't it? Because your choice now is either I use my own needle now, or I could share a needle now and get a disease that's going to possibly kill me 10 years from now, or I could use my own needle now and go to jail tomorrow. And while junkies think that it's a really bad idea to expose themselves to HIV, they think it's a much worse idea to spend the next year in jail where they'll probably end up in Frankie's situation and expose themselves to HIV anyway. So, suddenly it becomes perfectly rational to share needles. Now, let's look at it from a policy maker's point of view. This is a really easy problem. For once, your incentives are aligned. We've got what's rational for public health. You want people to use clean needles -- and junkies want to use clean needles. So we could make this problem go away simply by making clean needles universally available and taking away the fear of arrest. Now, the first person to figure that out and do something about it on a national scale was that well-known, bleeding heart liberal Margaret Thatcher. And she put in the world's first national needle exchange program, and other countries followed suit: Australia, The Netherlands and few others. And in all of those countries, you can see, not more than four percent of injectors ever became infected with HIV. Now, places that didn't do this -- New York City for example, Moscow, Jakarta -- we're talking, at its peak, one in two injectors infected with this fatal disease. Now, Margaret Thatcher didn't do this because she has any great love for junkies. She did it because she ran a country that had a national health service. So, if she didn't invest in effective prevention, she was going to have pick up the costs of treatment later on, and obviously those are much higher. So she was making a politically rational decision. Now, if I take out my public health nerd glasses here and look at these data, it seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? But in this country, where the government apparently does not feel compelled to provide health care for citizens, (Laughter) we've taken a very different approach. So what we've been doing in the United States is reviewing the data -- endlessly reviewing the data. So, these are reviews of hundreds of studies by all the big muckety-mucks of the scientific pantheon in the United States, and these are the studies that show needle programs are effective -- quite a lot of them. Now, the ones that show that needle programs aren't effective -- you think that's one of these annoying dynamic slides and I'm going to press my dongle and the rest of it's going to come up, but no -- that's the whole slide. (Laughter) There is nothing on the other side. So, completely irrational, you would think. Except that, wait a minute, politicians are rational, too, and they're responding to what they think the voters want. So what we see is that voters respond very well to things like this and not quite so well to things like this. (Laughter) So it becomes quite rational to deny services to injectors. Now let's talk about sex. Are we any more rational about sex? Well, I'm not even going to address the clearly irrational positions of people like the Catholic Church, who think somehow that if you give out condoms, everyone's going to run out and have sex. I don't know if Pope Benedict watches TEDTalks online, but if you do, I've got news for you Benedict -- I carry condoms all the time and I never get laid. (Laughter) (Applause) It's not that easy! Here, maybe you'll have better luck. (Applause) Okay, seriously, HIV is actually not that easy to transmit sexually. So, it depends on how much virus there is in your blood and in your body fluids. And what we've got is a very, very high level of virus right at the beginning when you're first infected, then you start making antibodies, and then it bumps along at quite low levels for a long time -- 10 or 12 years -- you have spikes if you get another sexually transmitted infection. But basically, nothing much is going on until you start to get symptomatic AIDS, and by that stage, you're not looking great, you're not feeling great, you're not having that much sex. So the sexual transmission of HIV is essentially determined by how many partners you have in these very short spaces of time when you have peak viremia. Now, this makes people crazy because it means that you have to talk about some groups having more sexual partners in shorter spaces of time than other groups, and that's considered stigmatizing. I've always been a bit curious about that because I think stigma is a bad thing, whereas lots of sex is quite a good thing, but we'll leave that be. The truth is that 20 years of very good research have shown us that there are groups that are more likely to turnover large numbers of partners in a short space of time. And those groups are, globally, people who sell sex and their more regular partners. They are gay men on the party scene who have, on average, three times more partners than straight people on the party scene. And they are heterosexuals who come from countries that have traditions of polygamy and relatively high levels of female autonomy, and almost all of those countries are in east or southern Africa. And that is reflected in the epidemic that we have today. You can see these horrifying figures from Africa. These are all countries in southern Africa where between one in seven, and one in three of all adults, are infected with HIV. Now, in the rest of the world, we've got basically nothing going on in the general population -- very, very low levels -- but we have extraordinarily high levels of HIV in these other populations who are at highest risk: drug injectors, sex workers and gay men. And you'll note, that's the local data from Los Angeles: 25 percent prevalence among gay men. Of course, you can't get HIV just by having unprotected sex. You can only HIV by having unprotected sex with a positive person. In most of the world, these few prevention failures notwithstanding, we are actually doing quite well these days in commercial sex: condom use rates are between 80 and 100 percent in commercial sex in most countries. And, again, it's because of an alignment of the incentives. What's rational for public health is also rational for individual sex workers because it's really bad for business to have another STI. No one wants it. And, actually, clients don't want to go home with a drip either. So essentially, you're able to achieve quite high rates of condom use in commercial sex. But in "intimate" relations it's much more difficult because, with your wife or your boyfriend or someone that you hope might turn into one of those things, we have this illusion of romance and trust and intimacy, and nothing is quite so unromantic as the, "My condom or yours, darling?" question. So in the face of that, you really need quite a strong incentive to use condoms. This, for example, this gentleman is called Joseph. He's from Haiti and he has AIDS. And he's probably not having a lot of sex right now, but he is a reminder in the population, of why you might want to be using condoms. This is also in Haiti and is a reminder of why you might want to be having sex, perhaps. Now, funnily enough, this is also Joseph after six months on antiretroviral treatment. Not for nothing do we call it the Lazarus Effect. But it is changing the equation of what's rational in sexual decision-making. So, what we've got -- some people say, "Oh, it doesn't matter very much because, actually, treatment is effective prevention because it lowers your viral load and therefore makes it more difficult to transmit HIV." So, if you look at the viremia thing again, if you do start treatment when you're sick, well, what happens? Your viral load comes down. But compared to what? What happens if you're not on treatment? Well, you die, so your viral load goes to zero. And all of this green stuff here, including the spikes -- which are because you couldn't get to the pharmacy, or you ran out of drugs, or you went on a three day party binge and forgot to take your drugs, or because you've started to get resistance, or whatever -- all of that is virus that wouldn't be out there, except for treatment. Now, am I saying, "Oh, well, great prevention strategy. Let's just stop treating people." Of course not, of course not. We need to expand antiretroviral treatment as much as we can. But what I am doing is calling into question those people who say that more treatment is all the prevention we need. That's simply not necessarily true, and I think we can learn a lot from the experience of gay men in rich countries where treatment has been widely available for going on 15 years now. And what we've seen is that, actually, condom use rates, which were very, very high -- the gay community responded very rapidly to HIV, with extremely little help from public health nerds, I would say -- that condom use rate has come down dramatically since treatment for two reasons really: One is the assumption of, "Oh well, if he's infected, he's probably on meds, and his viral load's going to be low, so I'm pretty safe." And the other thing is that people are simply not as scared of HIV as they were of AIDS, and rightly so. AIDS was a disfiguring disease that killed you, and HIV is an invisible virus that makes you take a pill every day. And that's boring, but is it as boring as having to use a condom every time you have sex, no matter how drunk you are, no matter how many poppers you've taken, whatever? If we look at the data, we can see that the answer to that question is, mmm. So these are data from Scotland. You see the peak in drug injectors before they started the national needle exchange program. Then it came way down. And both in heterosexuals -- mostly in commercial sex -- and in drug users, you've really got nothing much going on after treatment begins, and that's because of that alignment of incentives that I talked about earlier. But in gay men, you've got quite a dramatic rise starting three or four years after treatment became widely available. This is of new infections. What does that mean? It means that the combined effect of being less worried and having more virus out there in the population -- more people living longer, healthier lives, more likely to be getting laid with HIV -- is outweighing the effects of lower viral load, and that's a very worrisome thing. What does it mean? It means we need to be doing more prevention the more treatment we have. Is that what's happening? No, and I call it the "compassion conundrum." We've talked a lot about compassion the last couple of days, and what's happening really is that people are unable quite to bring themselves to put in good sexual and reproductive health services for sex workers, unable quite to be giving out needles to junkies. But once they've gone from being transgressive people whose behaviors we don't want to condone to being AIDS victims, we come over all compassionate and buy them incredibly expensive drugs for the rest of their lives. It doesn't make any sense from a public health point of view. I want to give what's very nearly the last word to Ines. Ines is a a transgender hooker on the streets of Jakarta; she's a chick with a dick. Why does she do that job? Well, of course, because she's forced into it because she doesn't have any better option, etc., etc. And if we could just teach her to sew and get her a nice job in a factory, all would be well. This is what factory workers earn in an hour in Indonesia: on average, 20 cents. It varies a bit province to province. I do speak to sex workers, 15,000 of them for this particular slide, and this is what sex workers say they earn in an hour. So it's not a great job, but for a lot of people it really is quite a rational choice. Okay, Ines. We've got the tools, the knowledge and the cash, and commitment to preventing HIV too. Ines: So why is prevalence still rising? It's all politics. When you get to politics, nothing makes sense. Elizabeth Pisani: "When you get to politics, nothing makes sense." So, from the point of view of a sex worker, politicians are making no sense. From the point of view of a public health nerd, junkies are doing dumb things. The truth is that everyone has a different rationale. There are as many different ways of being rational as there are human beings on the planet, and that's one of the glories of human existence. But those ways of being rational are not independent of one another, so it's rational for a drug injector to share needles because of a stupid decision that's made by a politician, and it's rational for a politician to make that stupid decision because they're responding to what they think the voters want. But here's the thing: we are the voters. We're not all of them, of course, but TED is a community of opinion leaders. And everyone who's in this room, and everyone who's watching this out there on the web, I think, has a duty to demand of their politicians that we make policy based on scientific evidence and on common sense. It's going to be really hard for us to individually affect what's rational for every Frankie and every Ines out there, but you can at least use your vote to stop politicians doing stupid things that spread HIV. Thank you. (Applause)

So I'm going to talk about work, specifically why people can't seem to get work done at work, which is a problem we all kind of have. But let's, sort of, start at the beginning. So we have companies and non-profits and charities and all these groups that have employees or volunteers of some sort. And they expect these people who work for them to do great work -- I would hope, at least. At least good work, hopefully, at least it's good work -- hopefully great work. And so what they typically do is they decide that all these people need to come together in one place to do that work. So a company, or a charity, or an organization of any kind, they typically -- unless you're working in Africa, if you're really lucky to do that -- most people have to go to an office every day. And so these companies, they build offices. They go out and they buy a building, or they rent a building, or they lease some space, and they fill the space with stuff. They fill it with tables, or desks, chairs, computer equipment, software, Internet access, maybe a fridge, maybe a few other things, and they expect their employees, or their volunteers, to come to that location every day to do great work. It seems like it's perfectly reasonable to ask that. However, if you actually talk to people and even question yourself, and you ask yourself, where do you really want to go when you really need to get something done? You'll find out that people don't say what businesses think they would say. If you ask people the question: where do you really need to go when you need to get something done? Typically you get three different kinds of answers. One is kind of a place or a location or a room. Another one is a moving object and a third is a time. So here's some examples. When I ask people -- and I've been asking people this question for about 10 years -- I ask them, "Where do you go when you really need to get something done?" I'll hear things like, the porch, the deck, the kitchen. I'll hear things like an extra room in the house, the basement, the coffee shop, the library. And then you'll hear things like the train, a plane, a car -- so, the commute. And then you'll hear people say, "Well, it doesn't really matter where I am, as long as it's really early in the morning or really late at night or on the weekends." You almost never hear someone say the office. But businesses are spending all this money on this place called the office, and they're making people go to it all the time, yet people don't do work in the office. What is that about? Why is that? Why is that happening? And what you find out is that, if you dig a little bit deeper, you find out that people -- this is what happens -- people go to work, and they're basically trading in their workday for a series of "work moments." That's what happens at the office. You don't have a workday anymore. You have work moments. It's like the front door of the office is like a Cuisinart, and you walk in and your day is shredded to bits, because you have 15 minutes here and 30 minutes there, and then something else happens and you're pulled off your work, and you've got to do something else, then you have 20 minutes, then it's lunch. Then you have something else to do. Then you've got 15 minutes, and someone pulls you aside and asks you this question, and before you know it, it's 5 p.m., and you look back on the day, and you realize that you didn't get anything done. I mean, we've all been through this. We probably went through it yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that. You look back on your day, and you're like, I got nothing done today. I was at work. I sat at my desk. I used my expensive computer. I used the software they told me to use. I went to these meetings I was asked to go to. I did these conference calls. I did all this stuff. But I didn't actually do anything. I just did tasks. I didn't actually get meaningful work done. And what you find is that, especially with creative people -- designers, programmers, writers, engineers, thinkers -- that people really need long stretches of uninterrupted time to get something done. You cannot ask somebody to be creative in 15 minutes and really think about a problem. You might have a quick idea, but to be in deep thought about a problem and really consider a problem carefully, you need long stretches of uninterrupted time. And even though the workday is typically eight hours, how many people here have ever had eight hours to themselves at the office? How about seven hours? Six? Five? Four? When's the last time you had three hours to yourself at the office? Two hours? One, maybe? Very, very few people actually have long stretches of uninterrupted time at an office. And this is why people choose to do work at home, or they might go to the office, but they might go to the office really early in the day, or late at night when no one's around, or they stick around after everyone's left, or they go in on the weekends, or they get work done on the plane, or they get work done in the car or in the train because there are no distractions. Now, there are different kinds of distractions, but there aren't the really bad kinds of distractions that I'll talk about in just a minute. And this sort of whole phenomenon of having short bursts of time to get things done reminds me of another thing that doesn't work when you're interrupted, and that is sleep. I think that sleep and work are very closely related, and it's not just that you can work while you're sleeping and you can sleep while you're working. That's not really what I mean. I'm talking specifically about the fact that sleep and work are phased-based, or stage-based, events. So sleep is about sleep phases, or stages -- some people call them different things. There's five of them, and in order to get to the really deep ones, the really meaningful ones, you have to go through the early ones. And if you're interrupted while you're going through the early ones -- if someone bumps you in bed, or if there's a sound, or whatever happens -- you don't just pick up where you left off. If you're interrupted and woken up, you have to start again. So you have to go back a few phases and start again. And what ends up happening -- sometimes you might have days like this where you wake up at eight in the morning, or seven in the morning, or whenever you get up, and you're like, man, I didn't really sleep very well. I did the sleep thing -- I went to bed, I laid down -- but I didn't really sleep. People say you go to sleep, but you really don't go to sleep, you go towards sleep. It just takes a while. You've got to go through these phases and stuff, and if you're interrupted, you don't sleep well. So how do we expect -- does anyone here expect someone to sleep well if they're interrupted all night? I don't think anyone would say yes. Why do we expect people to work well if they're being interrupted all day at the office? How can we possibly expect people to do their job if they're going to the office to be interrupted? That doesn't really seem like it makes a lot of sense to me. So what are these interruptions that happen at the office that don't happen at other places? Because in other places, you can have interruptions, like, you can have the TV, or you could go for a walk, or there's a fridge downstairs, or you've got your own couch, or whatever you want to do. And if you talk to certain managers, they'll tell you that they don't want their employees to work at home because of these distractions. They'll also say -- sometimes they'll also say, "Well, if I can't see the person, how do I know they're working?" which is ridiculous, of course, but that's one of the excuses that managers give. And I'm one of these managers. I understand. I know how this goes. We all have to improve on this sort of thing. But oftentimes they'll cite distractions. "I can't let someone work at home. They'll watch TV. They'll do this other thing." It turns out that those aren't the things that are really distracting. Because those are voluntary distractions. You decide when you want to be distracted by the TV. You decide when you want to turn something on. You decide when you want to go downstairs or go for a walk. At the office, most of the interruptions and distractions that really cause people not to get work done are involuntary. So let's go through a couple of those. Now, managers and bosses will often have you think that the real distractions at work are things like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and other websites, and in fact, they'll go so far as to actually ban these sites at work. Some of you may work at places where you can't get to these certain sites. I mean, is this China? What the hell is going on here? You can't go to a website at work, and that's the problem, that's why people aren't getting work done, because they're going to Facebook and they're going to Twitter? That's kind of ridiculous. It's a total decoy. And today's Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, these things are just modern-day smoke breaks. No one cared about letting people take a smoke break for 15 minutes 10 years ago, so why does everyone care about someone going to Facebook here and there, or Twitter here and there, or YouTube here and there? Those aren't the real problems in the office. The real problems are what I like to call the M&Ms, the Managers and the Meetings. Those are the real problems in the modern office today. And this is why things don't get done at work -- it's because of the M&Ms. Now what's interesting is, if you listen to all the places that people talk about doing work -- like at home, or in a car, or on a plane, or late at night, or early in the morning -- you don't find managers and meetings. You find a lot of other distractions, but you don't find managers and meetings. So these are the things that you don't find elsewhere, but you do find at the office. And managers are basically people whose job it is to interrupt people. That's pretty much what managers are for. They're for interrupting people. They don't really do the work, so they have to make sure everyone else is doing the work, which is an interruption. And we have a lot of managers in the world now, and there's a lot of people in the world now, and there's a lot of interruptions in the world now because of these managers. They have to check in: "Hey, how's it going? Show me what's up," and this sort of thing and they keep interrupting you at the wrong time, while you're actually trying to do something they're paying you to do, they tend to interrupt you. That's kind of bad. But what's even worse is the thing that managers do most of all, which is call meetings. And meetings are just toxic, terrible, poisonous things during the day at work. We all know this to be true, and you would never see a spontaneous meeting called by employees. It doesn't work that way. The manager calls the meeting so the employees can all come together, and it's an incredibly disruptive thing to do to people -- is to say, "Hey look, we're going to bring 10 people together right now and have a meeting. I don't care what you're doing. Just, you've got to stop doing what you're doing, so you can have this meeting." I mean, what are the chances that all 10 people are ready to stop? What if they're thinking about something important? What if they're doing important work? All of a sudden you're telling them that they have to stop doing that to do something else. So they go into a meeting room, they get together, and they talk about stuff that doesn't really matter usually. Because meetings aren't work. Meetings are places to go to talk about things you're supposed to be doing later. But meetings also procreate. So one meeting tends to lead to another meeting and tends to lead to another meeting. There's often too many people in the meetings, and they're very, very expensive to the organization. Companies often think of a one-hour meeting as a one-hour meeting, but that's not true, unless there's only one person in that meeting. If there are 10 people in the meeting, it's a 10-hour meeting; it's not a one-hour meeting. It's 10 hours of productivity taken from the rest of the organization to have this one one-hour meeting, which probably should have been handled by two or three people talking for a few minutes. But instead, there's a long scheduled meeting, because meetings are scheduled the way software works, which is in increments of 15 minutes, or 30 minutes, or an hour. You don't schedule an eight-hour meeting with Outlook. You can't. I don't even know if you can. You can go 15 minutes or 30 minutes or 45 minutes or an hour. And so we tend to fill these times up when things should really go really quickly. So meetings and managers are two major problems in businesses today, especially to offices. These things don't exist outside of the office. So I have some suggestions to remedy the situation. What can managers do -- enlightened managers, hopefully -- what can they do to make the office a better place for people to work, so it's not the last resort, but it's the first resort? It's that people start to say, "When I really want to get stuff done, I go to the office." Because the offices are well equipped, everything should be there for them to do their work, but they don't want to go there right now, so how do we change that? I have three suggestions I'll share with you guys. I have about three minutes, so that'll fit perfectly. We've all heard of the casual Friday thing. I don't know if people still do that. But how about "no-talk Thursdays?" How about -- pick one Thursday once a month and cut that day in half and just say the afternoon -- I'll make it really easy for you. So just the afternoon, one Thursday. The first Thursday of the month -- just the afternoon -- nobody in the office can talk to each other. Just silence, that's it. And what you'll find is that a tremendous amount of work actually gets done when no one talks to each other. This is when people actually get stuff done, is when no one's bothering them, when no one's interrupting them. And you can give someone -- giving someone four hours of uninterrupted time is the best gift you can give anybody at work. It's better than a computer. It's better than a new monitor. It's better than new software, or whatever people typically use. Giving them four hours of quiet time at the office is going to be incredibly valuable. And if you try that, I think you'll find that you agree. And maybe, hopefully you can do it more often. So maybe it's every other week, or every week, once a week, afternoons no one can talk to each other. That's something that you'll find will really, really work. Another thing you can try is switching from active communication and collaboration, which is like face-to-face stuff, tapping people on the shoulder, saying hi to them, having meetings, and replace that with more passive models of communication, using things like email and instant messaging, or collaboration products -- things like that. Now some people might say email is really distracting and I.M. is really distracting, and these other things are really distracting, but they're distracting at a time of your own choice and your own choosing. You can quit the email app; you can't quit your boss. You can quit I.M.; you can't hide your manager. You can put these things away, and then you can be interrupted on your own schedule, at your own time, when you're available, when you're ready to go again. Because work, like sleep, happens in phases. So you're going to be kind of going up and doing some work, and then you're going to come down from that work, and then maybe it's time to check that email, or check that I.M. And there are very, very few things that are that urgent that need to happen, that need to be answered right this second. So if you're a manager, start encouraging people to use more things like I.M. and email and other things that someone else can put away and then get back to you on their own schedule. And the last suggestion I have is that, if you do have a meeting coming up, if you have the power, just cancel. Just cancel that next meeting. Today's Friday -- so Monday, usually people have meetings on Monday. Just don't have it. I don't mean move it; I mean just erase it from memory, it's gone. And you'll find out that everything will be just fine. All these discussions and decisions you thought you had to make at this one time at 9 a.m. on Monday, just forget about them, and things will be just fine. People have a more open morning, they can actually think, and you'll find out that maybe all these things you thought you had to do, you don't actually have to do. So those are just three quick suggestions I wanted to give you guys to think about this. And I hope that some of these ideas were at least provocative enough for managers and bosses and business owners and organizers and people who are in charge of other people to think about laying off a little bit and giving people some more time to get some work done. And I think it'll all pay off in the end. So thanks for listening. (Applause)

Good afternoon. There's a medical revolution happening all around us, and it's one that's going to help us conquer some of society's most dreaded conditions, including cancer. The revolution is called angiogenesis, and it's based on the process that our bodies use to grow blood vessels. So why should we care about blood vessels? Well, the human body is literally packed with them -- 60,000 miles worth in a typical adult. End to end, that would form a line that would circle the earth twice. The smallest blood vessels are called capillaries. We've got 19 billion of them in our bodies. And these are the vessels of life, and as I'll show you, they can also be the vessels of death. Now, the remarkable thing about blood vessels is that they have this ability to adapt to whatever environment they're growing in. For example, in the liver, they form channels to detoxify the blood; in the lungs, they line air sacs for gas exchange. In muscle, they corkscrew, so that muscles can contract without cutting off circulation. And in nerves, they course along like power lines, keeping those nerves alive. We get most of these blood vessels when we're actually still in the womb. And what that means is that as adults, blood vessels don't normally grow. Except in a few special circumstances. In women, blood vessels grow every month, to build the lining of the uterus. During pregnancy, they form the placenta, which connects mom and baby. And after injury, blood vessels actually have to grow under the scab in order to heal a wound. And this is actually what it looks like, hundreds of blood vessels, all growing toward the center of the wound. So the body has the ability to regulate the amount of blood vessels that are present at any given time. It does this through an elaborate and elegant system of checks and balances, stimulators and inhibitors of angiogenesis, such that, when we need a brief burst of blood vessels, the body can do this by releasing stimulators, proteins called angiogenic factors, that act as natural fertilizer, and stimulate new blood vessels to sprout. When those excess vessels are no longer needed, the body prunes them back to baseline, using naturally-occurring inhibitors of angiogenesis. There are other situations where we start beneath the baseline, and we need to grow more blood vessels, just to get back to normal levels -- for example, after an injury -- and the body can do that too, but only to that normal level, that set point. But what we now know, is that for a number of diseases, there are defects in the system, where the body can't prune back extra blood vessels, or can't grow enough new ones in the right place at the right time. And in these situations, angiogenesis is out of balance. And when angiogenesis is out of balance, a myriad of diseases result. For example, insufficient angiogenesis -- not enough blood vessels -- leads to wounds that don't heal, heart attacks, legs without circulation, death from stroke, nerve damage. And on the other end, excessive angiogenesis -- too many blood vessels -- drives disease, and we see this in cancer, blindness, arthritis, obesity, Alzheimer's disease. In total, there are more than 70 major diseases affecting more than a billion people worldwide, that all look on the surface to be different from one another, but all actually share abnormal angiogenesis as their common denominator. And this realization is allowing us to re-conceptualize the way that we actually approach these diseases, by controlling angiogenesis. Now, I'm going to focus on cancer, because angiogenesis is a hallmark of cancer -- every type of cancer. So here we go. This is a tumor: dark, gray, ominous mass growing inside a brain. And under the microscope, you can see hundreds of these brown-stained blood vessels, capillaries that are feeding cancer cells, bringing oxygen and nutrients. But cancers don't start out like this, and in fact, cancers don't start out with a blood supply. They start out as small, microscopic nests of cells, that can only grow to one half a cubic millimeter in size. That's the tip of a ballpoint pen. Then they can't get any larger because they don't have a blood supply, so they don't have enough oxygen or nutrients. In fact, we're probably forming these microscopic cancers all the time in our body. Autopsy studies from people who died in car accidents have shown that about 40 percent of women between the ages of 40 and 50 actually have microscopic cancers in their breasts. About 50 percent of men in their 50s and 60s have microscopic prostate cancers, and virtually 100 percent of us, by the time we reach our 70s, will have microscopic cancers growing in our thyroid. Yet, without a blood supply, most of these cancers will never become dangerous. Dr. Judah Folkman, who was my mentor and who was the pioneer of the angiogenesis field, once called this "cancer without disease." So the body's ability to balance angiogenesis, when it's working properly, prevents blood vessels from feeding cancers. And this turns out to be one of our most important defense mechanisms against cancer. In fact, if you actually block angiogenesis and prevent blood vessels from ever reaching cancer cells, tumors simply can't grow up. But once angiogenesis occurs, cancers can grow exponentially. And this is actually how a cancer goes from being harmless, to being deadly. Cancer cells mutate, and they gain the ability to release lots of those angiogenic factors, natural fertilizer, that tip the balance in favor of blood vessels invading the cancer. And once those vessels invade the cancer, it can expand, it can invade local tissues, and the same vessels that are feeding tumors allow cancer cells to exit into the circulation as metastases. And unfortunately, this late stage of cancer is the one at which it's most likely to be diagnosed, when angiogenesis is already turned on, and cancer cells are growing like wild. So, if angiogenesis is a tipping point between a harmless cancer and a harmful one, then one major part of the angiogenesis revolution is a new approach to treating cancer by cutting off the blood supply. We call this antiangiogenic therapy, and it's completely different from chemotherapy, because it selectively aims at the blood vessels that are feeding the cancers. We can do this because tumor blood vessels are unlike normal, healthy vessels we see in other places of the body -- they're abnormal, they're very poorly constructed, and because of that, they're highly vulnerable to treatments that target them. In effect, when we give cancer patients antiangiogenic therapy -- here, an experimental drug for a glioma, which is a type of brain tumor -- you can see that there are dramatic changes that occur when the tumor is being starved. Here's a woman with a breast cancer, being treated with the antiangiogenic drug called Avastin, which is FDA approved. And you can see that the halo of blood flow disappears after treatment. Well, I've just shown you two very different types of cancer that both responded to antiangiogenic therapy. So a few years ago, I asked myself, "Can we take this one step further and treat other cancers, even in other species?" So here is a nine year-old boxer named Milo, who had a very aggressive tumor called a malignant neurofibroma growing on his shoulder. It invaded into his lungs. His veterinarian only gave him three months to live. So we created a cocktail of antiangiogenic drugs that could be mixed into his dog food, as well as an antiangiogenic cream, that could be applied on the surface of the tumor. And within a few weeks of treatment, we were able to slow down that cancer's growth, such that we were ultimately able to extend Milo’s survival to six times what the veterinarian had initially predicted, all with a very good quality of life. And we've subsequently treated more than 600 dogs. We have about a 60 percent response rate, and improved survival for these pets that were about to be euthanized. So let me show you a couple of even more interesting examples. This is 20-year-old dolphin living in Florida, and she had these lesions in her mouth that, over the course of three years, developed into invasive squamous cell cancers. So we created an antiangiogenic paste. We had it painted on top of the cancer three times a week. And over the course of seven months, the cancers completely disappeared, and the biopsies came back as normal. Here's a cancer growing on the lip of a Quarter Horse named Guinness. It's a very, very deadly type of cancer called an angiosarcoma. It had already spread to his lymph nodes, so we used an antiangiogenic skin cream for the lip, and the oral cocktail, so we could treat from the inside as well as the outside. And over the course of six months, he experienced a complete remission. And here he is six years later, Guinness, with his very happy owner. (Applause) Now obviously, antiangiogenic therapy could be used for a wide range of cancers. And in fact, the first pioneering treatments for people as well as dogs, are already becoming available. There are 12 different drugs, 11 different cancer types. But the real question is: How well do these work in practice? So here's actually the patient survival data from eight different types of cancer. The bars represent survival time taken from the era in which there was only chemotherapy, or surgery, or radiation available. But starting in 2004, when antiangiogenic therapies first became available, you can see that there has been a 70 to 100 percent improvement in survival for people with kidney cancer, multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. That's impressive. But for other tumors and cancer types, the improvements have only been modest. So I started asking myself, "Why haven't we been able to do better?" And the answer, to me, is obvious: we're treating cancer too late in the game, when it's already established, and oftentimes, it's already spread or metastasized. And as a doctor, I know that once a disease progresses to an advanced stage, achieving a cure can be difficult, if not impossible. So I went back to the biology of angiogenesis, and started thinking: Could the answer to cancer be preventing angiogenesis, beating cancer at its own game, so the cancers could never become dangerous? This could help healthy people, as well as people who've already beaten cancer once or twice, and want to find a way to keep it from coming back. So to look for a way to prevent angiogenesis in cancer, I went back to look at cancer's causes. And what really intrigued me, was when I saw that diet accounts for 30 to 35 percent of environmentally-caused cancers. Now the obvious thing is to think about what we could remove from our diet, what to strip out, take away. But I actually took a completely opposite approach, and began asking: What could we be adding to our diet that's naturally antiangiogenic, and that could boost the body's defense system, and beat back those blood vessels that are feeding cancers? In other words, can we eat to starve cancer? (Laughter) Well, the answer is yes, and I'm going to show you how. And our search for this has taken us to the market, the farm and to the spice cabinet, because what we've discovered is that Mother Nature has laced a large number of foods and beverages and herbs with naturally-occurring inhibitors of angiogenesis. Here's a test system we developed. At the center is a ring from which hundreds of blood vessels are growing out in a starburst fashion. And we can use this system to test dietary factors at concentrations that are obtainable by eating. Let me show you what happens when we put in an extract from red grapes. The active ingredient is resveratrol, it's also found in red wine. This inhibits abnormal angiogenesis, by 60 percent. Here's what happens when we added an extract from strawberries. It potently inhibits angiogenesis. And extract from soybeans. And here is a growing list of antiangiogenic foods and beverages that we're interested in studying. For each food type, we believe that there are different potencies within different strains and varietals. And we want to measure this because, well, while you're eating a strawberry or drinking tea, why not select the one that's most potent for preventing cancer? So here are four different teas that we've tested. They're all common ones: Chinese jasmine, Japanese sencha, Earl Grey and a special blend that we prepared, and you can see clearly that the teas vary in their potency, from less potent to more potent. But what's very cool is when we combine the two less potent teas together, the combination, the blend, is more potent than either one alone. This means there's food synergy. Here's some more data from our testing. Now in the lab, we can simulate tumor angiogenesis, represented here in a black bar. And using this system, we can test the potency of cancer drugs. So the shorter the bar, the less angiogenesis -- that's good. And here are some common drugs that have been associated with reducing the risk of cancer in people. Statins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and a few others -- they inhibit angiogenesis, too. And here are the dietary factors going head-to-head against these drugs. You can see they clearly hold their own, and in some cases, they're more potent than the actual drugs. Soy, parsley, garlic, grapes, berries. I could go home and cook a tasty meal using these ingredients. Imagine if we could create the world's first rating system, in which we could score foods according to their antiangiogenic, cancer-preventative properties. And that's what we're doing right now. Now, I've shown you a bunch of lab data, and so the real question is: What is the evidence in people that eating certain foods can reduce angiogenesis in cancer? Well, the best example I know is a study of 79,000 men followed over 20 years, in which it was found that men who consumed cooked tomatoes two to three times a week, had up to a 50 percent reduction in their risk of developing prostate cancer. Now, we know that tomatoes are a good source of lycopene, and lycopene is antiangiogenic. But what's even more interesting from this study, is that in those men who did develop prostate cancer, those who ate more servings of tomato sauce, actually had fewer blood vessels feeding their cancer. So this human study is a prime example of how antiangiogenic substances present in food and consumed at practical levels, can have an impact on cancer. And we're now studying the role of a healthy diet -- with Dean Ornish at UCSF and Tufts University -- the role of this healthy diet on markers of angiogenesis that we can find in the bloodstream. Obviously, what I've shared with you has some far-ranging implications, even beyond cancer research. Because if we're right, it could impact consumer education, food services, public health and even the insurance industry. And in fact, some insurance companies are already beginning to think along these lines. Check out this ad from BlueCross BlueShield of Minnesota. For many people around the world, dietary cancer prevention may be the only practical solution, because not everybody can afford expensive end-stage cancer treatments, but everybody could benefit from a healthy diet based on local, sustainable, antiangiogenic crops. Now, finally, I've talked to you about food, and I've talked to you about cancer, so there's just one more disease that I have to tell you about, and that's obesity. Because it turns out that adipose tissue -- fat -- is highly angiogenesis-dependent. And like a tumor, fat grows when blood vessels grow. So the question is: Can we shrink fat by cutting off its blood supply? The top curve shows the body weight of a genetically obese mouse that eats nonstop until it turns fat, like this furry tennis ball. (Laughter) And the bottom curve is the weight of a normal mouse. If you take the obese mouse and give it an angiogenesis inhibitor, it loses weight. Stop the treatment, gains the weight back. Restart the treatment, loses the weight. Stop the treatment, it gains the weight back. And, in fact, you can cycle the weight up and down simply by inhibiting angiogenesis. So this approach that we're taking for cancer prevention may also have an application for obesity. The truly interesting thing about this is that we can't take these obese mice and make them lose more weight than what the normal mouse's weight is supposed to be. In other words, we can't create supermodel mice. (Laughter) And this speaks to the role of angiogenesis in regulating healthy set points. Albert Szent-Györgi once said, "Discovery consists of seeing what everyone has seen, and thinking what no one has thought." I hope I've convinced you that for diseases like cancer, obesity and other conditions, there may be a great power in attacking their common denominator: angiogenesis. And that's what I think the world needs now. Thank you. (Applause) June Cohen: I have a quick question for you. JC: So these drugs aren't exactly in mainstream cancer treatments right now. For anyone out here who has cancer, what would you recommend? Do you recommend pursuing these treatments now, for most cancer patients? William Li: There are antiangiogenic treatments that are FDA approved, and if you're a cancer patient, or working for one or advocating for one, you should ask about them. And there are many clinical trials. The Angiogenesis Foundation is following almost 300 companies, and there are about 100 more drugs in that pipeline. So, consider the approved ones, look for clinical trials, but then between what the doctor can do for you, we need to start asking what can we do for ourselves. This is one of the themes I'm talking about: We can empower ourselves to do the things that doctors can't do for us, which is to use knowledge and take action. And if Mother Nature has given us some clues, we think there might be a new future in the value of how we eat, and what we eat is really our chemotherapy three times a day. JC: Right. And along those lines, for people who might have risk factors for cancer, would you recommend pursuing any treatments prophylactically, or simply pursuing the right diet, with lots of tomato sauce? WL: Well, you know, there's abundant epidemiological evidence, and I think in the information age, it doesn't take long to go to a credible source like PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, to look for epidemiological studies for cancer risk reduction based on diet and based on common medications. And that's certainly something that anybody can look into. JC: Okay. Well, thank you so much. (Applause)

Tonight, I want to have a conversation about this incredible global issue that's at the intersection of land use, food and environment, something we can all relate to, and what I've been calling the other inconvenient truth. But first, I want to take you on a little journey. Let's first visit our planet, but at night, and from space. This is what our planet looks like from outer space at nighttime, if you were to take a satellite and travel around the planet. And the thing you would notice first, of course, is how dominant the human presence on our planet is. We see cities, we see oil fields, you can even make out fishing fleets in the sea, that we are dominating much of our planet, and mostly through the use of energy that we see here at night. But let's go back and drop it a little deeper and look during the daytime. What we see during the day is our landscapes. This is part of the Amazon Basin, a place called Rondônia in the south-center part of the Brazilian Amazon. If you look really carefully in the upper right-hand corner, you're going to see a thin white line, which is a road that was built in the 1970s. If we come back to the same place in 2001, what we're going to find is that these roads spurt off more roads, and more roads after that, at the end of which is a small clearing in the rainforest where there are going to be a few cows. These cows are used for beef. We're going to eat these cows. And these cows are eaten basically in South America, in Brazil and Argentina. They're not being shipped up here. But this kind of fishbone pattern of deforestation is something we notice a lot of around the tropics, especially in this part of the world. If we go a little bit further south in our little tour of the world, we can go to the Bolivian edge of the Amazon, here also in 1975, and if you look really carefully, there's a thin white line through that kind of seam, and there's a lone farmer out there in the middle of the primeval jungle. Let's come back again a few years later, here in 2003, and we'll see that that landscape actually looks a lot more like Iowa than it does like a rainforest. In fact, what you're seeing here are soybean fields. These soybeans are being shipped to Europe and to China as animal feed, especially after the mad cow disease scare about a decade ago, where we don't want to feed animals animal protein anymore, because that can transmit disease. Instead, we want to feed them more vegetable proteins. So soybeans have really exploded, showing how trade and globalization are really responsible for the connections to rainforests and the Amazon -- an incredibly strange and interconnected world that we have today. Well, again and again, what we find as we look around the world in our little tour of the world is that landscape after landscape after landscape have been cleared and altered for growing food and other crops. So one of the questions we've been asking is, how much of the world is used to grow food, and where is it exactly, and how can we change that into the future, and what does it mean? Well, our team has been looking at this on a global scale, using satellite data and ground-based data kind of to track farming on a global scale. And this is what we found, and it's startling. This map shows the presence of agriculture on planet Earth. The green areas are the areas we use to grow crops, like wheat or soybeans or corn or rice or whatever. That's 16 million square kilometers' worth of land. If you put it all together in one place, it'd be the size of South America. The second area, in brown, is the world's pastures and rangelands, where our animals live. That area's about 30 million square kilometers, or about an Africa's worth of land, a huge amount of land, and it's the best land, of course, is what you see. And what's left is, like, the middle of the Sahara Desert, or Siberia, or the middle of a rain forest. We're using a planet's worth of land already. If we look at this carefully, we find it's about 40 percent of the Earth's land surface is devoted to agriculture, and it's 60 times larger than all the areas we complain about, our suburban sprawl and our cities where we mostly live. Half of humanity lives in cities today, but a 60-times-larger area is used to grow food. So this is an amazing kind of result, and it really shocked us when we looked at that. So we're using an enormous amount of land for agriculture, but also we're using a lot of water. This is a photograph flying into Arizona, and when you look at it, you're like, "What are they growing here?" It turns out they're growing lettuce in the middle of the desert using water sprayed on top. Now, the irony is, it's probably sold in our supermarket shelves in the Twin Cities. But what's really interesting is, this water's got to come from some place, and it comes from here, the Colorado River in North America. Well, the Colorado on a typical day in the 1950s, this is just, you know, not a flood, not a drought, kind of an average day, it looks something like this. But if we come back today, during a normal condition to the exact same location, this is what's left. The difference is mainly irrigating the desert for food, or maybe golf courses in Scottsdale, you take your pick. Well, this is a lot of water, and again, we're mining water and using it to grow food, and today, if you travel down further down the Colorado, it dries up completely and no longer flows into the ocean. We've literally consumed an entire river in North America for irrigation. Well, that's not even the worst example in the world. This probably is: the Aral Sea. Now, a lot you will remember this from your geography classes. This is in the former Soviet Union in between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, one of the great inland seas of the world. But there's kind of a paradox here, because it looks like it's surrounded by desert. Why is this sea here? The reason it's here is because, on the right-hand side, you see two little rivers kind of coming down through the sand, feeding this basin with water. Those rivers are draining snowmelt from mountains far to the east, where snow melts, it travels down the river through the desert, and forms the great Aral Sea. Well, in the 1950s, the Soviets decided to divert that water to irrigate the desert to grow cotton, believe it or not, in Kazakhstan, to sell cotton to the international markets to bring foreign currency into the Soviet Union. They really needed the money. Well, you can imagine what happens. You turn off the water supply to the Aral Sea, what's going to happen? Here it is in 1973, 1986, 1999, 2004, and about 11 months ago. It's pretty extraordinary. Now a lot of us in the audience here live in the Midwest. Imagine that was Lake Superior. Imagine that was Lake Huron. It's an extraordinary change. This is not only a change in water and where the shoreline is, this is a change in the fundamentals of the environment of this region. Let's start with this. The Soviet Union didn't really have a Sierra Club. Let's put it that way. So what you find in the bottom of the Aral Sea ain't pretty. There's a lot of toxic waste, a lot of things that were dumped there that are now becoming airborne. One of those small islands that was remote and impossible to get to was a site of Soviet biological weapons testing. You can walk there today. Weather patterns have changed. Nineteen of the unique 20 fish species found only in the Aral Sea are now wiped off the face of the Earth. This is an environmental disaster writ large. But let's bring it home. This is a picture that Al Gore gave me a few years ago that he took when he was in the Soviet Union a long, long time ago, showing the fishing fleets of the Aral Sea. You see the canal they dug? They were so desperate to try to, kind of, float the boats into the remaining pools of water, but they finally had to give up because the piers and the moorings simply couldn't keep up with the retreating shoreline. I don't know about you, but I'm terrified that future archaeologists will dig this up and write stories about our time in history, and wonder, "What were you thinking?" Well, that's the future we have to look forward to. We already use about 50 percent of the Earth's fresh water that's sustainable, and agriculture alone is 70 percent of that. So we use a lot of water, a lot of land for agriculture. We also use a lot of the atmosphere for agriculture. Usually when we think about the atmosphere, we think about climate change and greenhouse gases, and mostly around energy, but it turns out agriculture is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases too. If you look at carbon dioxide from burning tropical rainforest, or methane coming from cows and rice, or nitrous oxide from too many fertilizers, it turns out agriculture is 30 percent of the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere from human activity. That's more than all our transportation. It's more than all our electricity. It's more than all other manufacturing, in fact. It's the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases of any human activity in the world. And yet, we don't talk about it very much. So we have this incredible presence today of agriculture dominating our planet, whether it's 40 percent of our land surface, 70 percent of the water we use, 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. We've doubled the flows of nitrogen and phosphorus around the world simply by using fertilizers, causing huge problems of water quality from rivers, lakes, and even oceans, and it's also the single biggest driver of biodiversity loss. So without a doubt, agriculture is the single most powerful force unleashed on this planet since the end of the ice age. No question. And it rivals climate change in importance. And they're both happening at the same time. But what's really important here to remember is that it's not all bad. It's not that agriculture's a bad thing. In fact, we completely depend on it. It's not optional. It's not a luxury. It's an absolute necessity. We have to provide food and feed and, yeah, fiber and even biofuels to something like seven billion people in the world today, and if anything, we're going to have the demands on agriculture increase into the future. It's not going to go away. It's going to get a lot bigger, mainly because of growing population. We're seven billion people today heading towards at least nine, probably nine and a half before we're done. More importantly, changing diets. As the world becomes wealthier as well as more populous, we're seeing increases in dietary consumption of meat, which take a lot more resources than a vegetarian diet does. So more people, eating more stuff, and richer stuff, and of course having an energy crisis at the same time, where we have to replace oil with other energy sources that will ultimately have to include some kinds of biofuels and bio-energy sources. So you put these together. It's really hard to see how we're going to get to the rest of the century without at least doubling global agricultural production. Well, how are we going to do this? How are going to double global ag production around the world? Well, we could try to farm more land. This is an analysis we've done, where on the left is where the crops are today, on the right is where they could be based on soils and climate, assuming climate change doesn't disrupt too much of this, which is not a good assumption. We could farm more land, but the problem is the remaining lands are in sensitive areas. They have a lot of biodiversity, a lot of carbon, things we want to protect. So we could grow more food by expanding farmland, but we'd better not, because it's ecologically a very, very dangerous thing to do. Instead, we maybe want to freeze the footprint of agriculture and farm the lands we have better. This is work that we're doing to try to highlight places in the world where we could improve yields without harming the environment. The green areas here show where corn yields, just showing corn as an example, are already really high, probably the maximum you could find on Earth today for that climate and soil, but the brown areas and yellow areas are places where we're only getting maybe 20 or 30 percent of the yield you should be able to get. You see a lot of this in Africa, even Latin America, but interestingly, Eastern Europe, where Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries used to be, is still a mess agriculturally. Now, this would require nutrients and water. It's going to either be organic or conventional or some mix of the two to deliver that. Plants need water and nutrients. But we can do this, and there are opportunities to make this work. But we have to do it in a way that is sensitive to meeting the food security needs of the future and the environmental security needs of the future. We have to figure out how to make this tradeoff between growing food and having a healthy environment work better. Right now, it's kind of an all-or-nothing proposition. We can grow food in the background -- that's a soybean field — and in this flower diagram, it shows we grow a lot of food, but we don't have a lot clean water, we're not storing a lot of carbon, we don't have a lot of biodiversity. In the foreground, we have this prairie that's wonderful from the environmental side, but you can't eat anything. What's there to eat? We need to figure out how to bring both of those together into a new kind of agriculture that brings them all together. Now, when I talk about this, people often tell me, "Well, isn't blank the answer?" -- organic food, local food, GMOs, new trade subsidies, new farm bills -- and yeah, we have a lot of good ideas here, but not any one of these is a silver bullet. In fact, what I think they are is more like silver buckshot. And I love silver buckshot. You put it together and you've got something really powerful, but we need to put them together. So what we have to do, I think, is invent a new kind of agriculture that blends the best ideas of commercial agriculture and the green revolution with the best ideas of organic farming and local food and the best ideas of environmental conservation, not to have them fighting each other but to have them collaborating together to form a new kind of agriculture, something I call "terraculture," or farming for a whole planet. Now, having this conversation has been really hard, and we've been trying very hard to bring these key points to people to reduce the controversy, to increase the collaboration. I want to show you a short video that does kind of show our efforts right now to bring these sides together into a single conversation. So let me show you that. (Music) ("Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota: Driven to Discover") (Music) ("The world population is growing by 75 million people each year. That's almost the size of Germany. Today, we're nearing 7 billion people. At this rate, we'll reach 9 billion people by 2040. And we all need food. But how? How do we feed a growing world without destroying the planet? We already know climate change is a big problem. But it's not the only problem. We need to face 'the other inconvenient truth.' A global crisis in agriculture. Population growth + meat consumption + dairy consumption + energy costs + bioenergy production = stress on natural resources. More than 40% of Earth's land has been cleared for agriculture. Global croplands cover 16 million km². That's almost the size of South America. Global pastures cover 30 million km². That's the size of Africa. Agriculture uses 60 times more land than urban and suburban areas combined. Irrigation is the biggest use of water on the planet. We use 2,800 cubic kilometers of water on crops every year. That's enough to fill 7,305 Empire State Buildings every day. Today, many large rivers have reduced flows. Some dry up altogether. Look at the Aral Sea, now turned to desert. Or the Colorado River, which no longer flows to the ocean. Fertilizers have more than doubled the phosphorus and nitrogen in the environment. The consequence? Widespread water pollution and massive degradation of lakes and rivers. Surprisingly, agriculture is the biggest contributor to climate change. It generates 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than the emissions from all electricity and industry, or from all the world's planes, trains and automobiles. Most agricultural emissions come from tropical deforestation, methane from animals and rice fields, and nitrous oxide from over-fertilizing. There is nothing we do that transforms the world more than agriculture. And there's nothing we do that is more crucial to our survival. Here's the dilemma... As the world grows by several billion more people, We'll need to double, maybe even triple, global food production. So where do we go from here? We need a bigger conversation, an international dialogue. We need to invest in real solutions: incentives for farmers, precision agriculture, new crop varieties, drip irrigation, gray water recycling, better tillage practices, smarter diets. We need everyone at the table. Advocates of commercial agriculture, environmental conservation, and organic farming... must work together. There is no single solution. We need collaboration, imagination, determination, because failure is not an option. How do we feed the world without destroying it? Yeah, so we face one of the greatest grand challenges in all of human history today: the need to feed nine billion people and do so sustainably and equitably and justly, at the same time protecting our planet for this and future generations. This is going to be one of the hardest things we ever have done in human history, and we absolutely have to get it right, and we have to get it right on our first and only try. So thanks very much. (Applause)

When I knew I was going to come to speak to you, I thought, "I gotta call my mother." I have a little Cuban mother -- she's about that big. Four feet. Nothing larger than the sum of her figurative parts. You still with me? (Laughter) I called her up. "Hello, how're you doing, baby?" "Hey, ma, I got to talk to you." "You're talking to me already. What's the matter?" I said, "I've got to talk to a bunch of nice people." "You're always talking to nice people, except when you went to the White House." "Ma, don't start!" And I told her I was coming to TED, and she said, "What's the problem?" And I said, "Well, I'm not sure." I said, "I have to talk to them about stories. It's 'Technology, Entertainment and Design.'" And she said, "Well, you design a story when you make it up, it's entertainment when you tell it, and you're going to use a microphone." (Laughter) I said, "You're a peach, ma. Pop there?" "What's the matter? The pearls of wisdom leaping from my lips like lemmings is no good for you?" (Laughter) Then my pop got on there. My pop, he's one of the old souls, you know -- old Cuban man from Camaguey. Camaguey is a province in Cuba. He's from Florida. He was born there in 1924. He grew up in a bohio of dirt floors, and the structure was the kind used by the Tainos, our old Arawak ancestors. My father is at once quick-witted, wickedly funny, and then poignancy turns on a dime and leaves you breathless. "Papi, help." "I already heard your mother. I think she's right." (Laughter) "After what I just told you?" My whole life, my father's been there. So we talked for a few minutes, and he said, "Why don't you tell them what you believe?" I love that, but we don't have the time. Good storytelling is crafting a story that someone wants to listen to. Great story is the art of letting go. So I'm going to tell you a little story. Remember, this tradition comes to us not from the mists of Avalon, back in time, but further still, before we were scratching out these stories on papyrus, or we were doing the pictographs on walls in moist, damp caves. Back then, we had an urge, a need, to tell the story. When Lexus wants to sell you a car, they're telling you a story. Have you been watching the commercials? Because every one of us has this desire, for once -- just once -- to tell our story and have it heard. There are stories you tell from stages. There's stories that you may tell in a small group of people with some good wine. And there's stories you tell late at night to a friend, maybe once in your life. And then there are stories that we whisper into a Stygian darkness. I'm not telling you that story. I'm telling you this one. It's called, "You're Going to Miss Me." It's about human connection. My Cuban mother, which I just briefly introduced you to in that short character sketch, came to the United States one thousand years ago. I was born in 19 -- I forget, and I came to this country with them in the aftermath of the Cuban revolution. We went from Havana, Cuba to Decatur, Georgia. And Decatur, Georgia's a small Southern town. And in that little Southern town, I grew up, and grew up hearing these stories. But this story only happened a few years ago. I called my mom. It was a Saturday morning. And I was calling about how to make ajiaco. It's a Cuban meal. It's delicious. It's savory. It makes spit froth in the little corners of your mouth -- is that enough? It makes your armpits juicy, you know? That kind of food, yeah. This is the sensory part of the program, people. I called my mother, and she said, "Carmen, I need you to come, please. I need to go to the mall, and you know your father now, he takes a nap in the afternoon, and I got to go. I got an errand to run." Let me parenthetically pause here and tell you -- Esther, my mother, had stopped driving several years ago, to the collective relief of the entire city of Atlanta. Any vehicular outing with that woman from the time I was a young child, guys, naturally included flashing, blue lights. But she'd become adept at dodging the boys in blue, and when she did meet them, oh, she had wonderful, well, rapport. "Ma'am, did you know that was a light you just ran?" (Spanish) "You don't speak English?" "No." (Laughter) But eventually, every dog has its day, and she ended up in traffic court, where she bartered with the judge for a discount. There's a historical marker. But now she was a septuagenarian, she'd stopped driving. And that meant that everyone in the family had to sign up to take her to have her hair dyed, you know, that peculiar color of blue that matches her polyester pants suit, you know, same color as the Buick. Anybody? All right. Little picks on the legs, where she does her needlepoint, and leaves little loops. Rockports -- they're for this. That's why they call them that. (Laughter) This is her ensemble. And this is the woman that wants me to come on a Saturday morning when I have a lot to do, but it doesn't take long because Cuban guilt is a weighty thing. I'm not going political on you but ... And so, I go to my mother's. I show up. She's in the carport. Of course, they have a carport. The kind with the corrugated roof, you know. The Buick's parked outside, and she's jingling, jangling a pair of keys. "I got a surprise for you, baby!" "We taking your car?" "Not we, I." And she reaches into her pocket and pulls out a catastrophe. Somebody's storytelling. Interactive art. You can talk to me. Oh, a driver's license, a perfectly valid driver's license. Issued, evidently, by the DMV in her own county of Gwinnett. Blithering fucking idiots. (Laughter) I said, "Is that thing real?" "I think so." "Can you even see?" "I guess I must." "Oh, Jesus." She gets into the car -- she's sitting on two phone books. I can't even make this part up because she's that tiny. She's engineered an umbrella so she can -- bam! -- slam the door. Her daughter, me, the village idiot with the ice cream cone in the middle of her forehead, is still standing there, slack-jawed. "You coming? You no coming?" "Oh, my God." I said, "OK, fine. Does pop know you're driving?" "Are you kidding me?" "How are you doing it?" "He's got to sleep sometime." And so we left my father fast asleep, because I knew he'd kill me if I let her go by herself, and we get in the car. Puts it in reverse. Fifty-five out of the driveway, in reverse. I am buckling in seatbelts from the front. I'm yanking them in from the back. I'm doing double knots. I mean, I've got a mouth as dry as the Kalahari Desert. I've got a white-knuckle grip on the door. You know what I'm talking about? And she's whistling, and finally I do the kind of birth breathing -- you know, that one? Only a couple of women are going uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. Right. And I said, "Ma, would you slow down?" Because now she's picked up the Highway 285, the perimeter around Atlanta, which encompasses now -- there's seven lanes, she's on all of them, y'all. I said, "Ma, pick a lane!" "They give you seven lanes, they expect you to use them." And there she goes, right. I don't believe for a minute she has been out and not been stopped. So, I think, hey, we can talk. It'll be a diversion. It'll help my breathing. It'll do something for my pulse, maybe. "Mommy, I know you have been stopped." "No, no, what you talking about?" "You have a license. How long have you been driving?" "Four or five days." "Yeah. And you haven't been stopped?" "I did not get a ticket." I said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but come on, come on, come on." "OK, so I stopped at a light and there's a guy, you know, in the back." "Would this guy have, like, a blue uniform and a terrified look on his face?" "You weren't there, don't start." "Come on. You got a ticket?" "No." She explained, "The man" -- I have to tell you as she did, because it loses something if I don't, you know -- "he come to the window, and he does a thing like this, which tells me he's pretty old, you know. So I look up and I'm thinking, maybe he's still going to think I'm kind of cute." "Ma, are you still doing that?" "If it works, it works, baby. So, I say, 'Perdon, yo no hablo ingles.' Well, wouldn't you know, he had been in Honduras for the Peace Corps." (Laughter) So he's talking to her, and at some point she says, "Then, you know, it was it. That was it. It was done." "Yeah? What? He gave you a ticket? He didn't give you a ticket? What?" "No, I look up, and the light, she change." (Laughter) You should be terrified. Now, I don't know if she's toying with me, kind of like a cat batting back a mouse, batting back a mouse -- left paw, right paw, left paw, right paw -- but by now, we've reached the mall. Now, you have all been at a mall during the holidays, yes? Talk to me. Yes. Yes. You can say yes. Audience: Yes. Carmen Agra Deedy: All right, then you know that you have now entered parking lot purgatory, praying to that saint of perpetual availability that as you join that serpentine line of cars crawling along, some guy's going to turn on the brake lights just as you pull up behind him. But that doesn't happen most of the time, right? So, first I say, "Ma, why are we here?" "You mean, like, in the car?" "No, don't -- why are we here today? It's Saturday. It's the holidays." "Because I have to exchange your father's underwear." Now, see, this is the kind of Machiavellian thinking, that you really have to -- you know, in my mind, it's a rabbit's warren, this woman's mind. Do I want to walk in, because unless I have Ariadne's thread to anchor -- enough metaphors for you? -- somewhere, I may not get out. But you know. (Laughter) "Why do we have to take pop's underwear back now? And why? What is wrong with his underwear?" "It will upset you." "It won't upset me. Why? What? Is something wrong with him?" "No, no, no. The only thing with him is, he's an idiot. I sent him to the store, which was my first mistake, and he went to buy underwear, and he bought the grippers, and he's supposed to buy the boxers." "Why?" "I read it on the Intersnet. You cannot have children." "Oh, my God!" (Laughter) Olivia? Huh? Huh? By now, we have now crawled another four feet, and my mother finally says to me, "I knew it, I knew it. I'm an immigrant. We make a space. What I tell you? Right there." And she points out the passenger window, and I look out, and three -- three -- aisles down, "Look, the Chevy." You want to laugh, but you don't know -- you're that politically corrected, have you noticed? Correct the other direction now, it's OK. "Look, the Chevy -- he's coming this way." "Mama, mama, mama, wait, wait, wait. The Chevy is three aisles away." She looks at me like I'm her, you know, her moron child, the cretin, the one she's got to speak to very slowly and distinctly. "I know that, honey. Get out of the car and go stand in the parking space till I get there." OK, I want a vote. Come on, come on. No, no. How many of you once in your -- you were a kid, you were an adult -- you stood in a parking space to hold it for someone? See, we're a secret club with a secret handshake. (Laughter) And years of therapy later, we're doing great. We're doing great. We're doing fine. Well, I stood up to her. This is -- you know, you'd think by now I'm -- and still holding? I said, "No way, ma, you have embarrassed me my entire life." Of course, her comeback is, "When have I embarrassed you?" (Spanish) And she's still talking while she puts the car in park, hits the emergency brake, opens the door, and with a spryness astounding in a woman her age, she jumps out of the car, knocks out the phone books, and then she walks around -- she's carrying her cheap Kmart purse with her -- around the front of the car. She has amazing land speed for a woman her age, too. Before I know it, she has skiddled across the parking lot and in between the cars, and people behind me, with that kind of usual religious charity that the holidays bring us, wah-wah wah-wah. "I'm coming." Italian hand signals follow. I scoot over. I close the door. I leave the phone books. This is new and fast, just so you -- are you still with us? We'll wait for the slow ones. OK. I start, and this is where a child says to me -- and the story doesn't work if I tell you about her before, because this is my laconic child. A brevity, brevity of everything with this child. You know, she eats small portions. Language is something to be meted out in small phonemes, you know -- just little hmm, hmm-hmm. She carries a mean spiral notebook and a pen. She wields great power. She listens, because that's what people who tell stories do first. But she pauses occasionally and says, "How do you spell that? What year? OK." When she writes the expose in about 20 years, don't believe a word of it. But this is my daughter, Lauren, my remarkable daughter, my borderline Asperger's kid. Bless you, Dr. Watson. She says, "Ma, you got to look!" Now, when this kid says I got to look, you know. But it isn't like I haven't seen this crime scene before. I grew up with this woman. I said, "Lauren, you know what, give me a play-by-play. I can't." "No, mama, you got to look." I got to look. You got to look. Don't you want to look? There she is. I look in bewildered awe: she's standing, those Rockports slightly apart, but grounded. She's holding out that cheap Kmart purse, and she is wielding it. She's holding back tons of steel with the sheer force of her little personality, in that crone-ish voice, saying things like, "Back it up, buddy! No, it's reserved!" (Laughter) Ready? Brace yourselves. Here it comes. "No, my daughter, she's coming in the Buick. Honey, sit up so they can see you." Oh, Jesus. Oh, Jesus. I finally come -- and now, it's the South. I don't know what part of the country you live in. I think we all secretly love stories. We all secretly want our blankie and our Boo Bear. We want to curl up and say, "Tell it to me, tell it to me. Come on, honey, tell it to me." But in the South, we love a good story. People have pulled aside, I mean, they've come out of that queue line, they have popped their trunks, pulled out lawn chairs and cool drinks. Bets are placed. "I'm with the little lady. Damn!" (Laughter) And she's bringing me in with a slight salsa movement. She is, after all, Cuban. I'm thinking, "Accelerator, break. Accelerator, break." Like you've never thought that in your life? Right? Yeah. I pull in. I put the car in park. Engine's still running -- mine, not the car. I jump out next to her going, "Don't you move!" "I'm not going anywhere." She's got front seat in a Greek tragedy. I come out, and there's Esther. She's hugging the purse. "Que?" Which means "what," and so much more. (Laughter) "Ma, have you no shame? People are watching us all around," right? Now, some of them you've got to make up, people. Secret of the trade. Guess what? Some of these stories I sculpt a little, here and there. Some, they're just right there, right there. Put them right there. She says this to me. After I say -- let me refresh you -- "have you no shame?" "No. I gave it up with pantyhose -- they're both too binding." (Laughter) (Applause) Yeah, you can clap, but then you're about 30 seconds from the end. I'm about to snap like a brittle twig, when suddenly someone taps me on the shoulder. Intrepid soul. I'm thinking, "This is my kid. How dare she? She jumped out of that car." That's OK, because my mother yells at me, I yell at her. It's a beautiful hierarchy, and it works. (Laughter) I turn around, but it's not a child. It's a young woman, a little taller than I, pale green, amused eyes. With her is a young man -- husband, brother, lover, it's not my job. And she says, "Pardon me, ma'am" -- that's how we talk down there -- "is that your mother?" I said, "No, I follow little old women around parking lots to see if they'll stop. Yes, it's my mother!" The boy, now, he says. "Well, what my sister meant" -- they look at each other, it's a knowing glance -- "God, she's crazy!" I said, (Spanish), and the young girl and the young boy say, "No, no, honey, we just want to know one more thing." I said, "Look, please, let me take care of her, OK, because I know her, and believe me, she's like a small atomic weapon, you know, you just want to handle her really gingerly." And the girl goes, "I know, but, I mean, I swear to God, she reminds us of our mother." I almost miss it. He turns to her on the heel of his shoe. It's a half-whisper, "God, I miss her." They turn then, shoulder to shoulder, and walk away, lost in their own reverie. Memories of some maddening woman who was the luck of their DNA draw. And I turn to Esther, who's rocking on those 'ports, and says, "You know what, honey?" "What, ma?" "I'm going to drive you crazy probably for about 14, 15 more years, if you're lucky, but after that, honey, you're going to miss me." (Applause)

Something called the Danish Twin Study established that only about 10 percent of how long the average person lives, within certain biological limits, is dictated by our genes. The other 90 percent is dictated by our lifestyle. So the premise of Blue Zones: if we can find the optimal lifestyle of longevity we can come up with a de facto formula for longevity. But if you ask the average American what the optimal formula of longevity is, they probably couldn't tell you. They've probably heard of the South Beach Diet, or the Atkins Diet. You have the USDA food pyramid. There is what Oprah tells us. There is what Doctor Oz tells us. The fact of the matter is there is a lot of confusion around what really helps us live longer better. Should you be running marathons or doing yoga? Should you eat organic meats or should you be eating tofu? When it comes to supplements, should you be taking them? How about these hormones or resveratrol? And does purpose play into it? Spirituality? And how about how we socialize? Well, our approach to finding longevity was to team up with National Geographic, and the National Institute on Aging, to find the four demographically confirmed areas that are geographically defined. And then bring a team of experts in there to methodically go through exactly what these people do, to distill down the cross-cultural distillation. And at the end of this I'm going to tell you what that distillation is. But first I'd like to debunk some common myths when it comes to longevity. And the first myth is if you try really hard you can live to be 100. False. The problem is, only about one out of 5,000 people in America live to be 100. Your chances are very low. Even though it's the fastest growing demographic in America, it's hard to reach 100. The problem is that we're not programmed for longevity. We are programmed for something called procreative success. I love that word. It reminds me of my college days. Biologists term procreative success to mean the age where you have children and then another generation, the age when your children have children. After that the effect of evolution completely dissipates. If you're a mammal, if you're a rat or an elephant, or a human, in between, it's the same story. So to make it to age 100, you not only have to have had a very good lifestyle, you also have to have won the genetic lottery. The second myth is, there are treatments that can help slow, reverse, or even stop aging. False. When you think of it, there is 99 things that can age us. Deprive your brain of oxygen for just a few minutes, those brain cells die, they never come back. Play tennis too hard, on your knees, ruin your cartilage, the cartilage never comes back. Our arteries can clog. Our brains can gunk up with plaque, and we can get Alzheimer's. There is just too many things to go wrong. Our bodies have 35 trillion cells, trillion with a "T." We're talking national debt numbers here. (Laughter) Those cells turn themselves over once every eight years. And every time they turn themselves over there is some damage. And that damage builds up. And it builds up exponentially. It's a little bit like the days when we all had Beatles albums or Eagles albums and we'd make a copy of that on a cassette tape, and let our friends copy that cassette tape, and pretty soon, with successive generations that tape sounds like garbage. Well, the same things happen to our cells. That's why a 65-year-old person is aging at a rate of about 125 times faster than a 12-year-old person. So, if there is nothing you can do to slow your aging or stop your aging, what am I doing here? Well, the fact of the matter is the best science tells us that the capacity of the human body, my body, your body, is about 90 years, a little bit more for women. But life expectancy in this country is only 78. So somewhere along the line, we're leaving about 12 good years on the table. These are years that we could get. And research shows that they would be years largely free of chronic disease, heart disease, cancer and diabetes. We think the best way to get these missing years is to look at the cultures around the world that are actually experiencing them, areas where people are living to age 100 at rates up to 10 times greater than we are, areas where the life expectancy is an extra dozen years, the rate of middle age mortality is a fraction of what it is in this country. We found our first Blue Zone about 125 miles off the coast of Italy, on the island of Sardinia. And not the entire island, the island is about 1.4 million people, but only up in the highlands, an area called the Nuoro province. And here we have this area where men live the longest, about 10 times more centenarians than we have here in America. And this is a place where people not only reach age 100, they do so with extraordinary vigor. Places where 102 year olds still ride their bike to work, chop wood, and can beat a guy 60 years younger than them. (Laughter) Their history actually goes back to about the time of Christ. It's actually a Bronze Age culture that's been isolated. Because the land is so infertile, they largely are shepherds, which occasions regular, low-intensity physical activity. Their diet is mostly plant-based, accentuated with foods that they can carry into the fields. They came up with an unleavened whole wheat bread called carta musica made out of durum wheat, a type of cheese made from grass-fed animals so the cheese is high in Omega-3 fatty acids instead of Omega-6 fatty acids from corn-fed animals, and a type of wine that has three times the level of polyphenols than any known wine in the world. It's called Cannonau. But the real secret I think lies more in the way that they organize their society. And one of the most salient elements of the Sardinian society is how they treat older people. You ever notice here in America, social equity seems to peak at about age 24? Just look at the advertisements. Here in Sardinia, the older you get the more equity you have, the more wisdom you're celebrated for. You go into the bars in Sardinia, instead of seeing the Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar, you see the centenarian of the month calendar. This, as it turns out, is not only good for your aging parents to keep them close to the family -- it imparts about four to six years of extra life expectancy -- research shows it's also good for the children of those families, who have lower rates of mortality and lower rates of disease. That's called the grandmother effect. We found our second Blue Zone on the other side of the planet, about 800 miles south of Tokyo, on the archipelago of Okinawa. Okinawa is actually 161 small islands. And in the northern part of the main island, this is ground zero for world longevity. This is a place where the oldest living female population is found. It's a place where people have the longest disability-free life expectancy in the world. They have what we want. They live a long time, and tend to die in their sleep, very quickly, and often, I can tell you, after sex. They live about seven good years longer than the average American. Five times as many centenarians as we have in America. One fifth the rate of colon and breast cancer, big killers here in America. And one sixth the rate of cardiovascular disease. And the fact that this culture has yielded these numbers suggests strongly they have something to teach us. What do they do? Once again, a plant-based diet, full of vegetables with lots of color in them. And they eat about eight times as much tofu as Americans do. More significant than what they eat is how they eat it. They have all kinds of little strategies to keep from overeating, which, as you know, is a big problem here in America. A few of the strategies we observed: they eat off of smaller plates, so they tend to eat fewer calories at every sitting. Instead of serving family style, where you can sort of mindlessly eat as you're talking, they serve at the counter, put the food away, and then bring it to the table. They also have a 3,000-year-old adage, which I think is the greatest sort of diet suggestion ever invented. It was invented by Confucius. And that diet is known as the Hara, Hatchi, Bu diet. It's simply a little saying these people say before their meal to remind them to stop eating when their stomach is [80] percent full. It takes about a half hour for that full feeling to travel from your belly to your brain. And by remembering to stop at 80 percent it helps keep you from doing that very thing. But, like Sardinia, Okinawa has a few social constructs that we can associate with longevity. We know that isolation kills. Fifteen years ago, the average American had three good friends. We're down to one and half right now. If you were lucky enough to be born in Okinawa, you were born into a system where you automatically have a half a dozen friends with whom you travel through life. They call it a Moai. And if you're in a Moai you're expected to share the bounty if you encounter luck, and if things go bad, child gets sick, parent dies, you always have somebody who has your back. This particular Moai, these five ladies have been together for 97 years. Their average age is 102. Typically in America we've divided our adult life up into two sections. There is our work life, where we're productive. And then one day, boom, we retire. And typically that has meant retiring to the easy chair, or going down to Arizona to play golf. In the Okinawan language there is not even a word for retirement. Instead there is one word that imbues your entire life, and that word is "ikigai." And, roughly translated, it means "the reason for which you wake up in the morning." For this 102-year-old karate master, his ikigai was carrying forth this martial art. For this hundred-year-old fisherman it was continuing to catch fish for his family three times a week. And this is a question. The National Institute on Aging actually gave us a questionnaire to give these centenarians. And one of the questions, they were very culturally astute, the people who put the questionnaire. One of the questions was, "What is your ikigai?" They instantly knew why they woke up in the morning. For this 102 year old woman, her ikigai was simply her great-great-great-granddaughter. Two girls separated in age by 101 and a half years. And I asked her what it felt like to hold a great-great-great-granddaughter. And she put her head back and she said, "It feels like leaping into heaven." I thought that was a wonderful thought. My editor at Geographic wanted me to find America's Blue Zone. And for a while we looked on the prairies of Minnesota, where actually there is a very high proportion of centenarians. But that's because all the young people left. (Laughter) So, we turned to the data again. And we found America's longest-lived population among the Seventh-Day Adventists concentrated in and around Loma Linda, California. Adventists are conservative Methodists. They celebrate their Sabbath from sunset on Friday till sunset on Saturday. A "24-hour sanctuary in time," they call it. And they follow five little habits that conveys to them extraordinary longevity, comparatively speaking. In America here, life expectancy for the average woman is 80. But for an Adventist woman, their life expectancy is 89. And the difference is even more pronounced among men, who are expected to live about 11 years longer than their American counterparts. Now, this is a study that followed about 70,000 people for 30 years. Sterling study. And I think it supremely illustrates the premise of this Blue Zone project. This is a heterogeneous community. It's white, black, Hispanic, Asian. The only thing that they have in common are a set of very small lifestyle habits that they follow ritualistically for most of their lives. They take their diet directly from the Bible. Genesis: Chapter one, Verse [29], where God talks about legumes and seeds, and on one more stanza about green plants, ostensibly missing is meat. They take this sanctuary in time very serious. For 24 hours every week, no matter how busy they are, how stressed out they are at work, where the kids need to be driven, they stop everything and they focus on their God, their social network, and then, hardwired right in the religion, are nature walks. And the power of this is not that it's done occasionally, the power is it's done every week for a lifetime. None of it's hard. None of it costs money. Adventists also tend to hang out with other Adventists. So, if you go to an Adventist's party you don't see people swilling Jim Beam or rolling a joint. Instead they're talking about their next nature walk, exchanging recipes, and yes, they pray. But they influence each other in profound and measurable ways. This is a culture that has yielded Ellsworth Whareham. Ellsworth Whareham is 97 years old. He's a multimillionaire, yet when a contractor wanted 6,000 dollars to build a privacy fence, he said, "For that kind of money I'll do it myself." So for the next three days he was out shoveling cement, and hauling poles around. And predictably, perhaps, on the fourth day he ended up in the operating room. But not as the guy on the table; the guy doing open-heart surgery. At 97 he still does 20 open-heart surgeries every month. Ed Rawlings, 103 years old now, an active cowboy, starts his morning with a swim. And on weekends he likes to put on the boards, throw up rooster tails. And then Marge Deton. Marge is 104. Her grandson actually lives in the Twin Cities here. She starts her day with lifting weights. She rides her bicycle. And then she gets in her root-beer colored 1994 Cadillac Seville, and tears down the San Bernardino freeway, where she still volunteers for seven different organizations. I've been on 19 hardcore expeditions. I'm probably the only person you'll ever meet who rode his bicycle across the Sahara desert without sunscreen. But I'll tell you, there is no adventure more harrowing than riding shotgun with Marge Deton. "A stranger is a friend I haven't met yet!" she'd say to me. So, what are the common denominators in these three cultures? What are the things that they all do? And we managed to boil it down to nine. In fact we've done two more Blue Zone expeditions since this and these common denominators hold true. And the first one, and I'm about to utter a heresy here, none of them exercise, at least the way we think of exercise. Instead, they set up their lives so that they are constantly nudged into physical activity. These 100-year-old Okinawan women are getting up and down off the ground, they sit on the floor, 30 or 40 times a day. Sardinians live in vertical houses, up and down the stairs. Every trip to the store, or to church or to a friend's house occasions a walk. They don't have any conveniences. There is not a button to push to do yard work or house work. If they want to mix up a cake, they're doing it by hand. That's physical activity. That burns calories just as much as going on the treadmill does. When they do do intentional physical activity, it's the things they enjoy. They tend to walk, the only proven way to stave off cognitive decline, and they all tend to have a garden. They know how to set up their life in the right way so they have the right outlook. Each of these cultures take time to downshift. The Sardinians pray. The Seventh-Day Adventists pray. The Okinawans have this ancestor veneration. But when you're in a hurry or stressed out, that triggers something called the inflammatory response, which is associated with everything from Alzheimer's disease to cardiovascular disease. When you slow down for 15 minutes a day you turn that inflammatory state into a more anti-inflammatory state. They have vocabulary for sense of purpose, ikigai, like the Okinawans. You know the two most dangerous years in your life are the year you're born, because of infant mortality, and the year you retire. These people know their sense of purpose, and they activate in their life, that's worth about seven years of extra life expectancy. There's no longevity diet. Instead, these people drink a little bit every day, not a hard sell to the American population. (Laughter) They tend to eat a plant-based diet. Doesn't mean they don't eat meat, but lots of beans and nuts. And they have strategies to keep from overeating, little things that nudge them away from the table at the right time. And then the foundation of all this is how they connect. They put their families first, take care of their children and their aging parents. They all tend to belong to a faith-based community, which is worth between four and 14 extra years of life expectancy if you do it four times a month. And the biggest thing here is they also belong to the right tribe. They were either born into or they proactively surrounded themselves with the right people. We know from the Framingham studies, that if your three best friends are obese there is a 50 percent better chance that you'll be overweight. So, if you hang out with unhealthy people, that's going to have a measurable impact over time. Instead, if your friend's idea of recreation is physical activity, bowling, or playing hockey, biking or gardening, if your friends drink a little, but not too much, and they eat right, and they're engaged, and they're trusting and trustworthy, that is going to have the biggest impact over time. Diets don't work. No diet in the history of the world has ever worked for more than two percent of the population. Exercise programs usually start in January; they're usually done by October. When it comes to longevity there is no short term fix in a pill or anything else. But when you think about it, your friends are long-term adventures, and therefore, perhaps the most significant thing you can do to add more years to your life, and life to your years. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I'm going to speak to you today about architectural agency. What I mean by that is that it's time for architecture to do things again, not just represent things. This is a construction helmet that I received two years ago at the groundbreaking of the largest project I, and my firm, have ever been involved in. I was thrilled to get it. I was thrilled to be the only person standing on the stage with a shiny silver helmet. I thought it represented the importance of the architect. I stayed thrilled until I got home, threw the helmet onto my bed, fell down onto my bed and realized inside there was an inscription. (Laughter) Now, I think that this is a great metaphor for the state of architecture and architects today. We are for decorative purposes only. (Laughter) Now, who do we have to blame? We can only blame ourselves. Over the last 50 years the design and construction industry has gotten much more complex and has gotten much more litigious. And we architects are cowards. So, as we have faced liability, we have stepped back and back, and unfortunately, where there is liability, guess what there is: power. So, eventually we have found ourselves in a totally marginalized position, way over here. Now, what did we do? We're cowards, but we're smart cowards. And so we redefined this marginalized position as the place of architecture. And we announced, "Hey, architecture, it's over here, in this autonomous language we're going to seed control of processes." And we were going to do something that was horrible for the profession. We actually created an artificial schism between creation and execution, as if you could actually create without knowing how to execute and as if you could actually execute without knowing how to create. Now, something else happened. And that's when we began to sell the world that architecture was created by individuals creating genius sketches. And that the incredible amount of effort to deliver those sketches for years and years and years is not only something to be derided, but we would merely write it off as merely execution. Now I'd argue that that is as absurd as stating that 30 minutes of copulation is the creative act, and nine months of gestation, and, God forbid, 24 hours of child labor is merely execution. So, what do we architects need to do? We need to stitch back creation and execution. And we need to start authoring processes again instead of authoring objects. Now, if we do this, I believe we can go back 50 years and start reinjecting agency, social engineering, back into architecture. Now, there are all kinds of things that we architects need to learn how to do, like managing contracts, learning how to write contracts, understanding procurement processes, understanding the time value of money and cost estimation. But I'm going to reduce this to the beginning of the process, into three very pedantic statements. The first is: Take core positions with your client. I know it's shocking, right, that architecture would actually say that. The second position is: Actually take positions. Take joint positions with your client. This is the moment in which you as the architect and your client can begin to inject vision and agency. But it has to be done together. And then only after this is done are you allowed to do this, begin to put forward architectural manifestations that manifest those positions. And both owner and architect alike are empowered to critique those manifestations based on the positions that you've taken. Now, I believe that one really amazing thing will happen if you do this. I'd like to call it the lost art of productively losing control. You do not know what the end result is. But I promise you, with enough brain power and enough passion and enough commitment, you will arrive at conclusions that will transcend convention, and will simply be something that you could not have initially or individually conceived of. Alright, now I'm going to reduce all of this to a series of simple dumb sketches. This is the modus operandi that we have today. We roll 120-foot Spartan, i.e. our vision, up to our clients' gates of Troy. And we don't understand why they won't let us in. Right? Well, how about instead of doing that, we roll up to the gates something they want. Now this is a little bit of a dangerous metaphor, because of course we all know that inside of the Trojan Horse were a bunch of people with spears. So, we can change the metaphor. Let's call the Trojan Horse the vessel by which you get through the gate, get through the constraints of a project. At which point, you and your client have the ability to start considering what you're going to put inside that vessel, the agency, the vision. And if you do that, you do that responsibly, I believe that instead of delivering Spartans, you can deliver maidens. And if I could summarize that all up into one single sketch it would be this. If we are so good at our craft shouldn't we be able to conceive of an architectural manifestation that slides seamlessly through the project's and the client's constraints? Now, with that in mind, I'm going to show a project that's very dear to many people in this room-- well, maybe not dear, but certainly close to many people in this room. And that's a project that is just about to open next week, the new home for the Dallas Theater Center, the Dee and Charles Wyly Theatre. Now, I'm going to present it on the same terms: issue, position and architectural manifestation. Now, the first issue that we faced was that the Dallas Theater Center had a notoriety that was beyond what you would expect of some place outside of the triumvirate of New York, Chicago and Seattle. And this had to do with the ambitions of the leadership. But it also had to do with something rather unusual, and that was this horrible little building that they'd been performing in. Why was this horrible little building so important to their renown and their innovation? Because they could do whatever they wanted to to this building. When you're on Broadway, you cannot tear the proscenium down. This building, when an artistic director wanted to do a "Cherry Orchard" and wanted people and wanted people to come out of a well on the stage, they brought a backhoe in, and they simply dug the hole. Well, that's exciting. And you can start to get the best artistic directors, scenic designers and actors from around the country to come to perform here because you can do things you can't do elsewhere. So, the first position we took was, "Hey, we as architects had better not show up and do a pristine building that doesn't engender the same freedoms that this old dilapidated shed provided the company." The second issue is a nuance of the first. And that's that the company and the building was multiform. That meant that they were able to perform, as long as they had labor they were able to go between proscenium, thrust, flat floor, arena, traverse, you name it. All they needed was labor. Well, something happened. In fact something happened to all institutions around the world. It started to become hard to raise operational costs, operational budgets. So, they stopped having inexpensive labor. And eventually they had to freeze their organization into something called a bastardized thruscenium. So, the second position we took is that the freedoms that we provided, the ability to move between stage configurations, had better be able to be done without relying on operational costs. Alright? Affordably. The architectural manifestation was frankly just dumb. It was to take all the things that are known as front of house and back of house and redefine them as above house and below house. At first blush you think, "Hey it's crazy, what could you possibly gain?" We created what we like to call superfly. (Laughter) Now, superfly, the concept is you take all the freedoms you normally associate with the flytower, and you smear them across flytower and auditorium. Suddenly the artistic director can move between different stage and audience configurations. And because that flytower has the ability to pick up all the pristine elements, suddenly the rest of the environment can be provisional. And you can drill, cut, nail, screw paint and replace, with a minimum of cost. But there was a third advantage that we got by doing this move that was unexpected. And that was that it freed up the perimeter of the auditorium in a most unusual way. And that provided the artistic director suddenly the ability to define suspension of disbelief. So, the building affords artistic directors the freedom to conceive of almost any kind of activity underneath this floating object. But also to challenge the notion of suspension of disbelief such that in the last act of Macbeth, if he or she wants you to associate the parable that you're seeing with Dallas, with your real life, he or she can do so. Now, in order to do this we and the clients had to do something fairly remarkable. In fact it really was the clients who had to do it. They had to make a decision, based on the positions we took to redefine the budget being from two thirds capital-A architecture and one-third infrastructure, to actually the inverse, two-thirds infrastructure and one-third capital-A architecture. That's a lot for a client to commit to before you actually see the fruition of the concept. But based on the positions, they took the educated leap of faith to do so. And effectively we created what we like to call a theater machine. Now, that theater machine has ability to move between a whole series of configurations at the push of a button and a few stagehands in a short amount of time. But it also has the potential to not only provide multiform but multi-processional sequences. Meaning: The artistic director doesn't necessarily need to go through our lobby. One of the things that we learned when we visited various theaters is they hate us architects, because they say the first thing they have to do, the first five minutes of any show, is they have to get our architecture out of the mind of their patron. Well now there are potentials of this building to allow the artistic director to actually move into the building without using our architecture. So, in fact, there is the building, there is what we call the draw. You're going down into our lobby, go through the lobby with our own little dangly bits, whether you like them or not, up through the stair that leads you into the auditorium. But there is also the potential to allow people to move directly from the outside, in this case suggesting kind of Wagnerian entrance, into the interior of the auditorium. And here is the fruition of that in actuality. These are the two large pivoting doors that allow people to move directly from the outside, in or from the inside, out, performers or audience alike. Now, imagine what that could be. I have to say honestly this is not something yet the building can do because it takes too long. But imagine the freedoms if you could take this further, that in fact you could consider a Wagnerian entry, a first act in thrust, an intermission in Greek, a second act in arena, and you leave through our lobby with dangly bits. Now that, I would say, is architecture performing. It is taking the hand of the architect to actually remove the hand of the architect in favor of the hand of the artistic director. I'll go through the three basic configurations. This is the flat floor configuration. You notice that there is no proscenium, the balconies have been raised up, there are no seats, the floor in the auditorium is flat. The first configuration is easy to understand. The balconies come down, you see that the orchestra begins to have a rake that's frontal towards the end stage, and the seats come in. The third configuration is a little harder to understand. Here you see that the balconies actually have to move out of the way in order to bring a thrust into the space. And some of the seats need to actually change their direction, and change their rake, to allow that to happen. I'll do it again so you can see it. There you see it's the side balconies for the proscenium. And there it is in the thrust configuration. In order to do that, again, we needed a client who was willing to take educational risks. And they told us one important thing: "You shall not beta-test." Meaning, nothing that we do can we be the first ones to do it. But they were willing for us to apply technologies from other areas that already had failsafe mechanisms to this building. And the solution in terms of the balconies was to use something that we all know as a scoreboard lift. Now, if you were to take a scoreboard and drop it on dirt and whiskey, that would be bad. If you were not able to take the scoreboard out of the arena and be able to do the Ice Capades the next night, that would also be bad. And so this technology already had all the failsafe mechanisms and allowed the theater and our client to actually do this with confidence that they would be able to change over their configurations at will. The second technology that we applied was actually using things that you know from the stage side of an opera house. In this case what we're doing is we're taking the orchestra floor, lifting it up, spinning it, changing the rake, taking it back to flat floor, changing the rake again. In essence, you can begin to define rakes and viewing angles of people in the orchestra seating, at will. Here you see the chairs being spun around to go from proscenium or end stage to thrust configuration. The proscenium, also. As far as we know this is the first building in the world in which the proscenium can entirely fly out of the space. Here you see the various acoustic baffles as well as the flying mechanisms and catwalks over the auditorium. And ultimately, up in the flytower, the scene sets that allow the transformations to occur. As I said, all that was in service of creating a flexible yet affordable configuration. But we got this other benefit, and that was the ability of the perimeter to suddenly engage Dallas on the outside. Here you see the building in its current state with blinds closed. This is a trompe l'oeil. Actually this is not a curtain. These are vinyl blinds that are integrated into the windows themselves, again with failsafe mechanisms that can be lifted such that you can completely demystify, if you chose, the operations of the theater going on behind, rehearsals and so forth. But you also have the ability to allow the audience to see Dallas, to perform with Dallas as the backdrop of your performance. Now, if I'll take you through -- this is an early concept sketch -- take you through kind of a mixture of all these things together. Effectively you would have something like this. You would be allowed to bring objects or performers into the performing chamber: "Aida," their elephants, you can bring the elephants in. You would be able to expose the auditorium to Dallas or vice versa, Dallas to the auditorium. You'd be able to open portions in order to change the procession, allow people to come in and out for an intermission, or to enter for the beginning or the end of a performance. As I said, all the balconies can move, but they can also be disappeared completely. The proscenium can fly. You can bring large objects into the chamber itself. But most convincingly when we had to confront the idea of changing costs from architecture to infrastructure, is something that is represented by this. And again, this is not all the flexibilities of the building that is actually built, but at least suggests the ideas. This building has the ability, in short order, to go back to a flat floor organization such that they can rent it out. Now, if there is anyone here from American Airlines, please consider doing your Christmas party here. (Laughter) That allows the company to raise operational budgets without having to compete with other venues with much larger auditoriums. That's an enormous benefit. So, the theater company has the ability to do totally hermetic, light-controlled, sound-controlled, great acoustics, great intimacy Shakespeare, but can also do Beckett with the skyline of Dallas sitting behind it. Here it is in a flat floor configuration. The theater has been going through its kind of paces. Here it is in an end stage configuration. It's actually beautiful. There was a rock band. We stood outside trying to see if the acoustics worked, and you could see the guys doing this but you couldn't hear them. It was very unusual. Here it is in a thrust configuration. And last but not least, you see this already has the ability to create events in order to generate operational budgets to overcome the building in fact performing to allow the company to overcome their biggest problem. I'm going to show you a brief time lapse. As I said, this can be done with only two people, and with a minimum amount of time. This is the first time that actually the changeover was done and so there is literally thousands of people because everyone was excited and wanted to be a part of it. So, in a way try to disregard all the thousands of ants running around. And think of it being done with just a few people. Again, just a couple people are required. (Laughter) I promise. Et voila. (Applause) So, just in conclusion, a few shots. This is the AT&T Performing Arts Center's Dee and Charles Wyly Theater. There it is at night. And last but not least the entire AT&T Performing Arts Center. You can see the Winspear Opera House on the right and the Dee and Charles Wyly Theater on the left. And to remind you that here is an example in which architecture actually did something. But we got to that conclusion without understanding where we were going, what we knew were a series of issues that the company and the client was confronted with. And we took positions with them, and it was through those positions that we began to take architectural manifestations and we arrived at a conclusion that none of us, really none of us could ever have conceived of initially or individually. Thank you. (Applause)

So imagine, you're in the supermarket, you're buying some groceries, and you get given the option for a plastic or a paper shopping bag. Which one do you choose if you want to do the right thing by the environment? Most people do pick the paper. Okay, let's think of why. It's brown to start with. Therefore, it must be good for the environment. It's biodegradable. It's reusable. In some cases, it's recyclable. So when people are looking at the plastic bag, it's likely they're thinking of something like this, which we all know is absolutely terrible, and we should be avoiding at all expenses these kinds of environmental damages. But people are often not thinking of something like this, which is the other end of the spectrum. When we produce materials, we need to extract them from the environment, and we need a whole bunch of environmental impacts. You see, what happens is, when we need to make complex choices, us humans like really simple solutions, and so we often ask for simple solutions. And I work in design. I advise designers and innovators around sustainability, and everyone always says to me, "Oh Leyla, I just want the eco-materials." And I say, "Well, that's very complex, and we'll have to spend four hours talking about what exactly an eco-material means, because everything at some point comes from nature, and it's how you use the material that dictates the environmental impact. So what happens is, we have to rely on some sort of intuitive framework when we make decisions. So I like to call that intuitive framework our environmental folklore. It's either the little voice at the back of your head, or it's that gut feeling you get when you've done the right thing, so when you've picked the paper bag or when you've bought a fuel-efficient car. And environmental folklore is a really important thing because we're trying to do the right thing. But how do we know if we're actually reducing the net environmental impacts that our actions as individuals and as professionals and as a society are actually having on the natural environment? So the thing about environmental folklore is it tends to be based on our experiences, the things we've heard from other people. It doesn't tend to be based on any scientific framework. And this is really hard, because we live in incredibly complex systems. We have the human systems of how we communicate and interrelate and have our whole constructed society, We have the industrial systems, which is essentially the entire economy, and then all of that has to operate within the biggest system, and, I would argue, the most important, the ecosystem. And you see, the choices that we make as an individual, but the choices that we make in every single job that we have, no matter how high or low you are in the pecking order, has an impact on all of these systems. And the thing is that we have to find ways if we're actually going to address sustainability of interlocking those complex systems and making better choices that result in net environmental gains. What we need to do is we need to learn to do more with less. We have an increasing population, and everybody likes their mobile phones, especially in this situation here. So we need to find innovative ways of solving some of these problems that we face. And that's where this process called life cycle thinking comes in. So essentially, everything that is created goes through a series of life cycle stages, and we use this scientific process called life cycle assessment, or in America, you guys say life cycle analysis, in order to have a clearer picture of how everything that we do in the technical part of those systems affects the natural environment. So we go all the way back to the extraction of raw materials, and then we look at manufacturing, we look at packaging and transportation, use, and end of life, and at every single one of these stages, the things that we do have an interaction with the natural environment, and we can monitor how that interaction is actually affecting the systems and services that make life on Earth possible. And through doing this, we've learned some absolutely fascinating things. And we've busted a bunch of myths. So to start with, there's a word that's used a lot. It's used a lot in marketing, and it's used a lot, I think, in our conversation when we're talking about sustainability, and that's the word biodegradability. Now biodegradability is a material property; it is not a definition of environmental benefits. Allow me to explain. When something natural, something that's made from a cellulose fiber like a piece of bread, even, or any food waste, or even a piece of paper, when something natural ends up in the natural environment, it degrades normally. Its little carbon molecules that it stored up as it was growing are naturally released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but this is a net situation. Most natural things don't actually end up in nature. Most of the things, the waste that we produce, end up in landfill. Landfill is a different environment. In landfill, those same carbon molecules degrade in a different way, because a landfill is anaerobic. It's got no oxygen. It's tightly compacted and hot. Those same molecules, they become methane, and methane is a 25 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So our old lettuces and products that we have thrown out that are made out of biodegradable materials, if they end up in landfill, contribute to climate change. You see, there are facilities now that can actually capture that methane and generate power, displacing the need for fossil fuel power, but we need to be smart about this. We need to identify how we can start to leverage these types of things that are already happening and start to design systems and services that alleviate these problems. Because right now, what people do is they turn around and they say, "Let's ban plastic bags. We'll give people paper because that is better for the environment." But if you're throwing it in the bin, and your local landfill facility is just a normal one, then we're having what's called a double negative. I'm a product designer by trade. I then did social science. And so I'm absolutely fascinated by consumer goods and how the consumer goods that we have kind of become immune to that fill our lives have an impact on the natural environment. And these guys are, like, serial offenders, and I'm pretty sure everyone in this room has a refrigerator. Now America has this amazing ability to keep growing refrigerators. In the last few years, they've grown one cubic foot on average, the standard size of a refrigerator. And the problem is, they're so big now, it's easier for us to buy more food that we can't eat or find. I mean, I have things at the back of my refrigerator that have been there for years, all right? And so what happens is, we waste more food. And as I was just explaining, food waste is a problem. In fact, here in the U.S., 40 percent of food purchased for the home is wasted. Half of the world's produced food is wasted. That's the latest U.N. stats. Up to half of the food. It's insane. It's 1.3 billion tons of food per annum. And I blame it on the refrigerator, well, especially in Western cultures, because it makes it easier. I mean, there's a lot of complex systems going on here. I don't want to make it so simplistic. But the refrigerator is a serious contributor to this, and one of the features of it is the crisper drawer. You all got crisper drawers? The drawer that you put your lettuces in? Lettuces have a habit of going soggy in the crisper drawers, don't they? Yeah? Soggy lettuces? In the U.K., this is such a problem that there was a government report a few years ago that actually said the second biggest offender of wasted food in the U.K. is the soggy lettuce. It was called the Soggy Lettuce Report. Okay? So this is a problem, people. These poor little lettuces are getting thrown out left, right and center because the crisper drawers are not designed to actually keep things crisp. Okay. You need a tight environment. You need, like, an airless environment to prevent the degrading that would happen naturally. But the crisper drawers, they're just a drawer with a slightly better seal. Anyway, I'm clearly obsessed. Don't ever invite me over because I'll just start going through your refrigerator and looking at all sorts of things like that. But essentially, this is a big problem. Because when we lose something like the lettuce from the system, not only do we have that impact I just explained at the end of life, but we actually have had to grow that lettuce. The life cycle impact of that lettuce is astronomical. We've had to clear land. We've had to plant seeds, phosphorus, fertilizers, nutrients, water, sunlight. All of the embodied impacts in that lettuce get lost from the system, which makes it a far bigger environmental impact than the loss of the energy from the fridge. So we need to design things like this far better if we're going to start addressing serious environmental problems. We could start with the crisper drawer and the size. For those of you in the room who do design fridges, that would be great. The problem is, imagine if we actually started to reconsider how we designed things. So I look at the refrigerator as a sign of modernity, but we actually haven't really changed the design of them that much since the 1950s. A little bit, but essentially they're still big boxes, cold boxes that we store stuff in. So imagine if we actually really started to identify these problems and use that as the foundation for finding innovative and elegant design solutions that will solve those problems. This is design-led system change, design dictating the way in which the system can be far more sustainable. Forty percent food waste is a major problem. Imagine if we designed fridges that halved that. Another item that I find fascinating is the electric tea kettle, which I found out that you don't do tea kettles in this country, really, do you? But that's really big in the U.K. Ninety-seven percent of households in the United Kingdom own an electric tea kettle. So they're very popular. And, I mean, if I were to work with a design firm or a designer, and they were designing one of these, and they wanted to do it eco, they'd usually ask me two things. They'd say, "Leyla, how do I make it technically efficient?" Because obviously energy's a problem with this product. Or, "How do I make it green materials? How do I make the materials green in the manufacturing?" Would you ask me those questions? They seem logical, right? Yeah. Well I'd say, "You're looking at the wrong problems." Because the problem is with use. It's with how people use the product. Sixty-five percent of Brits admit to over-filling their kettle when they only need one cup of tea. All of this extra water that's being boiled requires energy, and it's been calculated that in one day of extra energy use from boiling kettles is enough to light all of the streetlights in England for a night. But this is the thing. This is what I call a product-person failure. But we've got a product-system failure going on with these little guys, and they're so ubiquitous, you don't even notice they're there. And this guy over here, though, he does. He's named Simon. Simon works for the national electricity company in the U.K. He has a very important job of monitoring all of the electricity coming into the system to make sure there is enough so it powers everybody's homes. He's also watching television. The reason is because there's a unique phenomenon that happens in the U.K. the moment that very popular TV shows end. The minute the ad break comes on, this man has to rush to buy nuclear power from France, because everybody turns their kettles on at the same time. (Laughter) 1.5 million kettles, seriously problematic. So imagine if you designed kettles, you actually found a way to solve these system failures, because this is a huge amount of pressure on the system, just because the product hasn't thought about the problem that it's going to have when it exists in the world. Now, I looked at a number of kettles available on the market, and found the minimum fill lines, so the little piece of information that tells you how much you need to put in there, was between two and a five-and-a-half cups of water just to make one cup of tea. So this kettle here is an example of one where it actually has two reservoirs. One's a boiling chamber, and one's the water holder. The user actually has to push that button to get their hot water boiled, which means, because we're all lazy, you only fill exactly what you need. And this is what I call behavior-changing products: products, systems or services that intervene and solve these problems up front. Now, this is a technology arena, so obviously these things are quite popular, but I think if we're going to keep designing, buying and using and throwing out these kinds of products at the rate we currently do, which is astronomically high, there are seven billion people who live in the world right now. There are six billion mobile phone subscriptions as of last year. Every single year, 1.5 billion mobile phones roll off production lines, and some companies report their production rate as being greater than the human birth rate. One hundred fifty-two million phones were thrown out in the U.S. last year; only 11 percent were recycled. I'm from Australia. We have a population of 22 million -- don't laugh -- and it's been reported that 22 million phones are in people's drawers. We need to find ways of solving the problems around this, because these things are so complicated. They have so much locked up inside them. Gold! Did you know that it's actually cheaper now to get gold out of a ton of old mobile phones than it is out of a ton of gold ore? There's a number of highly complex and valuable materials embodied inside these things, so we need to find ways of encouraging disassembly, because this is otherwise what happens. This is a community in Ghana, and e-waste is reported, or electronic waste is reported by the U.N. as being up to 50 million tons trafficked. This is how they get the gold and the other valuable materials out. They burn the electronic waste in open spaces. These are communities, and this is happening all over the world. And because we don't see the ramifications of the choices that we make as designers, as businesspeople, as consumers, then these kinds of externalities happen, and these are people's lives. So we need to find smarter, more systems-based, innovative solutions to these problems, if we're going to start to live sustainably within this world. So imagine if, when you bought your mobile phone, your new one because you replaced your old one -- after 15 to 18 months is the average time that people replace their phones, by the way — so if we're going to keep this kind of expedient mobile phone replacing, then we should be looking at closing the loop on these systems. The people who produce these phones, and some of which I'm sure are in the room right now, could potentially look at doing what we call closed-loop systems, or product system services, so identifying that there is a market demand and that market demand's not going to go anywhere, so you design the product to solve the problem. Design for disassembly, design for light-weighting. We heard some of those kinds of strategies being used in the Tesla Motors car today. These kinds of approaches are not hard, but understanding the system and then looking for viable, market-driven consumer demand alternatives is how we can start radically altering the sustainability agenda, because I hate to break it to you all: Consumption is the biggest problem. But design is one of the best solutions. These kinds of products are everywhere. By identifying alternative ways of doing things, we can actually start to innovate, and I say actually start to innovate. I'm sure everyone in this room is very innovative. But in the regards to using sustainability as a parameter, as a criteria for fueling systems-based solutions, because as I've just demonstrated with these simple products, they're participating in these major problems. So we need to look across the entire life of the things that we do. If you just had paper or plastic -- obviously reusable is far more beneficial -- then the paper is worse, and the paper is worse because it weighs four to 10 times more than the plastic, and when we actually compare, from a life cycle perspective, a kilo of plastic and a kilo of paper, the paper is far better, but the functionality of a plastic or a paper bag to carry your groceries home is not done with a kilo of each material. It's done with a very small amount of plastic and quite a lot more paper. Because functionality defines environmental impact, and I said earlier that the designers always ask me for the eco-materials. I say, there's only a few materials that you should completely avoid. The rest of them, it's all about application, and at the end of the day, everything we design and produce in the economy or buy as consumers is done so for function. We want something, therefore we buy it. So breaking things back down and delivering smartly, elegantly, sophisticated solutions that take into consideration the entire system and the entire life of the thing, everything, all the way back to the extraction through to the end of life, we can start to actually find really innovative solutions. And I'll just leave you with one very quick thing that a designer said to me recently who I work with, a senior designer. I said, "How come you're not doing sustainability? I know you know this." And he said, "Well, recently I pitched a sustainability project to a client, and turned and he said to me, 'I know it's going to cost less, I know it's going to sell more, but we're not pioneers, because pioneers have arrows in their backs.'" I think we've got a roomful of pioneers, and I hope there are far more pioneers out there, because we need to solve these problems. Thank you. (Applause)

The immersive ugliness of our everyday environments in America is entropy made visible. We can't overestimate the amount of despair that we are generating with places like this. And mostly, I want to persuade you that we have to do better if we're going to continue the project of civilization in America. By the way, this doesn't help. Nobody's having a better day down here because of that. There are a lot of ways you can describe this. You know, I like to call it "the national automobile slum." You can call it suburban sprawl. I think it's appropriate to call it the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. You can call it a technosis externality clusterfuck. And it's a tremendous problem for us. The outstanding -- the salient problem about this for us is that these are places that are not worth caring about. We're going to talk about that some more. A sense of place: your ability to create places that are meaningful and places of quality and character depends entirely on your ability to define space with buildings, and to employ the vocabularies, grammars, syntaxes, rhythms and patterns of architecture in order to inform us who we are. The public realm in America has two roles: it is the dwelling place of our civilization and our civic life, and it is the physical manifestation of the common good. And when you degrade the public realm, you will automatically degrade the quality of your civic life and the character of all the enactments of your public life and communal life that take place there. The public realm comes mostly in the form of the street in America because we don't have the 1,000-year-old cathedral plazas and market squares of older cultures. And your ability to define space and to create places that are worth caring about all comes from a body of culture that we call the culture of civic design. This is a body of knowledge, method, skill and principle that we threw in the garbage after World War II and decided we don't need that anymore; we're not going to use it. And consequently, we can see the result all around us. The public realm has to inform us not only where we are geographically, but it has to inform us where we are in our culture. Where we've come from, what kind of people we are, and it needs to, by doing that, it needs to afford us a glimpse to where we're going in order to allow us to dwell in a hopeful present. And if there is one tremendous -- if there is one great catastrophe about the places that we've built, the human environments we've made for ourselves in the last 50 years, it is that it has deprived us of the ability to live in a hopeful present. The environments we are living in, more typically, are like these. You know, this happens to be the asteroid belt of architectural garbage two miles north of my town. And remember, to create a place of character and quality, you have to be able to define space. So how is that being accomplished here? If you stand on the apron of the Wal-Mart over here and try to look at the Target store over here, you can't see it because of the curvature of the Earth. (Laughter) That's nature's way of telling you that you're doing a poor job of defining space. Consequently, these will be places that nobody wants to be in. These will be places that are not worth caring about. We have about, you know, 38,000 places that are not worth caring about in the United States today. When we have enough of them, we're going to have a nation that's not worth defending. And I want you to think about that when you think about those young men and women who are over in places like Iraq, spilling their blood in the sand, and ask yourself, "What is their last thought of home?" I hope it's not the curb cut between the Chuck E. Cheese and the Target store because that's not good enough for Americans to be spilling their blood for. (Applause) We need better places in this country. Public space. This is a good public space. It's a place worth caring about. It's well defined. It is emphatically an outdoor public room. It has something that is terribly important -- it has what's called an active and permeable membrane around the edge. That's a fancy way of saying it's got shops, bars, bistros, destinations -- things go in and out of it. It's permeable. The beer goes in and out, the waitresses go in and out, and that activates the center of this place and makes it a place that people want to hang out in. You know, in these places in other cultures, people just go there voluntarily because they like them. We don't have to have a craft fair here to get people to come here. (Laughter) You know, you don't have to have a Kwanzaa festival. People just go because it's pleasurable to be there. But this is how we do it in the United States. Probably the most significant public space failure in America, designed by the leading architects of the day, Harry Cobb and I.M. Pei: Boston City Hall Plaza. A public place so dismal that the winos don't even want to go there. (Laughter) And we can't fix it because I.M. Pei's still alive, and every year Harvard and M.I.T. have a joint committee to repair it. And every year they fail to because they don't want to hurt I.M. Pei's feelings. This is the other side of the building. This was the winner of an international design award in, I think, 1966, something like that. It wasn't Pei and Cobb, another firm designed this, but there's not enough Prozac in the world to make people feel OK about going down this block. This is the back of Boston City Hall, the most important, you know, significant civic building in Albany -- excuse me -- in Boston. And what is the message that is coming, what are the vocabularies and grammars that are coming, from this building and how is it informing us about who we are? This, in fact, would be a better building if we put mosaic portraits of Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and all the other great despots of the 20th century on the side of the building, because then we'd honestly be saying what the building is really communicating to us. You know, that it's a despotic building; it wants us to feel like termites. (Laughter) This is it on a smaller scale: the back of the civic center in my town, Saratoga Springs, New York. By the way, when I showed this slide to a group of Kiwanians in my town, they all rose in indignation from their creamed chicken, (Laughter) and they shouted at me and said, "It was raining that day when you took that picture!" Because this was perceived to be a weather problem. (Laughter) You know, this is a building designed like a DVD player. (Laughter) Audio jack, power supply -- and look, you know these things are important architectural jobs for firms, right? You know, we hire firms to design these things. You can see exactly what went on, three o'clock in the morning at the design meeting. You know, eight hours before deadline, four architects trying to get this building in on time, right? And they're sitting there at the long boardroom table with all the drawings, and the renderings, and all the Chinese food caskets are lying on the table, and -- I mean, what was the conversation that was going on there? (Laughter) Because you know what the last word was, what the last sentence was of that meeting. It was: "Fuck it." (Laughter) (Applause) That -- that is the message of this form of architecture. The message is: We don't give a fuck! We don't give a fuck. So I went back on the nicest day of the year, just to -- you know -- do some reality testing, and in fact, he will not even go down there because (Laughter) it's not interesting enough for his clients, you know, the burglars, the muggers. It's not civically rich enough for them to go down there. OK. The pattern of Main Street USA -- in fact, this pattern of building downtown blocks, all over the world, is fairly universal. It's not that complicated: buildings more than one story high, built out to the sidewalk edge, so that people who are, you know, all kinds of people can get into the building. Other activities are allowed to occur upstairs, you know, apartments, offices, and so on. You make provision for this activity called shopping on the ground floor. They haven't learned that in Monterey. If you go out to the corner right at the main intersection right in front of this conference center, you'll see an intersection with four blank walls on every corner. It's really incredible. Anyway, this is how you compose and assemble a downtown business building, and this is what happened when in Glens Falls, New York, when we tried to do it again, where it was missing, right? So the first thing they do is they pop up the retail a half a story above grade to make it sporty. OK. That completely destroys the relationship between the business and the sidewalk, where the theoretical pedestrians are. (Laughter) Of course, they'll never be there, as long as this is in that condition. Then because the relationship between the retail is destroyed, we pop a handicapped ramp on that, and then to make ourselves feel better, we put a nature Band-Aid in front of it. And that's how we do it. I call them "nature Band-Aids" because there's a general idea in America that the remedy for mutilated urbanism is nature. And in fact, the remedy for wounded and mutilated urbanism is good urbanism, good buildings. Not just flower beds, not just cartoons of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. You know, that's not good enough. We have to do good buildings. The street trees have really four jobs to do and that's it: To spatially denote the pedestrian realm, to protect the pedestrians from the vehicles in the carriageway, to filter the sunlight onto the sidewalk, and to soften the hardscape of the buildings and to create a ceiling -- a vaulted ceiling -- over the street, at its best. And that's it. Those are the four jobs of the street trees. They're not supposed to be a cartoon of the North Woods; they're not supposed to be a set for "The Last of the Mohicans." You know, one of the problems with the fiasco of suburbia is that it destroyed our understanding of the distinction between the country and the town, between the urban and the rural. They're not the same thing. And we're not going to cure the problems of the urban by dragging the country into the city, which is what a lot of us are trying to do all the time. Here you see it on a small scale -- the mothership has landed, R2-D2 and C-3PO have stepped out to test the bark mulch to see if they can inhabit this planet. (Laughter) A lot of this comes from the fact that the industrial city in America was such a trauma that we developed this tremendous aversion for the whole idea of the city, city life, and everything connected with it. And so what you see fairly early, in the mid-19th century, is this idea that we now have to have an antidote to the industrial city, which is going to be life in the country for everybody. And that starts to be delivered in the form of the railroad suburb: the country villa along the railroad line, which allows people to enjoy the amenity of the city, but to return to the countryside every night. And believe me, there were no Wal-Marts or convenience stores out there then, so it really was a form of country living. But what happens is, of course, it mutates over the next 80 years and it turns into something rather insidious. It becomes a cartoon of a country house, in a cartoon of the country. And that's the great non-articulated agony of suburbia and one of the reasons that it lends itself to ridicule. Because it hasn't delivered what it's been promising for half a century now. And these are typically the kind of dwellings we find there, you know. Basically, a house with nothing on the side because this house wants to state, emphatically, "I'm a little cabin in the woods. There's nothing on either side of me. I don't have any eyes on the side of my head. I can't see." So you have this one last facade of the house, the front, which is really a cartoon of a facade of a house. Because -- notice the porch here. Unless the people that live here are Munchkins, nobody's going to be using that. This is really, in fact, a television broadcasting a show 24/7 called "We're Normal." We're normal, we're normal, we're normal, we're normal, we're normal. Please respect us, we're normal, we're normal, we're normal. But we know what's going on in these houses, you know. We know that little Skippy is loading his Uzi down here, getting ready for homeroom. (Laughter) We know that Heather, his sister Heather, 14 years old, is turning tricks up here to support her drug habit. Because these places, these habitats, are inducing immense amounts of anxiety and depression in children, and they don't have a lot of experience with medication. So they take the first one that comes along, often. These are not good enough for Americans. These are the schools we are sending them to: The Hannibal Lecter Central School, Las Vegas, Nevada. This is a real school! You know, but there's obviously a notion that if you let the inmates of this thing out, that they would snatch a motorist off the street and eat his liver. So every effort is made to keep them within the building. Notice that nature is present. (Laughter) We're going to have to change this behavior whether we like it or not. We are entering an epochal period of change in the world, and -- certainly in America -- the period that will be characterized by the end of the cheap oil era. It is going to change absolutely everything. Chris asked me not to go on too long about this, and I won't, except to say there's not going to be a hydrogen economy. Forget it. It's not going to happen. We're going to have to do something else instead. We're going to have to down-scale, re-scale, and re-size virtually everything we do in this country and we can't start soon enough to do it. We're going to have -- (Applause) -- we're going to have to live closer to where we work. We're going to have to live closer to each other. We're going have to grow more food closer to where we live. The age of the 3,000 mile Caesar salad is coming to an end. We're going to have to -- we have a railroad system that the Bulgarians would be ashamed of! We gotta do better than that! And we should have started two days before yesterday. We are fortunate that the new urbanists were there, for the last 10 years, excavating all that information that was thrown in the garbage by our parents' generation after World War II. Because we're going to need it if we're going to learn how to reconstruct towns. We're going to need to get back this body of methodology and principle and skill in order to re-learn how to compose meaningful places, places that are integral, that allow -- that are living organisms in the sense that they contain all the organs of our civic life and our communal life, deployed in an integral fashion. So that, you know, the residences make sense deployed in relation to the places of business, of culture and of governance. We're going to have to re-learn what the building blocks of these things are: the street, the block, how to compose public space that's both large and small, the courtyard, the civic square and how to really make use of this property. We can see some of the first ideas for retro-fitting some of the catastrophic property that we have in America. The dead malls: what are we going to do with them? Well, in point of fact, most of them are not going to make it. They're not going to be retro-fitted; they're going to be the salvage yards of the future. Some of them we're going to fix, though. And we're going to fix them by imposing back on them street and block systems and returning to the building lot as the normal increment of development. And if we're lucky, the result will be revivified town centers and neighborhood centers in our existing towns and cities. And by the way, our towns and cities are where they are, and grew where they were because they occupy all the important sites. And most of them are still going to be there, although the scale of them is probably going to be diminished. We've got a lot of work to do. We're not going to be rescued by the hyper-car; we're not going to be rescued by alternative fuels. No amount or combination of alternative fuels is going to allow us to continue running what we're running, the way we're running it. We're going to have to do everything very differently. And America's not prepared. We are sleepwalking into the future. We're not ready for what's coming at us. So I urge you all to do what you can. Life in the mid-21st century is going to be about living locally. Be prepared to be good neighbors. Be prepared to find vocations that make you useful to your neighbors and to your fellow citizens. One final thing -- I've been very disturbed about this for years, but I think it's particularly important for this audience. Please, please, stop referring to yourselves as "consumers." OK? Consumers are different than citizens. Consumers do not have obligations, responsibilities and duties to their fellow human beings. And as long as you're using that word consumer in the public discussion, you will be degrading the quality of the discussion we're having. And we're going to continue being clueless going into this very difficult future that we face. So thank you very much. Please go out and do what you can to make this a land full of places that are worth caring about and a nation that will be worth defending. (Applause)

Well, the subject of difficult negotiation reminds me of one of my favorite stories from the Middle East, of a man who left to his three sons, 17 camels. To the first son, he left half the camels; to the second son, he left a third of the camels; and to the youngest son, he left a ninth of the camels. The three sons got into a negotiation -- 17 doesn't divide by two. It doesn't divide by three. It doesn't divide by nine. Brotherly tempers started to get strained. Finally, in desperation, they went and they consulted a wise old woman. The wise old woman thought about their problem for a long time, and finally she came back and said, "Well, I don't know if I can help you, but at least, if you want, you can have my camel." So then, they had 18 camels. The first son took his half -- half of 18 is nine. The second son took his third -- a third of 18 is six. The youngest son took his ninth -- a ninth of 18 is two. You get 17. They had one camel left over. They gave it back to the wise old woman. (Laughter) Now, if you think about that story for a moment, I think it resembles a lot of the difficult negotiations we get involved in. They start off like 17 camels, no way to resolve it. Somehow, what we need to do is step back from those situations, like that wise old woman, look at the situation through fresh eyes and come up with an 18th camel. Finding that 18th camel in the world's conflicts has been my life passion. I basically see humanity a bit like those three brothers. We're all one family. We know that scientifically, thanks to the communications revolution, all the tribes on the planet -- all 15,000 tribes -- are in touch with each other. And it's a big family reunion. And yet, like many family reunions, it's not all peace and light. There's a lot of conflict, and the question is: How do we deal with our differences? How do we deal with our deepest differences, given the human propensity for conflict and the human genius at devising weapons of enormous destruction? That's the question. As I've spent the last better part of three decades, almost four, traveling the world, trying to work, getting involved in conflicts ranging from Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Chechnya to Venezuela -- some of the most difficult conflicts on the face of the planet -- I've been asking myself that question. And I think I've found, in some ways, what is the secret to peace. It's actually surprisingly simple. It's not easy, but it's simple. It's not even new. It may be one of our most ancient human heritages. The secret to peace is us. It's us who act as a surrounding community around any conflict, who can play a constructive role. Let me give you just a story, an example. About 20 years ago, I was in South Africa, working with the parties in that conflict, and I had an extra month, so I spent some time living with several groups of San Bushmen. I was curious about them, about the way in which they resolve conflict. Because, after all, within living memory, they were hunters and gatherers, living pretty much like our ancestors lived for maybe 99 percent of the human story. And all the men have these poison arrows that they use for hunting -- absolutely fatal. So how do they deal with their differences? Well, what I learned is, whenever tempers rise in those communities, someone goes and hides the poison arrows out in the bush, and then everyone sits around in a circle like this, and they sit and they talk and they talk. It may take two days, three days, four days, but they don't rest until they find a resolution or better yet -- a reconciliation. And if tempers are still too high, then they send someone off to visit some relatives, as a cooling-off period. Well, that system is, I think, probably the system that kept us alive to this point, given our human tendencies. That system, I call "the third side." Because if you think about it, normally when we think of conflict, when we describe it, there's always two sides -- it's Arabs versus Israelis, labor versus management, husband versus wife, Republicans versus Democrats. But what we don't often see is that there's always a third side, and the third side of the conflict is us, it's the surrounding community, it's the friends, the allies, the family members, the neighbors. And we can play an incredibly constructive role. Perhaps the most fundamental way in which the third side can help is to remind the parties of what's really at stake. For the sake of the kids, for the sake of the family, for the sake of the community, for the sake of the future, let's stop fighting for a moment and start talking. Because, the thing is, when we're involved in conflict, it's very easy to lose perspective. It's very easy to react. Human beings -- we're reaction machines. And as the saying goes, when angry, you will make the best speech you will ever regret. (Laughter) And so the third side reminds us of that. The third side helps us go to the balcony, which is a metaphor for a place of perspective, where we can keep our eyes on the prize. Let me tell you a little story from my own negotiating experience. Some years ago, I was involved as a facilitator in some very tough talks between the leaders of Russia and the leaders of Chechnya. There was a war going on, as you know. And we met in the Hague, in the Peace Palace, in the same room where the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal was taking place. And the talks got off to a rather rocky start when the vice president of Chechnya began by pointing at the Russians and said, "You should stay right here in your seats, because you're going to be on trial for war crimes." And then he turned to me and said, "You're an American. Look at what you Americans are doing in Puerto Rico." And my mind started racing, "Puerto Rico? What do I know about Puerto Rico?" I started reacting. (Laughter) But then, I tried to remember to go to the balcony. And then when he paused and everyone looked at me for a response, from a balcony perspective, I was able to thank him for his remarks and say, "I appreciate your criticism of my country and I take it as a sign that we're among friends and can speak candidly to one another." (Laughter) "And what we're here to do is not to talk about Puerto Rico or the past. We're here to see if we can figure out a way to stop the suffering and the bloodshed in Chechnya." The conversation got back on track. That's the role of the third side, to help the parties go to the balcony. Now let me take you, for a moment, to what's widely regarded as the world's most difficult conflict, or the most impossible conflict, the Middle East. Question is: where's the third side there? How could we possibly go to the balcony? Now, I don't pretend to have an answer to the Middle East conflict, but I think I've got a first step -- literally, a first step -- something that any one of us could do as third-siders. Let me just ask you one question first. How many of you in the last years have ever found yourself worrying about the Middle East and wondering what anyone could do? Just out of curiosity, how many of you? OK, so the great majority of us. And here, it's so far away. Why do we pay so much attention to this conflict? Is it the number of deaths? There are a hundred times more people who die in a conflict in Africa than in the Middle East. No, it's because of the story, because we feel personally involved in that story. Whether we're Christians, Muslims or Jews, religious or non-religious, we feel we have a personal stake in it. Stories matter; as an anthropologist, I know that. Stories are what we use to transmit knowledge. They give meaning to our lives. That's what we tell here at TED, we tell stories. Stories are the key. And so my question is -- yes, let's try and resolve the politics there in the Middle East, but let's also take a look at the story. Let's try to get at the root of what it's all about. Let's see if we can apply the third side to it. What would that mean? What is the story there? Now, as anthropologists, we know that every culture has an origin story. What's the origin story of the Middle East? In a phrase, it's: Four thousand years ago, a man and his family walked across the Middle East, and the world has never been the same since. That man, of course, was Abraham. And what he stood for was unity, the unity of the family; he's the father of us all. But it's not just what he stood for, it's what his message was. His basic message was unity too, the interconnectedness of it all, the unity of it all. And his basic value was respect, was kindness toward strangers. That's what he's known for, his hospitality. So in that sense, he's the symbolic third side of the Middle East. He's the one who reminds us that we're all part of a greater whole. Now, think about that for a moment. Today, we face the scourge of terrorism. What is terrorism? Terrorism is basically taking an innocent stranger and treating them as an enemy whom you kill in order to create fear. What's the opposite of terrorism? It's taking an innocent stranger and treating them as a friend whom you welcome into your home, in order to sow and create understanding or respect, or love. So what if, then, you took the story of Abraham, which is a third-side story, what if that could be -- because Abraham stands for hospitality -- what if that could be an antidote to terrorism? What if that could be a vaccine against religious intolerance? How would you bring that story to life? Now, it's not enough just to tell a story. That's powerful, but people need to experience the story. They need to be able to live the story. How would you do that? And that was my thinking of how would you do that. And that's what comes to the first step here. Because the simple way to do that is: you go for a walk. You go for a walk in the footsteps of Abraham. You retrace the footsteps of Abraham. Because walking has a real power. You know, as an anthropologist, walking is what made us human. It's funny -- when you walk, you walk side-by-side, in the same common direction. Now if I were to come to you face-to-face and come this close to you, you would feel threatened. But if I walk shoulder-to-shoulder, even touching shoulders, it's no problem. Who fights while they walk? That's why in negotiations, often, when things get tough, people go for walks in the woods. So the idea came to me of, what about inspiring a path, a route -- think the Silk Route, think the Appalachian Trail -- that followed in the footsteps of Abraham? People said, "That's crazy. You can't. You can't retrace the footsteps of Abraham -- it's too insecure, you've got to cross all these borders, it goes across 10 different countries in the Middle East, because it unites them all." And so we studied the idea at Harvard. We did our due diligence. And then a few years ago, a group of us, about 25 of us from 10 different countries, decided to see if we could retrace the footsteps of Abraham, going from his initial birthplace in the city of Urfa in Southern Turkey, Northern Mesopotamia. And we then took a bus and took some walks and went to Harran, where, in the Bible, he sets off on his journey. Then we crossed the border into Syria, went to Aleppo, which, turns out, is named after Abraham. We went to Damascus, which has a long history associated with Abraham. We then came to Northern Jordan, to Jerusalem -- which is all about Abraham -- to Bethlehem, and finally, to the place where he's buried, in Hebron. So effectively, we went from womb to tomb. We showed it could be done. It was an amazing journey. Let me ask you a question. How many of you have had the experience of being in a strange neighborhood or strange land, and a total stranger, perfect stranger, comes up to you and shows you some kindness -- maybe invites you into their home, gives you a drink, gives you a coffee, gives you a meal? How many of you have ever had that experience? That's the essence of the Abraham Path. That's what you discover as you go into these villages in the Middle East where you expect hostility, and you get the most amazing hospitality, all associated with Abraham: "In the name of Father Ibrahim, let me offer you some food." So what we discovered is that Abraham is not just a figure out of a book for those people; he's alive, he's a living presence. And to make a long story short, in the last couple of years now, thousands of people have begun to walk parts of the path of Abraham in the Middle East, enjoying the hospitality of the people there. They've begun to walk in Israel and Palestine, in Jordan, in Turkey, in Syria. It's an amazing experience. Men, women, young people, old people -- more women than men, actually, interestingly. For those who can't walk, who are unable to get there right now, people started to organize walks in cities, in their own communities. In Cincinnati, for instance, they organized a walk from a church to a mosque to a synagogue and all had an Abrahamic meal together. It was Abraham Path Day. In São Paulo, Brazil, it's become an annual event for thousands of people to run in a virtual Abraham Path Run, uniting the different communities. The media love it; they really adore it. They lavish attention on it because it's visual and it spreads the idea, this idea of Abrahamic hospitality, of kindness towards strangers. And just a couple weeks ago, there was an NPR story on it. Last month, there was a piece in the Manchester Guardian about it, two whole pages. And they quoted a villager who said, "This walk connects us to the world." He said, "It was like a light that went on in our lives -- it brought us hope." And so that's what it's about. But it's not just about psychology; it's about economics. Because as people walk, they spend money. And this woman right here, Um Ahmad, is a woman who lives on the path in Northern Jordan. She's desperately poor. She's partially blind, her husband can't work, she's got seven kids. But what she can do is cook. And so she's begun to cook for some groups of walkers who come through the village and have a meal in her home. They sit on the floor -- she doesn't even have a tablecloth. She makes the most delicious food, that's fresh from the herbs in the surrounding countryside. And so more and more walkers have come, and lately she's begun to earn an income to support her family. And so she told our team there, she said, "You have made me visible in a village where people were once ashamed to look at me." That's the potential of the Abraham Path. There are literally hundreds of those kinds of communities across the Middle East, across the path. The potential is basically to change the game. And to change the game, you have to change the frame, the way we see things -- to change the frame from hostility to hospitality, from terrorism to tourism. And in that sense, the Abraham Path is a game-changer. Let me just show you one thing. I have a little acorn here that I picked up while I was walking on the path earlier this year. Now, the acorn is associated with the oak tree, of course -- grows into an oak tree, which is associated with Abraham. The path right now is like an acorn; it's still in its early phase. What would the oak tree look like? When I think back to my childhood, a good part of which I spent, after being born here in Chicago, I spent in Europe. If you had been in the ruins of, say, London in 1945, or Berlin, and you had said, "Sixty years from now, this is going to be the most peaceful, prosperous part of the planet," people would have thought you were certifiably insane. But they did it, thanks to a common identity, Europe, and a common economy. So my question is, if it can be done in Europe, why not in the Middle East? Why not, thanks to a common identity, which is the story of Abraham, and thanks to a common economy that would be based, in good part, on tourism? So let me conclude, then, by saying that in the last 35 years, as I've worked in some of the most dangerous, difficult and intractable conflicts around the planet, I have yet to see one conflict that I felt could not be transformed. It's not easy, of course. But it's possible. It was done in South Africa. It was done in Northern Ireland. It could be done anywhere. It simply depends on us. It depends on us taking the third side. So let me invite you to consider taking the third side, even as a very small step. We're about to take a break in a moment. Just go up to someone who's from a different culture, a different country, a different ethnicity -- some difference -- and engage them in a conversation. Listen to them. That's a third-side act. That's walking Abraham's Path. After a TED Talk, why not a TED Walk? (Laughter) So let me just leave you with three things. One is, the secret to peace is the third side. The third side is us. Each of us, with a single step, can take the world, can bring the world a step closer to peace. There's an old African proverb that goes: "When spiderwebs unite, they can halt even the lion." If we're able to unite our third-side webs of peace, we can even halt the lion of war. Thank you very much. (Applause)

When I was little -- and by the way, I was little once -- my father told me a story about an 18th century watchmaker. And what this guy had done: he used to produce these fabulously beautiful watches. And one day, one of his customers came into his workshop and asked him to clean the watch that he'd bought. And the guy took it apart, and one of the things he pulled out was one of the balance wheels. And as he did so, his customer noticed that on the back side of the balance wheel was an engraving, were words. And he said to the guy, "Why have you put stuff on the back that no one will ever see?" And the watchmaker turned around and said, "God can see it." Now I'm not in the least bit religious, neither was my father, but at that point, I noticed something happening here. I felt something in this plexus of blood vessels and nerves, and there must be some muscles in there as well somewhere, I guess. But I felt something. And it was a physiological response. And from that point on, from my age at the time, I began to think of things in a different way. And as I took on my career as a designer, I began to ask myself the simple question: Do we actually think beauty, or do we feel it? Now you probably know the answer to this already. You probably think, well, I don't know which one you think it is, but I think it's about feeling beauty. And so I then moved on into my design career and began to find some exciting things. One of the most early work was done in automotive design -- some very exciting work was done there. And during a lot of this work, we found something, or I found something, that really fascinated me, and maybe you can remember it. Do you remember when lights used to just go on and off, click click, when you closed the door in a car? And then somebody, I think it was BMW, introduced a light that went out slowly. Remember that? I remember it clearly. Do you remember the first time you were in a car and it did that? I remember sitting there thinking, this is fantastic. In fact, I've never found anybody that doesn't like the light that goes out slowly. I thought, well what the hell's that about? So I started to ask myself questions about it. And the first was, I'd ask other people: "Do you like it?" "Yes." "Why?" And they'd say, "Oh, it feels so natural," or, "It's nice." I thought, well that's not good enough. Can we cut down a little bit further, because, as a designer, I need the vocabulary, I need the keyboard, of how this actually works. And so I did some experiments. And I suddenly realized that there was something that did exactly that -- light to dark in six seconds -- exactly that. Do you know what it is? Anyone? You see, using this bit, the thinky bit, the slow bit of the brain -- using that. And this isn't a think, it's a feel. And would you do me a favor? For the next 14 minutes or whatever it is, will you feel stuff? I don't need you to think so much as I want you to feel it. I felt a sense of relaxation tempered with anticipation. And that thing that I found was the cinema or the theater. It's actually just happened here -- light to dark in six seconds. And when that happens, are you sitting there going, "No, the movie's about to start," or are you going, "That's fantastic. I'm looking forward to it. I get a sense of anticipation"? Now I'm not a neuroscientist. I don't know even if there is something called a conditioned reflex. But it might be. Because the people I speak to in the northern hemisphere that used to go in the cinema get this. And some of the people I speak to that have never seen a movie or been to the theater don't get it in the same way. Everybody likes it, but some like it more than others. So this leads me to think of this in a different way. We're not feeling it. We're thinking beauty is in the limbic system -- if that's not an outmoded idea. These are the bits, the pleasure centers, and maybe what I'm seeing and sensing and feeling is bypassing my thinking. The wiring from your sensory apparatus to those bits is shorter than the bits that have to pass through the thinky bit, the cortex. They arrive first. So how do we make that actually work? And how much of that reactive side of it is due to what we already know, or what we're going to learn, about something? This is one of the most beautiful things I know. It's a plastic bag. And when I looked at it first, I thought, no, there's no beauty in that. Then I found out, post exposure, that this plastic bag if I put it into a filthy puddle or a stream filled with coliforms and all sorts of disgusting stuff, that that filthy water will migrate through the wall of the bag by osmosis and end up inside it as pure, potable drinking water. And all of a sudden, this plastic bag was extremely beautiful to me. Now I'm going to ask you again to switch on the emotional bit. Would you mind taking the brain out, and I just want you to feel something. Look at that. What are you feeling about it? Is it beautiful? Is it exciting? I'm watching your faces very carefully. There's some rather bored-looking gentlemen and some slightly engaged-looking ladies who are picking up something off that. Maybe there's an innocence to it. Now I'm going to tell you what it is. Are you ready? This is the last act on this Earth of a little girl called Heidi, five years old, before she died of cancer to the spine. It's the last thing she did, the last physical act. Look at that picture. Look at the innocence. Look at the beauty in it. Is it beautiful now? Stop. Stop. How do you feel? Where are you feeling this? I'm feeling it here. I feel it here. And I'm watching your faces, because your faces are telling me something. The lady over there is actually crying, by the way. But what are you doing? I watch what people do. I watch faces. I watch reactions. Because I have to know how people react to things. And one of the most common faces on something faced with beauty, something stupefyingly delicious, is what I call the OMG. And by the way, there's no pleasure in that face. It's not a "this is wonderful!" The eyebrows are doing this, the eyes are defocused, and the mouth is hanging open. That's not the expression of joy. There's something else in that. There's something weird happening. So pleasure seems to be tempered by a whole series of different things coming in. Poignancy is a word I love as a designer. It means something triggering a big emotional response, often quite a sad emotional response, but it's part of what we do. It isn't just about nice. And this is the dilemma, this is the paradox, of beauty. Sensorily, we're taking in all sorts of things -- mixtures of things that are good, bad, exciting, frightening -- to come up with that sensorial exposure, that sensation of what's going on. Pathos appears obviously as part of what you just saw in that little girl's drawing. And also triumph, this sense of transcendence, this "I never knew that. Ah, this is something new." And that's packed in there as well. And as we assemble these tools, from a design point of view, I get terribly excited about it, because these are things, as we've already said, they're arriving at the brain, it would seem, before cognition, before we can manipulate them -- electrochemical party tricks. Now what I'm also interested in is: Is it possible to separate intrinsic and extrinsic beauty? By that, I mean intrinsically beautiful things, just something that's exquisitely beautiful, that's universally beautiful. Very hard to find. Maybe you've got some examples of it. Very hard to find something that, to everybody, is a very beautiful thing, without a certain amount of information packed in there before. So a lot of it tends to be extrinsic. It's mediated by information before the comprehension. Or the information's added on at the back, like that little girl's drawing that I showed you. Now when talking about beauty you can't get away from the fact that a lot experiments have been done in this way with faces and what have you. And one of the most tedious ones, I think, was saying that beauty was about symmetry. Well it obviously isn't. This is a more interesting one where half faces were shown to some people, and then to add them into a list of most beautiful to least beautiful and then exposing a full face. And they found that it was almost exact coincidence. So it wasn't about symmetry. In fact, this lady has a particularly asymmetrical face, of which both sides are beautiful. But they're both different. And as a designer, I can't help meddling with this, so I pulled it to bits and sort of did stuff like this, and tried to understand what the individual elements were, but feeling it as I go. Now I can feel a sensation of delight and beauty if I look at that eye. I'm not getting it off the eyebrow. And the earhole isn't doing it to me at all. So I don't know how much this is helping me, but it's helping to guide me to the places where the signals are coming off. And as I say, I'm not a neuroscientist, but to understand how I can start to assemble things that will very quickly bypass this thinking part and get me to the enjoyable precognitive elements. Anais Nin and the Talmud have told us time and time again that we see things not as they are, but as we are. So I'm going to shamelessly expose something to you, which is beautiful to me. And this is the F1 MV Agusta. Ahhhh. It is really -- I mean, I can't express to you how exquisite this object is. But I also know why it's exquisite to me, because it's a palimpsest of things. It's masses and masses of layers. This is just the bit that protrudes into our physical dimension. It's something much bigger. Layer after layer of legend, sport, details that resonate. I mean, if I just go through some of them now -- I know about laminar flow when it comes to air-piercing objects, and that does it consummately well, you can see it can. So that's getting me excited. And I feel that here. This bit, the big secret of automotive design -- reflection management. It's not about the shapes, it's how the shapes reflect light. Now that thing, light flickers across it as you move, so it becomes a kinetic object, even though it's standing still -- managed by how brilliantly that's done on the reflection. This little relief on the footplate, by the way, to a rider means there's something going on underneath it -- in this case, a drive chain running at 300 miles and hour probably, taking the power from the engine. I'm getting terribly excited as my mind and my eyes flick across these things. Titanium lacquer on this. I can't tell you how wonderful this is. That's how you stop the nuts coming off at high speed on the wheel. I'm really getting into this now. And of course, a racing bike doesn't have a prop stand, but this one, because it's a road bike, it all goes away and it folds into this little gap. So it disappears. And then I can't tell you how hard it is to do that radiator, which is curved. Why would you do that? Because I know we need to bring the wheel farther into the aerodynamics. So it's more expensive, but it's wonderful. And to cap it all, brand royalty -- Agusta, Count Agusta, from the great histories of this stuff. The bit that you can't see is the genius that created this. Massimo Tamburini. They call him "The Plumber" in Italy, as well as "Maestro," because he actually is engineer and craftsman and sculptor at the same time. There's so little compromise on this, you can't see it. But unfortunately, the likes of me and people that are like me have to deal with compromise all the time with beauty. We have to deal with it. So I have to work with a supply chain, and I've got to work with the technologies, and I've got to work with everything else all the time, and so compromises start to fit into it. And so look at her. I've had to make a bit of a compromise there. I've had to move that part across, but only a millimeter. No one's noticed, have they yet? Did you see what I did? I moved three things by a millimeter. Pretty? Yes. Beautiful? Maybe lesser. But then, of course, the consumer says that doesn't really matter. So that's okay, isn't it? Another millimeter? No one's going to notice those split lines and changes. It's that easy to lose beauty, because beauty's incredibly difficult to do. And only a few people can do it. And a focus group cannot do it. And a team rarely can do it. It takes a central cortex, if you like, to be able to orchestrate all those elements at the same time. This is a beautiful water bottle -- some of you know of it -- done by Ross Lovegrove, the designer. This is pretty close to intrinsic beauty. This one, as long as you know what water is like then you can experience this. It's lovely because it is an embodiment of something refreshing and delicious. I might like it more than you like it, because I know how bloody hard it is to do it. It's stupefyingly difficult to make something that refracts light like that, that comes out of the tool correctly, that goes down the line without falling over. Underneath this, like the story of the swan, is a million things very difficult to do. So all hail to that. It's a fantastic example, a simple object. And the one I showed you before was, of course, a massively complex one. And they're working in beauty in slightly different ways because of it. You all, I guess, like me, enjoy watching a ballet dancer dance. And part of the joy of it is, you know the difficulty. You also may be taking into account the fact that it's incredibly painful. Anybody seen a ballet dancer's toes when they come out of the points? While she's doing these graceful arabesques and plies and what have you, something horrible's going on down here. The comprehension of it leads us to a greater and heightened sense of the beauty of what's actually going on. Now I'm using microseconds wrongly here, so please ignore me. But what I have to do now, feeling again, what I've got to do is to be able to supply enough of these enzymes, of these triggers into something early on in the process, that you pick it up, not through your thinking, but through your feeling. So we're going to have a little experiment. Right, are you ready? I'm going to show you something for a very, very brief moment. Are you ready? Okay. Did you think that was a bicycle when I showed it to you at the first flash? It's not. Tell me something, did you think it was quick when you first saw it? Yes you did. Did you think it was modern? Yes you did. That blip, that information, shot into you before that. And because your brain starter motor began there, now it's got to deal with it. And the great thing is, this motorcycle has been styled this way specifically to engender a sense that it's green technology and it's good for you and it's light and it's all part of the future. So is that wrong? Well in this case it isn't, because it's a very, very ecologically-sound piece of technology. But you're a slave of that first flash. We are slaves to the first few fractions of a second -- and that's where much of my work has to win or lose, on a shelf in a shop. It wins or loses at that point. You may see 50, 100, 200 things on a shelf as you walk down it, but I have to work within that domain, to ensure that it gets you there first. And finally, the layer that I love, of knowledge. Some of you, I'm sure, will be familiar with this. What's incredible about this, and the way I love to come back to it, is this is taking something that you hate or bores you, folding clothes, and if you can actually do this -- who can actually do this? Anybody try to do this? Yeah? It's fantastic, isn't it? Look at that. Do you want to see it again? No time. It says I have two minutes left, so we can't do this. But just go to the Web, YouTube, pull it down, "folding T-shirt." That's how underpaid younger-aged people have to fold your T-shirt. You didn't maybe know it. But how do you feel about it? It feels fantastic when you do it, you look forward to doing it, and when you tell somebody else about it -- like you probably have -- you look really smart. The knowledge bubble that sits around the outside, the stuff that costs nothing, because that knowledge is free -- bundle that together and where do we come out? Form follows function? Only sometimes. Only sometimes. Form is function. Form is function. It informs, it tells us, it supplies us answers before we've even thought about it. And so I've stopped using words like "form," and I've stopped using words like "function" as a designer. What I try to pursue now is the emotional functionality of things. Because if I can get that right, I can make them wonderful, and I can make them repeatedly wonderful. And you know what those products and services are, because you own some of them. They're the things that you'd snatch if the house was on fire. Forming the emotional bond between this thing and you is an electrochemical party trick that happens before you even think about it. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I love a great mystery, and I'm fascinated by the greatest unsolved mystery in science, perhaps because it's personal. It's about who we are, and I can't help but be curious. The mystery is this: What is the relationship between your brain and your conscious experiences, such as your experience of the taste of chocolate or the feeling of velvet? Now, this mystery is not new. In 1868, Thomas Huxley wrote, "How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the genie when Aladdin rubbed his lamp." Now, Huxley knew that brain activity and conscious experiences are correlated, but he didn't know why. To the science of his day, it was a mystery. In the years since Huxley, science has learned a lot about brain activity, but the relationship between brain activity and conscious experiences is still a mystery. Why? Why have we made so little progress? Well, some experts think that we can't solve this problem because we lack the necessary concepts and intelligence. We don't expect monkeys to solve problems in quantum mechanics, and as it happens, we can't expect our species to solve this problem either. Well, I disagree. I'm more optimistic. I think we've simply made a false assumption. Once we fix it, we just might solve this problem. Today, I'd like tell you what that assumption is, why it's false, and how to fix it. Let's begin with a question: Do we see reality as it is? I open my eyes and I have an experience that I describe as a red tomato a meter away. As a result, I come to believe that in reality, there's a red tomato a meter away. I then close my eyes, and my experience changes to a gray field, but is it still the case that in reality, there's a red tomato a meter away? I think so, but could I be wrong? Could I be misinterpreting the nature of my perceptions? We have misinterpreted our perceptions before. We used to think the Earth is flat, because it looks that way. Pythagorus discovered that we were wrong. Then we thought that the Earth is the unmoving center of the Universe, again because it looks that way. Copernicus and Galileo discovered, again, that we were wrong. Galileo then wondered if we might be misinterpreting our experiences in other ways. He wrote: "I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on reside in consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be annihilated." Now, that's a stunning claim. Could Galileo be right? Could we really be misinterpreting our experiences that badly? What does modern science have to say about this? Well, neuroscientists tell us that about a third of the brain's cortex is engaged in vision. When you simply open your eyes and look about this room, billions of neurons and trillions of synapses are engaged. Now, this is a bit surprising, because to the extent that we think about vision at all, we think of it as like a camera. It just takes a picture of objective reality as it is. Now, there is a part of vision that's like a camera: the eye has a lens that focuses an image on the back of the eye where there are 130 million photoreceptors, so the eye is like a 130-megapixel camera. But that doesn't explain the billions of neurons and trillions of synapses that are engaged in vision. What are these neurons up to? Well, neuroscientists tell us that they are creating, in real time, all the shapes, objects, colors, and motions that we see. It feels like we're just taking a snapshot of this room the way it is, but in fact, we're constructing everything that we see. We don't construct the whole world at once. We construct what we need in the moment. Now, there are many demonstrations that are quite compelling that we construct what we see. I'll just show you two. In this example, you see some red discs with bits cut out of them, but if I just rotate the disks a little bit, suddenly, you see a 3D cube pop out of the screen. Now, the screen of course is flat, so the three-dimensional cube that you're experiencing must be your construction. In this next example, you see glowing blue bars with pretty sharp edges moving across a field of dots. In fact, no dots move. All I'm doing from frame to frame is changing the colors of dots from blue to black or black to blue. But when I do this quickly, your visual system creates the glowing blue bars with the sharp edges and the motion. There are many more examples, but these are just two that you construct what you see. But neuroscientists go further. They say that we reconstruct reality. So, when I have an experience that I describe as a red tomato, that experience is actually an accurate reconstruction of the properties of a real red tomato that would exist even if I weren't looking. Now, why would neuroscientists say that we don't just construct, we reconstruct? Well, the standard argument given is usually an evolutionary one. Those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage compared to those who saw less accurately, and therefore they were more likely to pass on their genes. We are the offspring of those who saw more accurately, and so we can be confident that, in the normal case, our perceptions are accurate. You see this in the standard textbooks. One textbook says, for example, "Evolutionarily speaking, vision is useful precisely because it is so accurate." So the idea is that accurate perceptions are fitter perceptions. They give you a survival advantage. Now, is this correct? Is this the right interpretation of evolutionary theory? Well, let's first look at a couple of examples in nature. The Australian jewel beetle is dimpled, glossy and brown. The female is flightless. The male flies, looking, of course, for a hot female. When he finds one, he alights and mates. There's another species in the outback, Homo sapiens. The male of this species has a massive brain that he uses to hunt for cold beer. (Laughter) And when he finds one, he drains it, and sometimes throws the bottle into the outback. Now, as it happens, these bottles are dimpled, glossy, and just the right shade of brown to tickle the fancy of these beetles. The males swarm all over the bottles trying to mate. They lose all interest in the real females. Classic case of the male leaving the female for the bottle. (Laughter) (Applause) The species almost went extinct. Australia had to change its bottles to save its beetles. (Laughter) Now, the males had successfully found females for thousands, perhaps millions of years. It looked like they saw reality as it is, but apparently not. Evolution had given them a hack. A female is anything dimpled, glossy and brown, the bigger the better. (Laughter) Even when crawling all over the bottle, the male couldn't discover his mistake. Now, you might say, beetles, sure, they're very simple creatures, but surely not mammals. Mammals don't rely on tricks. Well, I won't dwell on this, but you get the idea. (Laughter) So this raises an important technical question: Does natural selection really favor seeing reality as it is? Fortunately, we don't have to wave our hands and guess; evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems are more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness. Consider this steak: What does this steak do for the fitness of an animal? Well, for a hungry lion looking to eat, it enhances fitness. For a well-fed lion looking to mate, it doesn't enhance fitness. And for a rabbit in any state, it doesn't enhance fitness, so fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes, but also on the organism, its state and its action. Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it's fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality, others see just part of the reality, and some see none of the reality, only fitness. Who wins? Well, I hate to break it to you, but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality but are just tuned to fitness drive to extinction all the organisms that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those perceptions of reality go extinct. Now, this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage? That is a bit counterintuitive. But remember the jewel beetle. The jewel beetle survived for thousands, perhaps millions of years, using simple tricks and hacks. What the equations of evolution are telling us is that all organisms, including us, are in the same boat as the jewel beetle. We do not see reality as it is. We're shaped with tricks and hacks that keep us alive. Still, we need some help with our intuitions. How can not perceiving reality as it is be useful? Well, fortunately, we have a very helpful metaphor: the desktop interface on your computer. Consider that blue icon for a TED Talk that you're writing. Now, the icon is blue and rectangular and in the lower right corner of the desktop. Does that mean that the text file itself in the computer is blue, rectangular, and in the lower right-hand corner of the computer? Of course not. Anyone who thought that misinterprets the purpose of the interface. It's not there to show you the reality of the computer. In fact, it's there to hide that reality. You don't want to know about the diodes and resistors and all the megabytes of software. If you had to deal with that, you could never write your text file or edit your photo. So the idea is that evolution has given us an interface that hides reality and guides adaptive behavior. Space and time, as you perceive them right now, are your desktop. Physical objects are simply icons in that desktop. There's an obvious objection. Hoffman, if you think that train coming down the track at 200 MPH is just an icon of your desktop, why don't you step in front of it? And after you're gone, and your theory with you, we'll know that there's more to that train than just an icon. Well, I wouldn't step in front of that train for the same reason that I wouldn't carelessly drag that icon to the trash can: not because I take the icon literally -- the file is not literally blue or rectangular -- but I do take it seriously. I could lose weeks of work. Similarly, evolution has shaped us with perceptual symbols that are designed to keep us alive. We'd better take them seriously. If you see a snake, don't pick it up. If you see a cliff, don't jump off. They're designed to keep us safe, and we should take them seriously. That does not mean that we should take them literally. That's a logical error. Another objection: There's nothing really new here. Physicists have told us for a long time that the metal of that train looks solid but really it's mostly empty space with microscopic particles zipping around. There's nothing new here. Well, not exactly. It's like saying, I know that that blue icon on the desktop is not the reality of the computer, but if I pull out my trusty magnifying glass and look really closely, I see little pixels, and that's the reality of the computer. Well, not really -- you're still on the desktop, and that's the point. Those microscopic particles are still in space and time: they're still in the user interface. So I'm saying something far more radical than those physicists. Finally, you might object, look, we all see the train, therefore none of us constructs the train. But remember this example. In this example, we all see a cube, but the screen is flat, so the cube that you see is the cube that you construct. We all see a cube because we all, each one of us, constructs the cube that we see. The same is true of the train. We all see a train because we each see the train that we construct, and the same is true of all physical objects. We're inclined to think that perception is like a window on reality as it is. The theory of evolution is telling us that this is an incorrect interpretation of our perceptions. Instead, reality is more like a 3D desktop that's designed to hide the complexity of the real world and guide adaptive behavior. Space as you perceive it is your desktop. Physical objects are just the icons in that desktop. We used to think that the Earth is flat because it looks that way. Then we thought that the Earth is the unmoving center of reality because it looks that way. We were wrong. We had misinterpreted our perceptions. Now we believe that spacetime and objects are the nature of reality as it is. The theory of evolution is telling us that once again, we're wrong. We're misinterpreting the content of our perceptual experiences. There's something that exists when you don't look, but it's not spacetime and physical objects. It's as hard for us to let go of spacetime and objects as it is for the jewel beetle to let go of its bottle. Why? Because we're blind to our own blindnesses. But we have an advantage over the jewel beetle: our science and technology. By peering through the lens of a telescope we discovered that the Earth is not the unmoving center of reality, and by peering through the lens of the theory of evolution we discovered that spacetime and objects are not the nature of reality. When I have a perceptual experience that I describe as a red tomato, I am interacting with reality, but that reality is not a red tomato and is nothing like a red tomato. Similarly, when I have an experience that I describe as a lion or a steak, I'm interacting with reality, but that reality is not a lion or a steak. And here's the kicker: When I have a perceptual experience that I describe as a brain, or neurons, I am interacting with reality, but that reality is not a brain or neurons and is nothing like a brain or neurons. And that reality, whatever it is, is the real source of cause and effect in the world -- not brains, not neurons. Brains and neurons have no causal powers. They cause none of our perceptual experiences, and none of our behavior. Brains and neurons are a species-specific set of symbols, a hack. What does this mean for the mystery of consciousness? Well, it opens up new possibilities. For instance, perhaps reality is some vast machine that causes our conscious experiences. I doubt this, but it's worth exploring. Perhaps reality is some vast, interacting network of conscious agents, simple and complex, that cause each other's conscious experiences. Actually, this isn't as crazy an idea as it seems, and I'm currently exploring it. But here's the point: Once we let go of our massively intuitive but massively false assumption about the nature of reality, it opens up new ways to think about life's greatest mystery. I bet that reality will end up turning out to be more fascinating and unexpected than we've ever imagined. The theory of evolution presents us with the ultimate dare: Dare to recognize that perception is not about seeing truth, it's about having kids. And by the way, even this TED is just in your head. Thank you very much. (Applause) Chris Anderson: If that's really you there, thank you. So there's so much from this. I mean, first of all, some people may just be profoundly depressed at the thought that, if evolution does not favor reality, I mean, doesn't that to some extent undermine all our endeavors here, all our ability to think that we can think the truth, possibly even including your own theory, if you go there? Donald Hoffman: Well, this does not stop us from a successful science. What we have is one theory that turned out to be false, that perception is like reality and reality is like our perceptions. That theory turns out to be false. Okay, throw that theory away. That doesn't stop us from now postulating all sorts of other theories about the nature of reality, so it's actually progress to recognize that one of our theories was false. So science continues as normal. There's no problem here. CA: So you think it's possible -- (Laughter) -- This is cool, but what you're saying I think is it's possible that evolution can still get you to reason. DH: Yes. Now that's a very, very good point. The evolutionary game simulations that I showed were specifically about perception, and they do show that our perceptions have been shaped not to show us reality as it is, but that does not mean the same thing about our logic or mathematics. We haven't done these simulations, but my bet is that we'll find that there are some selection pressures for our logic and our mathematics to be at least in the direction of truth. I mean, if you're like me, math and logic is not easy. We don't get it all right, but at least the selection pressures are not uniformly away from true math and logic. So I think that we'll find that we have to look at each cognitive faculty one at a time and see what evolution does to it. What's true about perception may not be true about math and logic. CA: I mean, really what you're proposing is a kind of modern-day Bishop Berkeley interpretation of the world: consciousness causes matter, not the other way around. DH: Well, it's slightly different than Berkeley. Berkeley thought that, he was a deist, and he thought that the ultimate nature of reality is God and so forth, and I don't need to go where Berkeley's going, so it's quite a bit different from Berkeley. I call this conscious realism. It's actually a very different approach. CA: Don, I could literally talk with you for hours, and I hope to do that. Thanks so much for that. DH: Thank you. (Applause)

Running -- it's basically just right, left, right, left -- yeah? I mean, we've been doing it for two million years, so it's kind of arrogant to assume that I've got something to say that hasn't been said and performed better a long time ago. But the cool thing about running, as I've discovered, is that something bizarre happens in this activity all the time. Case in point: A couple months ago, if you saw the New York City Marathon, I guarantee you, you saw something that no one has ever seen before. An Ethiopian woman named Derartu Tulu turns up at the starting line. She's 37 years old, she hasn't won a marathon of any kind in eight years, and a few months previously she almost died in childbirth. Derartu Tulu was ready to hang it up and retire from the sport, but she decided she'd go for broke and try for one last big payday in the marquee event, the New York City Marathon. Except -- bad news for Derartu Tulu -- some other people had the same idea, including the Olympic gold medalist and Paula Radcliffe, who is a monster, the fastest woman marathoner in history by far. Only 10 minutes off the men's world record, Paula Radcliffe is essentially unbeatable. That's her competition. The gun goes off, and she's not even an underdog. She's under the underdogs. But the under-underdog hangs tough, and 22 miles into a 26-mile race, there is Derartu Tulu up there with the lead pack. Now this is when something really bizarre happens. Paula Radcliffe, the one person who is sure to snatch the big paycheck out of Derartu Tulu's under-underdog hands, suddenly grabs her leg and starts to fall back. So we all know what to do in this situation, right? You give her a quick crack in the teeth with your elbow and blaze for the finish line. Derartu Tulu ruins the script. Instead of taking off, she falls back, and she grabs Paula Radcliffe, says, "Come on. Come with us. You can do it." So Paula Radcliffe, unfortunately, does it. She catches up with the lead pack and is pushing toward the finish line. But then she falls back again. And the second time Derartu Tulu grabs her and tries to pull her. And Paula Radcliffe at that point says, "I'm done. Go." So that's a fantastic story, and we all know how it ends. She loses the check, but she goes home with something bigger and more important. Except Derartu Tulu ruins the script again -- instead of losing, she blazes past the lead pack and wins, wins the New York City Marathon, goes home with a big fat check. It's a heartwarming story, but if you drill a little bit deeper, you've got to sort of wonder about what exactly was going on there. When you have two outliers in one organism, it's not a coincidence. When you have someone who is more competitive and more compassionate than anybody else in the race, again, it's not a coincidence. You show me a creature with webbed feet and gills; somehow water's involved. Someone with that kind of heart, there's some kind of connection there. And the answer to it, I think, can be found down in the Copper Canyons of Mexico, where there's a tribe, a reclusive tribe, called the Tarahumara Indians. Now the Tarahumara are remarkable for three things. Number one is, they have been living essentially unchanged for the past 400 years. When the conquistadors arrived in North America you had two choices: you either fight back and engage or you could take off. The Mayans and Aztecs engaged, which is why there are very few Mayans and Aztecs. The Tarahumara had a different strategy. They took off and hid in this labyrinthine, networking, spiderwebbing system of canyons called the Copper Canyons, and there they remained since the 1600s -- essentially the same way they've always been. The second thing remarkable about the Tarahumara is, deep into old age -- 70 to 80 years old -- these guys aren't running marathons; they're running mega-marathons. They're not doing 26 miles; they're doing 100, 150 miles at a time, and apparently without injury, without problems. The last thing that's remarkable about the Tarahumara is that all the things that we're going to be talking about today, all the things that we're trying to come up with using all of our technology and brain power to solve -- things like heart disease and cholesterol and cancer and crime and warfare and violence and clinical depression -- all this stuff, the Tarahumara don't know what you're talking about. They are free from all of these modern ailments. So what's the connection? Again, we're talking about outliers -- there's got to be some kind of cause and effect there. Well, there are teams of scientists at Harvard and the University of Utah that are bending their brains to try to figure out what the Tarahumara have known forever. They're trying to solve those same kinds of mysteries. And once again, a mystery wrapped inside of a mystery -- perhaps the key to Derartu Tulu and the Tarahumara is wrapped in three other mysteries, which go like this: three things -- if you have the answer, come up and take the microphone, because nobody else knows the answer. And if you know it, then you are smarter than anybody else on planet Earth. Mystery number one is this: Two million years ago the human brain exploded in size. Australopithecus had a tiny little pea brain. Suddenly humans show up -- Homo erectus -- big, old melon-head. To have a brain of that size, you need to have a source of condensed caloric energy. In other words, early humans are eating dead animals -- no argument, that's a fact. The only problem is, the first edged weapons only appeared about 200,000 years ago. So, somehow, for nearly two million years, we are killing animals without any weapons. Now we're not using our strength because we are the biggest sissies in the jungle. Every other animal is stronger than we are -- they have fangs, they have claws, they have nimbleness, they have speed. We think Usain Bolt is fast. Usain Bolt can get his ass kicked by a squirrel. We're not fast. That would be an Olympic event: turn a squirrel loose -- whoever catches the squirrel, you get a gold medal. So no weapons, no speed, no strength, no fangs, no claws -- how were we killing these animals? Mystery number one. Mystery number two: Women have been in the Olympics for quite some time now, but one thing that's remarkable about all women sprinters -- they all suck; they're terrible. There's not a fast woman on the planet and there never has been. The fastest woman to ever run a mile did it in 4:15. I could throw a rock and hit a high school boy who can run faster than 4:15. For some reason you guys are just really slow. (Laughter) But you get to the marathon we were just talking about -- you guys have only been allowed to run the marathon for 20 years. Because, prior to the 1980s, medical science said that if a woman tried to run 26 miles -- does anyone know what would happen if you tried to run 26 miles, why you were banned from the marathon before the 1980s? (Audience Member: Her uterus would be torn.) Her uterus would be torn. Yes. You would have torn reproductive organs. The uterus would fall out, literally fall out of the body. Now I've been to a lot of marathons, and I've yet to see any ... (Laughter) So it's only been 20 years that women have been allowed to run the marathon. In that very short learning curve, you guys have gone from broken organs up to the fact that you're only 10 minutes off the male world record. Then you go beyond 26 miles, into the distance that medical science also told us would be fatal to humans -- remember Pheidippides died when he ran 26 miles -- you get to 50 and 100 miles, and suddenly it's a different game. You can take a runner like Ann Trason, or Nikki Kimball, or Jenn Shelton, you put them in a race of 50 or 100 miles against anybody in the world and it's a coin toss who's going to win. I'll give you an example. A couple years ago, Emily Baer signed up for a race called the Hardrock 100, which tells you all you need to know about the race. They give you 48 hours to finish this race. Well Emily Baer -- 500 runners -- she finishes in eighth place, in the top 10, even though she stopped at all the aid stations to breastfeed her baby during the race -- and yet, beat 492 other people. So why is it that women get stronger as distances get longer? The third mystery is this: At the University of Utah, they started tracking finishing times for people running the marathon. And what they found is that, if you start running the marathon at age 19, you will get progressively faster, year by year, until you reach your peak at age 27. And then after that, you succumb to the rigors of time. And you'll get slower and slower, until eventually you're back to running the same speed you were at age 19. So about seven years, eight years to reach your peak, and then gradually you fall off your peak, until you go back to the starting point. You would think it might take eight years to go back to the same speed, maybe 10 years -- no, it's 45 years. 64-year-old men and women are running as fast as they were at age 19. Now I defy you to come up with any other physical activity -- and please don't say golf -- something that actually is hard -- where geriatrics are performing as well as they did as teenagers. So you have these three mysteries. Is there one piece in the puzzle which might wrap all these things up? You've got to be really careful any time someone looks back in prehistory and tries to give you some sort of global answer, because, it being prehistory, you can say whatever the hell you want and get away with it. But I'll submit this to you: If you put one piece in the middle of this jigsaw puzzle, suddenly it all starts to form a coherent picture. If you wonder, why it is the Tarahumara don't fight and don't die of heart disease, why a poor Ethiopian woman named Derartu Tulu can be the most compassionate and yet the most competitive, and why we somehow were able to find food without weapons, perhaps it's because humans, as much as we like to think of ourselves as masters of the universe, actually evolved as nothing more than a pack of hunting dogs. Maybe we evolved as a hunting pack animal. Because the one advantage we have in the wilderness -- again, it's not our fangs and our claws and our speed -- the only thing we do really, really well is sweat. We're really good at being sweaty and smelly. Better than any other mammal on Earth, we can sweat really well. But the advantage of that little bit of social discomfort is the fact that, when it comes to running under hot heat for long distances, we're superb, we're the best on the planet. You take a horse on a hot day, and after about five or six miles, that horse has a choice. It's either going to breathe or it's going to cool off, but it ain't doing both -- we can. So what if we evolved as hunting pack animals? What if the only natural advantage we had in the world was the fact that we could get together as a group, go out there on that African Savannah, pick out an antelope and go out as a pack and run that thing to death? That's all we could do. We could run really far on a hot day. Well if that's true, a couple other things had to be true as well. The key to being part of a hunting pack is the word "pack." If you go out by yourself, and you try to chase an antelope, I guarantee you there's going to be two cadavers out there in the Savannah. You need a pack to pull together. You need to have those 64-, 65-year-olds who have been doing this for a long time to understand which antelope you're actually trying to catch. The herd explodes and it gathers back again. Those expert trackers have got to be part of the pack. They can't be 10 miles behind. You need to have the women and the adolescents there because the two times in your life you most benefit from animal protein is when you are a nursing mother and a developing adolescent. It makes no sense to have the antelope over there dead and the people who want to eat it 50 miles away. They need to be part of the pack. You need to have those 27-year-old studs at the peak of their powers ready to drop the kill, and you need to have those teenagers there who are learning the whole thing all involved. The pack stays together. Another thing that has to be true about this pack: this pack cannot be really materialistic. You can't be hauling all your crap around, trying to chase the antelope. You can't be a pissed-off pack. You can't be bearing grudges, like, "I'm not chasing that guy's antelope. He pissed me off. Let him go chase his own antelope." The pack has got to be able to swallow its ego, be cooperative and pull together. What you end up with, in other words, is a culture remarkably similar to the Tarahumara -- a tribe that has remained unchanged since the Stone Age. It's a really compelling argument that maybe the Tarahumara are doing exactly what all of us had done for two million years, that it's us in modern times who have sort of gone off the path. You know, we look at running as this kind of alien, foreign thing, this punishment you've got to do because you ate pizza the night before. But maybe it's something different. Maybe we're the ones who have taken this natural advantage we had and we spoiled it. How do we spoil it? Well how do we spoil anything? We try to cash in on it. We try to can it and package it and make it "better" and sell it to people. And what happened was we started creating these fancy cushioned things, which can make running "better," called running shoes. The reason I get personally pissed-off about running shoes is because I bought a million of them and I kept getting hurt. And I think that, if anybody in here runs -- and I just had a conversation with Carol; we talked for two minutes backstage, and she's talking about plantar fasciitis. You talk to a runner, I guarantee, within 30 seconds, the conversation turns to injury. So if humans evolved as runners, if that's our one natural advantage, why are we so bad at it? Why do we keep getting hurt? Curious thing about running and running injuries is that the running injury is new to our time. If you read folklore and mythology, any kind of myths, any kind of tall tales, running is always associated with freedom and vitality and youthfulness and eternal vigor. It's only in our lifetime that running has become associated with fear and pain. Geronimo used to say that, "My only friends are my legs. I only trust my legs." That's because an Apache triathlon used to be you'd run 50 miles across the desert, engage in hand-to-hand combat, steal a bunch of horses and slap leather for home. Geronimo was never saying, "Ah, you know something, my achilles -- I'm tapering. I got to take this week off," or "I need to cross-train. I didn't do yoga. I'm not ready." Humans ran and ran all the time. We are here today. We have our digital technology. All of our science comes from the fact that our ancestors were able to do something extraordinary every day, which was just rely on their naked feet and legs to run long distances. So how do we get back to that again? Well, I would submit to you the first thing is get rid of all packaging, all the sales, all the marketing. Get rid of all the stinking running shoes. Stop focusing on urban marathons, which, if you do four hours, you suck. If you do 3:59:59, you're awesome, because you qualified for another race. We need to get back to that sense of playfulness and joyfulness and, I would say, nakedness, that has made the Tarahumara one of the healthiest and serene cultures in our time. So what's the benefit? So what? So you burn off the Haagen-Dazs from the night before? But maybe there's another benefit there as well. Without getting a little too extreme about this, imagine a world where everybody could go out their door and engage in the kind of exercise that's going to make them more relaxed, more serene, more healthy, burn off stress -- where you don't come back into your office a raging maniac anymore, where you don't go back home with a lot of stress on top of you again. Maybe there's something between what we are today and what the Tarahumara have always been. I don't say let's go back to the Copper Canyons and live on corn and maize, which is the Tarahumara's preferred diet, but maybe there's somewhere in between. And if we find that thing, maybe there is a big fat Nobel Prize out there. Because if somebody could find a way to restore that natural ability that we all enjoyed for most of our existence, up until the 1970s or so, the benefits, social and physical and political and mental, could be astounding. So what I've been seeing today is there is a growing subculture of barefoot runners, people who got rid of their shoes. And what they have found uniformly is you get rid of the shoes, you get rid of the stress, you get rid of the injuries and the ailments. And what you find is something the Tarahumara have known for a very long time, that this can be a whole lot of fun. I've experienced it personally myself. I was injured all my life, and then in my early 40s I got rid of my shoes and my running ailments have gone away too. So hopefully it's something we can all benefit from. And I appreciate you guys listening to this story. Thanks very much. (Applause)

When I got my current job, I was given a good piece of advice, which was to interview three politicians every day. And from that much contact with politicians, I can tell you they're all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They have what I called "logorrhea dementia," which is they talk so much they drive themselves insane. (Laughter) But what they do have is incredible social skills. When you meet them, they lock into you, they look you in the eye, they invade your personal space, they massage the back of your head. I had dinner with a Republican senator several months ago who kept his hand on my inner thigh throughout the whole meal -- squeezing it. I once -- this was years ago -- I saw Ted Kennedy and Dan Quayle meet in the well of the Senate. And they were friends, and they hugged each other and they were laughing, and their faces were like this far apart. And they were moving and grinding and moving their arms up and down each other. And I was like, "Get a room. I don't want to see this." But they have those social skills. Another case: Last election cycle, I was following Mitt Romney around New Hampshire, and he was campaigning with his five perfect sons: Bip, Chip, Rip, Zip, Lip and Dip. (Laughter) And he's going into a diner. And he goes into the diner, introduces himself to a family and says, "What village are you from in New Hampshire?" And then he describes the home he owned in their village. And so he goes around the room, and then as he's leaving the diner, he first-names almost everybody he's just met. I was like, "Okay, that's social skill." But the paradox is, when a lot of these people slip into the policy-making mode, that social awareness vanishes and they start talking like accountants. So in the course of my career, I have covered a series of failures. We sent economists in the Soviet Union with privatization plans when it broke up, and what they really lacked was social trust. We invaded Iraq with a military oblivious to the cultural and psychological realities. We had a financial regulatory regime based on the assumptions that traders were rational creatures who wouldn't do anything stupid. For 30 years, I've been covering school reform and we've basically reorganized the bureaucratic boxes -- charters, private schools, vouchers -- but we've had disappointing results year after year. And the fact is, people learn from people they love. And if you're not talking about the individual relationship between a teacher and a student, you're not talking about that reality. But that reality is expunged from our policy-making process. And so that's led to a question for me: Why are the most socially-attuned people on earth completely dehumanized when they think about policy? And I came to the conclusion, this is a symptom of a larger problem. That, for centuries, we've inherited a view of human nature based on the notion that we're divided selves, that reason is separated from the emotions and that society progresses to the extent that reason can suppress the passions. And it's led to a view of human nature that we're rational individuals who respond in straightforward ways to incentives, and it's led to ways of seeing the world where people try to use the assumptions of physics to measure how human behavior is. And it's produced a great amputation, a shallow view of human nature. We're really good at talking about material things, but we're really bad at talking about emotions. We're really good at talking about skills and safety and health; we're really bad at talking about character. Alasdair MacIntyre, the famous philosopher, said that, "We have the concepts of the ancient morality of virtue, honor, goodness, but we no longer have a system by which to connect them." And so this has led to a shallow path in politics, but also in a whole range of human endeavors. You can see it in the way we raise our young kids. You go to an elementary school at three in the afternoon and you watch the kids come out, and they're wearing these 80-pound backpacks. If the wind blows them over, they're like beetles stuck there on the ground. You see these cars that drive up -- usually it's Saabs and Audis and Volvos, because in certain neighborhoods it's socially acceptable to have a luxury car, so long as it comes from a country hostile to U.S. foreign policy -- that's fine. They get picked up by these creatures I've called uber-moms, who are highly successful career women who have taken time off to make sure all their kids get into Harvard. And you can usually tell the uber-moms because they actually weigh less than their own children. (Laughter) So at the moment of conception, they're doing little butt exercises. Babies flop out, they're flashing Mandarin flashcards at the things. Driving them home, and they want them to be enlightened, so they take them to Ben & Jerry's ice cream company with its own foreign policy. In one of my books, I joke that Ben & Jerry's should make a pacifist toothpaste -- doesn't kill germs, just asks them to leave. It would be a big seller. (Laughter) And they go to Whole Foods to get their baby formula, and Whole Foods is one of those progressive grocery stores where all the cashiers look like they're on loan from Amnesty International. (Laughter) They buy these seaweed-based snacks there called Veggie Booty with Kale, which is for kids who come home and say, "Mom, mom, I want a snack that'll help prevent colon-rectal cancer." (Laughter) And so the kids are raised in a certain way, jumping through achievement hoops of the things we can measure -- SAT prep, oboe, soccer practice. They get into competitive colleges, they get good jobs, and sometimes they make a success of themselves in a superficial manner, and they make a ton of money. And sometimes you can see them at vacation places like Jackson Hole or Aspen. And they've become elegant and slender -- they don't really have thighs; they just have one elegant calve on top of another. (Laughter) They have kids of their own, and they've achieved a genetic miracle by marrying beautiful people, so their grandmoms look like Gertrude Stein, their daughters looks like Halle Berry -- I don't know how they've done that. They get there and they realize it's fashionable now to have dogs a third as tall as your ceiling heights. So they've got these furry 160-pound dogs -- all look like velociraptors, all named after Jane Austen characters. And then when they get old, they haven't really developed a philosophy of life, but they've decided, "I've been successful at everything; I'm just not going to die." And so they hire personal trainers; they're popping Cialis like breath mints. You see them on the mountains up there. They're cross-country skiing up the mountain with these grim expressions that make Dick Cheney look like Jerry Lewis. (Laughter) And as they whiz by you, it's like being passed by a little iron Raisinet going up the hill. (Laughter) And so this is part of what life is, but it's not all of what life is. And over the past few years, I think we've been given a deeper view of human nature and a deeper view of who we are. And it's not based on theology or philosophy, it's in the study of the mind, across all these spheres of research, from neuroscience to the cognitive scientists, behavioral economists, psychologists, sociology, we're developing a revolution in consciousness. And when you synthesize it all, it's giving us a new view of human nature. And far from being a coldly materialistic view of nature, it's a new humanism, it's a new enchantment. And I think when you synthesize this research, you start with three key insights. The first insight is that while the conscious mind writes the autobiography of our species, the unconscious mind does most of the work. And so one way to formulate that is the human mind can take in millions of pieces of information a minute, of which it can be consciously aware of about 40. And this leads to oddities. One of my favorite is that people named Dennis are disproportionately likely to become dentists, people named Lawrence become lawyers, because unconsciously we gravitate toward things that sound familiar, which is why I named my daughter President of the United States Brooks. (Laughter) Another finding is that the unconscious, far from being dumb and sexualized, is actually quite smart. So one of the most cognitively demanding things we do is buy furniture. It's really hard to imagine a sofa, how it's going to look in your house. And the way you should do that is study the furniture, let it marinate in your mind, distract yourself, and then a few days later, go with your gut, because unconsciously you've figured it out. The second insight is that emotions are at the center of our thinking. People with strokes and lesions in the emotion-processing parts of the brain are not super smart, they're actually sometimes quite helpless. And the "giant" in the field is in the room tonight and is speaking tomorrow morning -- Antonio Damasio. And one of the things he's really shown us is that emotions are not separate from reason, but they are the foundation of reason because they tell us what to value. And so reading and educating your emotions is one of the central activities of wisdom. Now I'm a middle-aged guy. I'm not exactly comfortable with emotions. One of my favorite brain stories described these middle-aged guys. They put them into a brain scan machine -- this is apocryphal by the way, but I don't care -- and they had them watch a horror movie, and then they had them describe their feelings toward their wives. And the brain scans were identical in both activities. It was just sheer terror. So me talking about emotion is like Gandhi talking about gluttony, but it is the central organizing process of the way we think. It tells us what to imprint. The brain is the record of the feelings of a life. And the third insight is that we're not primarily self-contained individuals. We're social animals, not rational animals. We emerge out of relationships, and we are deeply interpenetrated, one with another. And so when we see another person, we reenact in our own minds what we see in their minds. When we watch a car chase in a movie, it's almost as if we are subtly having a car chase. When we watch pornography, it's a little like having sex, though probably not as good. And we see this when lovers walk down the street, when a crowd in Egypt or Tunisia gets caught up in an emotional contagion, the deep interpenetration. And this revolution in who we are gives us a different way of seeing, I think, politics, a different way, most importantly, of seeing human capital. We are now children of the French Enlightenment. We believe that reason is the highest of the faculties. But I think this research shows that the British Enlightenment, or the Scottish Enlightenment, with David Hume, Adam Smith, actually had a better handle on who we are -- that reason is often weak, our sentiments are strong, and our sentiments are often trustworthy. And this work corrects that bias in our culture, that dehumanizing bias. It gives us a deeper sense of what it actually takes for us to thrive in this life. When we think about human capital we think about the things we can measure easily -- things like grades, SAT's, degrees, the number of years in schooling. What it really takes to do well, to lead a meaningful life, are things that are deeper, things we don't really even have words for. And so let me list just a couple of the things I think this research points us toward trying to understand. The first gift, or talent, is mindsight -- the ability to enter into other people's minds and learn what they have to offer. Babies come with this ability. Meltzoff, who's at the University of Washington, leaned over a baby who was 43 minutes old. He wagged his tongue at the baby. The baby wagged her tongue back. Babies are born to interpenetrate into Mom's mind and to download what they find -- their models of how to understand reality. In the United States, 55 percent of babies have a deep two-way conversation with Mom and they learn models to how to relate to other people. And those people who have models of how to relate have a huge head start in life. Scientists at the University of Minnesota did a study in which they could predict with 77 percent accuracy, at age 18 months, who was going to graduate from high school, based on who had good attachment with mom. Twenty percent of kids do not have those relationships. They are what we call avoidantly attached. They have trouble relating to other people. They go through life like sailboats tacking into the wind -- wanting to get close to people, but not really having the models of how to do that. And so this is one skill of how to hoover up knowledge, one from another. A second skill is equipoise, the ability to have the serenity to read the biases and failures in your own mind. So for example, we are overconfidence machines. Ninety-five percent of our professors report that they are above-average teachers. Ninety-six percent of college students say they have above-average social skills. Time magazine asked Americans, "Are you in the top one percent of earners?" Nineteen percent of Americans are in the top one percent of earners. (Laughter) This is a gender-linked trait, by the way. Men drown at twice the rate of women, because men think they can swim across that lake. But some people have the ability and awareness of their own biases, their own overconfidence. They have epistemological modesty. They are open-minded in the face of ambiguity. They are able to adjust strength of the conclusions to the strength of their evidence. They are curious. And these traits are often unrelated and uncorrelated with IQ. The third trait is metis, what we might call street smarts -- it's a Greek word. It's a sensitivity to the physical environment, the ability to pick out patterns in an environment -- derive a gist. One of my colleagues at the Times did a great story about soldiers in Iraq who could look down a street and detect somehow whether there was an IED, a landmine, in the street. They couldn't tell you how they did it, but they could feel cold, they felt a coldness, and they were more often right than wrong. The third is what you might call sympathy, the ability to work within groups. And that comes in tremendously handy, because groups are smarter than individuals. And face-to-face groups are much smarter than groups that communicate electronically, because 90 percent of our communication is non-verbal. And the effectiveness of a group is not determined by the IQ of the group; it's determined by how well they communicate, how often they take turns in conversation. Then you could talk about a trait like blending. Any child can say, "I'm a tiger," pretend to be a tiger. It seems so elementary. But in fact, it's phenomenally complicated to take a concept "I" and a concept "tiger" and blend them together. But this is the source of innovation. What Picasso did, for example, was take the concept "Western art" and the concept "African masks" and blend them together -- not only the geometry, but the moral systems entailed in them. And these are skills, again, we can't count and measure. And then the final thing I'll mention is something you might call limerence. And this is not an ability; it's a drive and a motivation. The conscious mind hungers for success and prestige. The unconscious mind hungers for those moments of transcendence, when the skull line disappears and we are lost in a challenge or a task -- when a craftsman feels lost in his craft, when a naturalist feels at one with nature, when a believer feels at one with God's love. That is what the unconscious mind hungers for. And many of us feel it in love when lovers feel fused. And one of the most beautiful descriptions I've come across in this research of how minds interpenetrate was written by a great theorist and scientist named Douglas Hofstadter at the University of Indiana. He was married to a woman named Carol, and they had a wonderful relationship. When their kids were five and two, Carol had a stroke and a brain tumor and died suddenly. And Hofstadter wrote a book called "I Am a Strange Loop." In the course of that book, he describes a moment -- just months after Carol has died -- he comes across her picture on the mantel, or on a bureau in his bedroom. And here's what he wrote: "I looked at her face, and I looked so deeply that I felt I was behind her eyes. And all at once I found myself saying as tears flowed, 'That's me. That's me.' And those simple words brought back many thoughts that I had had before, about the fusion of our souls into one higher-level entity, about the fact that at the core of both our souls lay our identical hopes and dreams for our children, about the notion that those hopes were not separate or distinct hopes, but were just one hope, one clear thing that defined us both, that welded us into a unit -- the kind of unit I had but dimly imagined before being married and having children. I realized that, though Carol had died, that core piece of her had not died at all, but had lived on very determinedly in my brain." The Greeks say we suffer our way to wisdom. Through his suffering, Hofstadter understood how deeply interpenetrated we are. Through the policy failures of the last 30 years, we have come to acknowledge, I think, how shallow our view of human nature has been. And now as we confront that shallowness and the failures that derive from our inability to get the depths of who we are, comes this revolution in consciousness -- these people in so many fields exploring the depth of our nature and coming away with this enchanted, this new humanism. And when Freud discovered his sense of the unconscious, it had a vast effect on the climate of the times. Now we are discovering a more accurate vision of the unconscious, of who we are deep inside, and it's going to have a wonderful and profound and humanizing effect on our culture. Thank you. (Applause)

For me they normally happen, these career crises, often, actually, on a Sunday evening, just as the sun is starting to set, and the gap between my hopes for myself and the reality of my life starts to diverge so painfully that I normally end up weeping into a pillow. I'm mentioning all this -- I'm mentioning all this because I think this is not merely a personal problem; you may think I'm wrong in this, but I think we live in an age when our lives are regularly punctuated by career crises, by moments when what we thought we knew -- about our lives, about our careers -- comes into contact with a threatening sort of reality. It's perhaps easier now than ever before to make a good living. It's perhaps harder than ever before to stay calm, to be free of career anxiety. I want to look now, if I may, at some of the reasons why we might be feeling anxiety about our careers. Why we might be victims of these career crises, as we're weeping softly into our pillows. One of the reasons why we might be suffering is that we are surrounded by snobs. In a way, I've got some bad news, particularly to anybody who's come to Oxford from abroad. There's a real problem with snobbery, because sometimes people from outside the U.K. imagine that snobbery is a distinctively U.K. phenomenon, fixated on country houses and titles. The bad news is that's not true. Snobbery is a global phenomenon; we are a global organization, this is a global phenomenon. What is a snob? A snob is anybody who takes a small part of you, and uses that to come to a complete vision of who you are. That is snobbery. The dominant kind of snobbery that exists nowadays is job snobbery. You encounter it within minutes at a party, when you get asked that famous iconic question of the early 21st century, "What do you do?" According to how you answer that question, people are either incredibly delighted to see you, or look at their watch and make their excuses. (Laughter) Now, the opposite of a snob is your mother. (Laughter) Not necessarily your mother, or indeed mine, but, as it were, the ideal mother, somebody who doesn't care about your achievements. Unfortunately, most people are not our mothers. Most people make a strict correlation between how much time, and if you like, love -- not romantic love, though that may be something -- but love in general, respect -- they are willing to accord us, that will be strictly defined by our position in the social hierarchy. And that's a lot of the reason why we care so much about our careers and indeed start caring so much about material goods. You know, we're often told that we live in very materialistic times, that we're all greedy people. I don't think we are particularly materialistic. I think we live in a society which has simply pegged certain emotional rewards to the acquisition of material goods. It's not the material goods we want; it's the rewards we want. It's a new way of looking at luxury goods. The next time you see somebody driving a Ferrari, don't think, "This is somebody who's greedy." Think, "This is somebody who is incredibly vulnerable and in need of love." (Laughter) Feel sympathy, rather than contempt. There are other reasons -- (Laughter) There are other reasons why it's perhaps harder now to feel calm than ever before. One of these, and it's paradoxical, because it's linked to something that's rather nice, is the hope we all have for our careers. Never before have expectations been so high about what human beings can achieve with their lifespan. We're told, from many sources, that anyone can achieve anything. We've done away with the caste system, we are now in a system where anyone can rise to any position they please. And it's a beautiful idea. Along with that is a kind of spirit of equality; we're all basically equal. There are no strictly defined hierarchies. There is one really big problem with this, and that problem is envy. Envy, it's a real taboo to mention envy, but if there's one dominant emotion in modern society, that is envy. And it's linked to the spirit of equality. Let me explain. I think it would be very unusual for anyone here, or anyone watching, to be envious of the Queen of England. Even though she is much richer than any of you are, and she's got a very large house, the reason why we don't envy her is because she's too weird. (Laughter) She's simply too strange. We can't relate to her, she speaks in a funny way, she comes from an odd place. So we can't relate to her, and when you can't relate to somebody, you don't envy them. The closer two people are -- in age, in background, in the process of identification -- the more there's a danger of envy, which is incidentally why none of you should ever go to a school reunion, because there is no stronger reference point than people one was at school with. The problem of modern society is it turns the whole world into a school. Everybody's wearing jeans, everybody's the same. And yet, they're not. So there's a spirit of equality combined with deep inequality, which can make for a very stressful situation. It's probably as unlikely that you would nowadays become as rich and famous as Bill Gates, as it was unlikely in the 17th century that you would accede to the ranks of the French aristocracy. But the point is, it doesn't feel that way. It's made to feel, by magazines and other media outlets, that if you've got energy, a few bright ideas about technology, a garage -- you, too, could start a major thing. (Laughter) The consequences of this problem make themselves felt in bookshops. When you go to a large bookshop and look at the self-help sections, as I sometimes do -- if you analyze self-help books produced in the world today, there are basically two kinds. The first kind tells you, "You can do it! You can make it! Anything's possible!" The other kind tells you how to cope with what we politely call "low self-esteem," or impolitely call, "feeling very bad about yourself." There's a real correlation between a society that tells people that they can do anything, and the existence of low self-esteem. So that's another way in which something quite positive can have a nasty kickback. There is another reason why we might be feeling more anxious -- about our careers, about our status in the world today, than ever before. And it's, again, linked to something nice. And that nice thing is called meritocracy. Everybody, all politicians on Left and Right, agree that meritocracy is a great thing, and we should all be trying to make our societies really, really meritocratic. In other words -- what is a meritocratic society? A meritocratic society is one in which, if you've got talent and energy and skill, you will get to the top, nothing should hold you back. It's a beautiful idea. The problem is, if you really believe in a society where those who merit to get to the top, get to the top, you'll also, by implication, and in a far more nasty way, believe in a society where those who deserve to get to the bottom also get to the bottom and stay there. In other words, your position in life comes to seem not accidental, but merited and deserved. And that makes failure seem much more crushing. You know, in the Middle Ages, in England, when you met a very poor person, that person would be described as an "unfortunate" -- literally, somebody who had not been blessed by fortune, an unfortunate. Nowadays, particularly in the United States, if you meet someone at the bottom of society, they may unkindly be described as a "loser." There's a real difference between an unfortunate and a loser, and that shows 400 years of evolution in society and our belief in who is responsible for our lives. It's no longer the gods, it's us. We're in the driving seat. That's exhilarating if you're doing well, and very crushing if you're not. It leads, in the worst cases -- in the analysis of a sociologist like Emil Durkheim -- it leads to increased rates of suicide. There are more suicides in developed, individualistic countries than in any other part of the world. And some of the reason for that is that people take what happens to them extremely personally -- they own their success, but they also own their failure. Is there any relief from some of these pressures that I've been outlining? I think there is. I just want to turn to a few of them. Let's take meritocracy. This idea that everybody deserves to get where they get to, I think it's a crazy idea, completely crazy. I will support any politician of Left and Right, with any halfway-decent meritocratic idea; I am a meritocrat in that sense. But I think it's insane to believe that we will ever make a society that is genuinely meritocratic; it's an impossible dream. The idea that we will make a society where literally everybody is graded, the good at the top, bad at the bottom, exactly done as it should be, is impossible. There are simply too many random factors: accidents, accidents of birth, accidents of things dropping on people's heads, illnesses, etc. We will never get to grade them, never get to grade people as they should. I'm drawn to a lovely quote by St. Augustine in "The City of God," where he says, "It's a sin to judge any man by his post." In modern English that would mean it's a sin to come to any view of who you should talk to, dependent on their business card. It's not the post that should count. According to St. Augustine, only God can really put everybody in their place; he's going to do that on the Day of Judgment, with angels and trumpets, and the skies will open. Insane idea, if you're a secularist person, like me. But something very valuable in that idea, nevertheless. In other words, hold your horses when you're coming to judge people. You don't necessarily know what someone's true value is. That is an unknown part of them, and we shouldn't behave as though it is known. There is another source of solace and comfort for all this. When we think about failing in life, when we think about failure, one of the reasons why we fear failing is not just a loss of income, a loss of status. What we fear is the judgment and ridicule of others. And it exists. The number one organ of ridicule, nowadays, is the newspaper. If you open the newspaper any day of the week, it's full of people who've messed up their lives. They've slept with the wrong person, taken the wrong substance, passed the wrong piece of legislation -- whatever it is, and then are fit for ridicule. In other words, they have failed. And they are described as "losers." Now, is there any alternative to this? I think the Western tradition shows us one glorious alternative, which is tragedy. Tragic art, as it developed in the theaters of ancient Greece, in the fifth century B.C., was essentially an art form devoted to tracing how people fail, and also according them a level of sympathy, which ordinary life would not necessarily accord them. A few years ago, I was thinking about this, and I went to "The Sunday Sport," a tabloid newspaper I don't recommend you start reading if you're not familiar with it already. (Laughter) And I went to talk to them about certain of the great tragedies of Western art. I wanted to see how they would seize the bare bones of certain stories, if they came in as a news item at the news desk on a Saturday afternoon. I mentioned Othello; they'd not heard of it but were fascinated. (Laughter) I asked them to write a headline for the story. They came up with "Love-Crazed Immigrant Kills Senator's Daughter." Splashed across the headline. I gave them the plotline of Madame Bovary. Again, a book they were enchanted to discover. And they wrote "Shopaholic Adulteress Swallows Arsenic After Credit Fraud." (Laughter) And then my favorite -- they really do have a kind of genius of their own, these guys -- my favorite is Sophocles' Oedipus the King: "Sex With Mum Was Blinding." (Laughter) (Applause) In a way, if you like, at one end of the spectrum of sympathy, you've got the tabloid newspaper. At the other end of the spectrum, you've got tragedy and tragic art. And I suppose I'm arguing that we should learn a little bit about what's happening in tragic art. It would be insane to call Hamlet a loser. He is not a loser, though he has lost. And I think that is the message of tragedy to us, and why it's so very, very important, I think. The other thing about modern society and why it causes this anxiety, is that we have nothing at its center that is non-human. We are the first society to be living in a world where we don't worship anything other than ourselves. We think very highly of ourselves, and so we should; we've put people on the Moon, done all sorts of extraordinary things. And so we tend to worship ourselves. Our heroes are human heroes. That's a very new situation. Most other societies have had, right at their center, the worship of something transcendent: a god, a spirit, a natural force, the universe, whatever it is -- something else that is being worshiped. We've slightly lost the habit of doing that, which is, I think, why we're particularly drawn to nature. Not for the sake of our health, though it's often presented that way, but because it's an escape from the human anthill. It's an escape from our own competition, and our own dramas. And that's why we enjoy looking at glaciers and oceans, and contemplating the Earth from outside its perimeters, etc. We like to feel in contact with something that is non-human, and that is so deeply important to us. What I think I've been talking about really is success and failure. And one of the interesting things about success is that we think we know what it means. If I said that there's somebody behind the screen who's very successful, certain ideas would immediately come to mind. You'd think that person might have made a lot of money, achieved renown in some field. My own theory of success -- I'm somebody who's very interested in success, I really want to be successful, always thinking, how can I be more successful? But as I get older, I'm also very nuanced about what that word "success" might mean. Here's an insight that I've had about success: You can't be successful at everything. We hear a lot of talk about work-life balance. Nonsense. You can't have it all. You can't. So any vision of success has to admit what it's losing out on, where the element of loss is. And I think any wise life will accept, as I say, that there is going to be an element where we're not succeeding. And the thing about a successful life is that a lot of the time, our ideas of what it would mean to live successfully are not our own. They're sucked in from other people; chiefly, if you're a man, your father, and if you're a woman, your mother. Psychoanalysis has been drumming home this message for about 80 years. No one's quite listening hard enough, but I very much believe it's true. And we also suck in messages from everything from the television, to advertising, to marketing, etc. These are hugely powerful forces that define what we want and how we view ourselves. When we're told that banking is a very respectable profession, a lot of us want to go into banking. When banking is no longer so respectable, we lose interest in banking. We are highly open to suggestion. So what I want to argue for is not that we should give up on our ideas of success, but we should make sure that they are our own. We should focus in on our ideas, and make sure that we own them; that we are truly the authors of our own ambitions. Because it's bad enough not getting what you want, but it's even worse to have an idea of what it is you want, and find out, at the end of the journey, that it isn't, in fact, what you wanted all along. So, I'm going to end it there. But what I really want to stress is: by all means, success, yes. But let's accept the strangeness of some of our ideas. Let's probe away at our notions of success. Let's make sure our ideas of success are truly our own. Thank you very much. (Applause) Chris Anderson: That was fascinating. But how do you reconcile this idea of it being bad to think of someone as a "loser," with the idea that a lot of people like, of seizing control of your life, and that a society that encourages that, perhaps has to have some winners and losers? Alain De Botton: Yes, I think it's merely the randomness of the winning and losing process that I want to stress, because the emphasis nowadays is so much on the justice of everything, and politicians always talk about justice. Now I'm a firm believer in justice, I just think that it's impossible. So we should do everything we can to pursue it, but we should always remember that whoever is facing us, whatever has happened in their lives, there will be a strong element of the haphazard. That's what I'm trying to leave room for; otherwise, it can get quite claustrophobic. CA: I mean, do you believe that you can combine your kind of kinder, gentler philosophy of work with a successful economy? Or do you think that you can't, but it doesn't matter that much that we're putting too much emphasis on that? AB: The nightmare thought is that frightening people is the best way to get work out of them, and that somehow the crueler the environment, the more people will rise to the challenge. You want to think, who would you like as your ideal dad? And your ideal dad is somebody who is tough but gentle. And it's a very hard line to make. We need fathers, as it were, the exemplary father figures in society, avoiding the two extremes, which is the authoritarian disciplinarian on the one hand, and on the other, the lax, no-rules option. CA: Alain De Botton. AB: Thank you very much. (Applause)

When I got my current job, I was given a good piece of advice, which was to interview three politicians every day. And from that much contact with politicians, I can tell you they're all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They have what I called "logorrhea dementia," which is they talk so much they drive themselves insane. (Laughter) But what they do have is incredible social skills. When you meet them, they lock into you, they look you in the eye, they invade your personal space, they massage the back of your head. I had dinner with a Republican senator several months ago who kept his hand on my inner thigh throughout the whole meal -- squeezing it. I once -- this was years ago -- I saw Ted Kennedy and Dan Quayle meet in the well of the Senate. And they were friends, and they hugged each other and they were laughing, and their faces were like this far apart. And they were moving and grinding and moving their arms up and down each other. And I was like, "Get a room. I don't want to see this." But they have those social skills. Another case: Last election cycle, I was following Mitt Romney around New Hampshire, and he was campaigning with his five perfect sons: Bip, Chip, Rip, Zip, Lip and Dip. (Laughter) And he's going into a diner. And he goes into the diner, introduces himself to a family and says, "What village are you from in New Hampshire?" And then he describes the home he owned in their village. And so he goes around the room, and then as he's leaving the diner, he first-names almost everybody he's just met. I was like, "Okay, that's social skill." But the paradox is, when a lot of these people slip into the policy-making mode, that social awareness vanishes and they start talking like accountants. So in the course of my career, I have covered a series of failures. We sent economists in the Soviet Union with privatization plans when it broke up, and what they really lacked was social trust. We invaded Iraq with a military oblivious to the cultural and psychological realities. We had a financial regulatory regime based on the assumptions that traders were rational creatures who wouldn't do anything stupid. For 30 years, I've been covering school reform and we've basically reorganized the bureaucratic boxes -- charters, private schools, vouchers -- but we've had disappointing results year after year. And the fact is, people learn from people they love. And if you're not talking about the individual relationship between a teacher and a student, you're not talking about that reality. But that reality is expunged from our policy-making process. And so that's led to a question for me: Why are the most socially-attuned people on earth completely dehumanized when they think about policy? And I came to the conclusion, this is a symptom of a larger problem. That, for centuries, we've inherited a view of human nature based on the notion that we're divided selves, that reason is separated from the emotions and that society progresses to the extent that reason can suppress the passions. And it's led to a view of human nature that we're rational individuals who respond in straightforward ways to incentives, and it's led to ways of seeing the world where people try to use the assumptions of physics to measure how human behavior is. And it's produced a great amputation, a shallow view of human nature. We're really good at talking about material things, but we're really bad at talking about emotions. We're really good at talking about skills and safety and health; we're really bad at talking about character. Alasdair MacIntyre, the famous philosopher, said that, "We have the concepts of the ancient morality of virtue, honor, goodness, but we no longer have a system by which to connect them." And so this has led to a shallow path in politics, but also in a whole range of human endeavors. You can see it in the way we raise our young kids. You go to an elementary school at three in the afternoon and you watch the kids come out, and they're wearing these 80-pound backpacks. If the wind blows them over, they're like beetles stuck there on the ground. You see these cars that drive up -- usually it's Saabs and Audis and Volvos, because in certain neighborhoods it's socially acceptable to have a luxury car, so long as it comes from a country hostile to U.S. foreign policy -- that's fine. They get picked up by these creatures I've called uber-moms, who are highly successful career women who have taken time off to make sure all their kids get into Harvard. And you can usually tell the uber-moms because they actually weigh less than their own children. (Laughter) So at the moment of conception, they're doing little butt exercises. Babies flop out, they're flashing Mandarin flashcards at the things. Driving them home, and they want them to be enlightened, so they take them to Ben & Jerry's ice cream company with its own foreign policy. In one of my books, I joke that Ben & Jerry's should make a pacifist toothpaste -- doesn't kill germs, just asks them to leave. It would be a big seller. (Laughter) And they go to Whole Foods to get their baby formula, and Whole Foods is one of those progressive grocery stores where all the cashiers look like they're on loan from Amnesty International. (Laughter) They buy these seaweed-based snacks there called Veggie Booty with Kale, which is for kids who come home and say, "Mom, mom, I want a snack that'll help prevent colon-rectal cancer." (Laughter) And so the kids are raised in a certain way, jumping through achievement hoops of the things we can measure -- SAT prep, oboe, soccer practice. They get into competitive colleges, they get good jobs, and sometimes they make a success of themselves in a superficial manner, and they make a ton of money. And sometimes you can see them at vacation places like Jackson Hole or Aspen. And they've become elegant and slender -- they don't really have thighs; they just have one elegant calve on top of another. (Laughter) They have kids of their own, and they've achieved a genetic miracle by marrying beautiful people, so their grandmoms look like Gertrude Stein, their daughters looks like Halle Berry -- I don't know how they've done that. They get there and they realize it's fashionable now to have dogs a third as tall as your ceiling heights. So they've got these furry 160-pound dogs -- all look like velociraptors, all named after Jane Austen characters. And then when they get old, they haven't really developed a philosophy of life, but they've decided, "I've been successful at everything; I'm just not going to die." And so they hire personal trainers; they're popping Cialis like breath mints. You see them on the mountains up there. They're cross-country skiing up the mountain with these grim expressions that make Dick Cheney look like Jerry Lewis. (Laughter) And as they whiz by you, it's like being passed by a little iron Raisinet going up the hill. (Laughter) And so this is part of what life is, but it's not all of what life is. And over the past few years, I think we've been given a deeper view of human nature and a deeper view of who we are. And it's not based on theology or philosophy, it's in the study of the mind, across all these spheres of research, from neuroscience to the cognitive scientists, behavioral economists, psychologists, sociology, we're developing a revolution in consciousness. And when you synthesize it all, it's giving us a new view of human nature. And far from being a coldly materialistic view of nature, it's a new humanism, it's a new enchantment. And I think when you synthesize this research, you start with three key insights. The first insight is that while the conscious mind writes the autobiography of our species, the unconscious mind does most of the work. And so one way to formulate that is the human mind can take in millions of pieces of information a minute, of which it can be consciously aware of about 40. And this leads to oddities. One of my favorite is that people named Dennis are disproportionately likely to become dentists, people named Lawrence become lawyers, because unconsciously we gravitate toward things that sound familiar, which is why I named my daughter President of the United States Brooks. (Laughter) Another finding is that the unconscious, far from being dumb and sexualized, is actually quite smart. So one of the most cognitively demanding things we do is buy furniture. It's really hard to imagine a sofa, how it's going to look in your house. And the way you should do that is study the furniture, let it marinate in your mind, distract yourself, and then a few days later, go with your gut, because unconsciously you've figured it out. The second insight is that emotions are at the center of our thinking. People with strokes and lesions in the emotion-processing parts of the brain are not super smart, they're actually sometimes quite helpless. And the "giant" in the field is in the room tonight and is speaking tomorrow morning -- Antonio Damasio. And one of the things he's really shown us is that emotions are not separate from reason, but they are the foundation of reason because they tell us what to value. And so reading and educating your emotions is one of the central activities of wisdom. Now I'm a middle-aged guy. I'm not exactly comfortable with emotions. One of my favorite brain stories described these middle-aged guys. They put them into a brain scan machine -- this is apocryphal by the way, but I don't care -- and they had them watch a horror movie, and then they had them describe their feelings toward their wives. And the brain scans were identical in both activities. It was just sheer terror. So me talking about emotion is like Gandhi talking about gluttony, but it is the central organizing process of the way we think. It tells us what to imprint. The brain is the record of the feelings of a life. And the third insight is that we're not primarily self-contained individuals. We're social animals, not rational animals. We emerge out of relationships, and we are deeply interpenetrated, one with another. And so when we see another person, we reenact in our own minds what we see in their minds. When we watch a car chase in a movie, it's almost as if we are subtly having a car chase. When we watch pornography, it's a little like having sex, though probably not as good. And we see this when lovers walk down the street, when a crowd in Egypt or Tunisia gets caught up in an emotional contagion, the deep interpenetration. And this revolution in who we are gives us a different way of seeing, I think, politics, a different way, most importantly, of seeing human capital. We are now children of the French Enlightenment. We believe that reason is the highest of the faculties. But I think this research shows that the British Enlightenment, or the Scottish Enlightenment, with David Hume, Adam Smith, actually had a better handle on who we are -- that reason is often weak, our sentiments are strong, and our sentiments are often trustworthy. And this work corrects that bias in our culture, that dehumanizing bias. It gives us a deeper sense of what it actually takes for us to thrive in this life. When we think about human capital we think about the things we can measure easily -- things like grades, SAT's, degrees, the number of years in schooling. What it really takes to do well, to lead a meaningful life, are things that are deeper, things we don't really even have words for. And so let me list just a couple of the things I think this research points us toward trying to understand. The first gift, or talent, is mindsight -- the ability to enter into other people's minds and learn what they have to offer. Babies come with this ability. Meltzoff, who's at the University of Washington, leaned over a baby who was 43 minutes old. He wagged his tongue at the baby. The baby wagged her tongue back. Babies are born to interpenetrate into Mom's mind and to download what they find -- their models of how to understand reality. In the United States, 55 percent of babies have a deep two-way conversation with Mom and they learn models to how to relate to other people. And those people who have models of how to relate have a huge head start in life. Scientists at the University of Minnesota did a study in which they could predict with 77 percent accuracy, at age 18 months, who was going to graduate from high school, based on who had good attachment with mom. Twenty percent of kids do not have those relationships. They are what we call avoidantly attached. They have trouble relating to other people. They go through life like sailboats tacking into the wind -- wanting to get close to people, but not really having the models of how to do that. And so this is one skill of how to hoover up knowledge, one from another. A second skill is equal poise, the ability to have the serenity to read the biases and failures in your own mind. So for example, we are overconfidence machines. Ninety-five percent of our professors report that they are above-average teachers. Ninety-six percent of college students say they have above-average social skills. Time magazine asked Americans, "Are you in the top one percent of earners?" Nineteen percent of Americans are in the top one percent of earners. (Laughter) This is a gender-linked trait, by the way. Men drown at twice the rate of women, because men think they can swim across that lake. But some people have the ability and awareness of their own biases, their own overconfidence. They have epistemological modesty. They are open-minded in the face of ambiguity. They are able to adjust strength of the conclusions to the strength of their evidence. They are curious. And these traits are often unrelated and uncorrelated with IQ. The third trait is metis, what we might call street smarts -- it's a Greek word. It's a sensitivity to the physical environment, the ability to pick out patterns in an environment -- derive a gist. One of my colleagues at the Times did a great story about soldiers in Iraq who could look down a street and detect somehow whether there was an IED, a landmine, in the street. They couldn't tell you how they did it, but they could feel cold, they felt a coldness, and they were more often right than wrong. The third is what you might call sympathy, the ability to work within groups. And that comes in tremendously handy, because groups are smarter than individuals. And face-to-face groups are much smarter than groups that communicate electronically, because 90 percent of our communication is non-verbal. And the effectiveness of a group is not determined by the IQ of the group; it's determined by how well they communicate, how often they take turns in conversation. Then you could talk about a trait like blending. Any child can say, "I'm a tiger," pretend to be a tiger. It seems so elementary. But in fact, it's phenomenally complicated to take a concept "I" and a concept "tiger" and blend them together. But this is the source of innovation. What Picasso did, for example, was take the concept "Western art" and the concept "African masks" and blend them together -- not only the geometry, but the moral systems entailed in them. And these are skills, again, we can't count and measure. And then the final thing I'll mention is something you might call limerence. And this is not an ability; it's a drive and a motivation. The conscious mind hungers for success and prestige. The unconscious mind hungers for those moments of transcendence, when the skull line disappears and we are lost in a challenge or a task -- when a craftsman feels lost in his craft, when a naturalist feels at one with nature, when a believer feels at one with God's love. That is what the unconscious mind hungers for. And many of us feel it in love when lovers feel fused. And one of the most beautiful descriptions I've come across in this research of how minds interpenetrate was written by a great theorist and scientist named Douglas Hofstadter at the University of Indiana. He was married to a woman named Carol, and they had a wonderful relationship. When their kids were five and two, Carol had a stroke and a brain tumor and died suddenly. And Hofstadter wrote a book called "I Am a Strange Loop." In the course of that book, he describes a moment -- just months after Carol has died -- he comes across her picture on the mantel, or on a bureau in his bedroom. And here's what he wrote: "I looked at her face, and I looked so deeply that I felt I was behind her eyes. And all at once I found myself saying as tears flowed, 'That's me. That's me.' And those simple words brought back many thoughts that I had had before, about the fusion of our souls into one higher-level entity, about the fact that at the core of both our souls lay our identical hopes and dreams for our children, about the notion that those hopes were not separate or distinct hopes, but were just one hope, one clear thing that defined us both, that welded us into a unit -- the kind of unit I had but dimly imagined before being married and having children. I realized that, though Carol had died, that core piece of her had not died at all, but had lived on very determinedly in my brain." The Greeks say we suffer our way to wisdom. Through his suffering, Hofstadter understood how deeply interpenetrated we are. Through the policy failures of the last 30 years, we have come to acknowledge, I think, how shallow our view of human nature has been. And now as we confront that shallowness and the failures that derive from our inability to get the depths of who we are, comes this revolution in consciousness -- these people in so many fields exploring the depth of our nature and coming away with this enchanted, this new humanism. And when Freud discovered his sense of the unconscious, it had a vast effect on the climate of the times. Now we are discovering a more accurate vision of the unconscious, of who we are deep inside, and it's going to have a wonderful and profound and humanizing effect on our culture. Thank you. (Applause)

Well, the subject of difficult negotiation reminds me of one of my favorite stories from the Middle East, of a man who left to his three sons 17 camels. To the first son, he left half the camels. To the second son, he left a third of the camels, and to the youngest son, he left a ninth of the camels. Well three sons got into a negotiation. Seventeen doesn't divide by two. It doesn't divide by three. It doesn't divide by nine. Brotherly tempers started to get strained. Finally, in desperation, they went and they consulted a wise old woman. The wise old woman thought about their problem for a long time, and finally she came back and said, "Well, I don't know if I can help you, but at least, if you want, you can have my camel." So then they had 18 camels. The first son took his half -- half of 18 is nine. The second son took his third -- a third of 18 is six. The youngest son took his ninth -- a ninth of 18 is two. You get 17. They had one camel left over. They gave it back to the wise old woman. (Laughter) Now if you think about that story for a moment, I think it resembles a lot of the difficult negotiations we get involved in. They start off like 17 camels -- no way to resolve it. Somehow, what we need to do is step back from those situations, like that wise old woman, look at the situation through fresh eyes and come up with an 18th camel. Now finding that 18th camel in the world's conflicts has been my life passion. I basically see humanity a bit like those three brothers. We're all one family. We know that scientifically, thanks to the communications revolution, all the tribes on the planet, all 15,000 tribes, are in touch with each other. And it's a big family reunion, and yet, like many family reunions, it's not all peace and light. There's a lot of conflict, and the question is, how do we deal with our differences? How do we deal with our deepest differences, given the human propensity for conflict and the human genius at devising weapons of enormous destruction? That's the question. As I've spent the last better part of three decades, almost four, traveling the world, trying to work, getting involved in conflicts ranging from Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Chechnya to Venezuela, some of the most difficult conflicts on the face of the planet, I've been asking myself that question. And I think I've found, in some ways, what is the secret to peace. It's actually surprisingly simple. It's not easy, but it's simple. It's not even new. It may be one of our most ancient human heritages. The secret to peace is us. It's us who act as the surrounding community around any conflict, who can play a constructive role. Let me give you just a story, an example. About 20 years ago, I was in South Africa working with the parties in that conflict, and I had an extra month, so I spent some time living with several groups of San Bushmen. I was curious about them and about the way in which they resolve conflict. Because, after all, within living memory, they were hunters and gatherers, living pretty much like our ancestors lived for maybe 99 percent of the human story. And all the men have these poison arrows that they use for hunting -- absolutely fatal. So how do they deal with their differences? Well what I learned is whenever tempers rise in those communities, someone goes and hides the poison arrows out in the bush, and then everyone sits around in a circle like this, and they sit, and they talk, and they talk. It may take two days, three days, four days, but they don't rest until they find a resolution, or better yet, a reconciliation. And if tempers are still too high, then they send someone off to visit some relatives as a cooling-off period. Well that system is, I think, probably the system that kept us alive to this point, given our human tendencies. That system, I call the "third side." Because if you think about it, normally when we think of conflict, when we describe it, there's always two sides -- it's Arabs versus Israelis, labor versus management, husband versus wife, Republicans versus Democrats. But what we don't often see is that there's always a third side, and the third side of the conflict is us, it's the surrounding community, it's the friends, the allies, the family members, the neighbors. And we can play an incredibly constructive role. Perhaps the most fundamental way in which the third side can help is to remind the parties of what's really at stake. For the sake of the kids, for the sake of the family, for the sake of the community, for the sake of the future, let's stop fighting for a moment and start talking. Because, the thing is, when we're involved in conflict, it's very easy to lose perspective. It's very easy to react. Human beings -- we're reaction machines. And as the saying goes, when angry, you will make the best speech you will ever regret. And so the third side reminds us of that. The third side helps us go to the balcony, which is a metaphor for a place of perspective, where we can keep our eyes on the prize. Let me tell you a little story from my own negotiating experience. Some years ago, I was involved as a facilitator in some very tough talks between the leaders of Russia and the leaders of Chechnya. There was a war going on, as you know. And we met in the Hague, in the Peace Palace, in the same room where the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal was taking place. And the talks got off to a rather rocky start when the vice president of Chechnya began by pointing at the Russians and said, "You should stay right here in your seats, because you're going to be on trial for war crimes." And then he went on, and then he turned to me and said, "You're an American. Look at what you Americans are doing in Puerto Rico." And my mind started racing, "Puerto Rico? What do I know about Puerto Rico?" I started reacting, but then I tried to remember to go to the balcony. And then when he paused, and everyone looked at me for a response, from a balcony perspective, I was able to thank him for his remarks and say, "I appreciate your criticism of my country, and I take it as a sign that we're among friends and can speak candidly to one another. And what we're here to do is not to talk about Puerto Rico or the past. What we're here to do is to see if we can figure out a way to stop the suffering and the bloodshed in Chechnya." The conversation got back on track. That's the role of the third side, is to help the parties to go to the balcony. Now let me take you for a moment to what's widely regarded as the world's most difficult conflict, or the most impossible conflict, is the Middle East. Question is: where's the third side there? How could we possibly go to the balcony? Now I don't pretend to have an answer to the Middle East conflict, but I think I've got a first step, literally, a first step, something that any one of us could do as third-siders. Let me just ask you one question first. How many of you in the last years have ever found yourself worrying about the Middle East and wondering what anyone could do? Just out of curiosity, how many of you? Okay, so the great majority of us. And here, it's so far away. Why do we pay so much attention to this conflict? Is it the number of deaths? There are a hundred times more people who die in a conflict in Africa than in the Middle East. No, it's because of the story, because we feel personally involved in that story. Whether we're Christians, Muslims or Jews, religious or non-religious, we feel we have a personal stake in it. Stories matter. As an anthropologist, I know that. Stories are what we use to transmit knowledge. They give meaning to our lives. That's what we tell here at TED, we tell stories. Stories are the key. And so my question is, yes, let's try and resolve the politics there in the Middle East, but let's also take a look at the story. Let's try to get at the root of what it's all about. Let's see if we can apply the third side to it. What would that mean? What is the story there? Now as anthropologists, we know that every culture has an origin story. What's the origin story of the Middle East? In a phrase, it's: 4,000 years ago, a man and his family walked across the Middle East, and the world has never been the same since. That man, of course, was Abraham. And what he stood for was unity, the unity of the family. He's the father of us all. But it's not just what he stood for, it's what his message was. His basic message was unity too, the interconnectedness of it all, the unity of it all, and his basic value was respect, was kindness toward strangers. That's what he's known for, his hospitality. So in that sense, he's the symbolic third side of the Middle East. He's the one who reminds us that we're all part of a greater whole. Now how would you -- now think about that for a moment. Today we face the scourge of terrorism. What is terrorism? Terrorism is basically taking an innocent stranger and treating them as an enemy whom you kill in order to create fear. What's the opposite of terrorism? It's taking an innocent stranger and treating them as a friend whom you welcome into your home in order to sow and create understanding, or respect, or love. So what if then you took the story of Abraham, which is a third side story, what if that could be -- because Abraham stands for hospitality -- what if that could be an antidote to terrorism? What if that could be a vaccine against religious intolerance? How would you bring that story to life? Now it's not enough just to tell a story -- that's powerful -- but people need to experience the story. They need to be able to live the story. How would you do that? And that was my thinking of how would you do that. And that's what comes to the first step here. Because the simple way to do that is you go for a walk. You go for a walk in the footsteps of Abraham. You retrace the footsteps of Abraham. Because walking has a real power. You know, as an anthropologist, walking is what made us human. Walking, it's funny, when you walk, you walk side-by-side in the same common direction. Now if I were to come to you face-to-face and come this close to you, you would feel threatened. But if I walk shoulder-to-shoulder, even touching shoulders, it's no problem. Who fights while they walk? That's why in negotiations, often, when things get tough, people go for walks in the woods. So the idea came to me of what about inspiring a path, a route -- think the silk route, think the Appalachian trail -- that followed in the footsteps of Abraham. People said, "That's crazy. You can't. You can't retrace the footsteps of Abraham. It's too insecure. You've got to cross all these borders. It goes across 10 different countries in the Middle East, because it unites them all." And so we studied the idea at Harvard. We did our due diligence. And then a few years ago, a group of us, about 25 of us from about 10 different countries, decided to see if we could retrace the footsteps of Abraham, going from his initial birthplace in the city of Urfa in Southern Turkey, Northern Mesopotamia. And we then took a bus and took some walks and went to Harran, where, in the Bible, he sets off on his journey. Then we crossed the border into Syria, went to Aleppo, which, turns out, is named after Abraham. We went to Damascus, which has a long history associated with Abraham. We then came to Northern Jordan, to Jerusalem, which is all about Abraham, to Bethlehem, and finally to the place where he's buried in Hebron. So effectively, we went from womb to tomb. We showed it could be done. It was an amazing journey. Let me ask you a question. How many of you have had the experience of being in a strange neighborhood, or strange land, and a total stranger, perfect stranger, comes up to you and shows you some kindness, maybe invites you into their home, gives you a drink, gives you a coffee, gives you a meal? How many of you have ever had that experience? That's the essence of the Abraham path. But that's what you discover, is you go into these villages in the Middle East where you expect hostility, and you get the most amazing hospitality, all associated with Abraham. "In the name of father Abraham, let me offer you some food." So what we discovered is that Abraham is not just a figure out of a book for those people. He's alive; he's a living presence. And to make a long story short, in the last couple of years now, thousands of people have begun to walk parts of the path of Abraham in the Middle East, enjoying the hospitality of the people there. They've begun to walk in Israel and Palestine, in Jordan, in Turkey, in Syria. It's an amazing experience. Men, women, young people, old people -- more women than men, actually, interestingly. For those who can't walk, who are unable to get there right now, people started to organize walks in cities, in their own communities. In Cincinnati, for instance, that organized a walk from a church to a mosque to a synagogue and all had an Abrahamic meal together. It was Abraham Path Day. In Sao Paulo, Brazil, it's become an annual event for thousands of people to run in a virtual Abraham Path Run, uniting the different communities. The media love it; they really adore it. They lavish attention on it because it's visual, and it spreads the idea, this idea of Abrahamic hospitality of kindness towards strangers. And just a couple weeks ago, there was an NPR story on it. Last month, there was a piece in the Guardian, in the Manchester Guardian, about it -- two whole pages. And they quoted a villager who said, "This walk connects us to the world." He said it was like a light that went on in our lives. It brought us hope. And so that's what it's about. But it's not just about psychology; it's about economics, because as people walk they spend money. And this woman right here, Um Ahmad, is a woman who lives on a path in Northern Jordan. She's desperately poor. She's partially blind, her husband can't work, she's got seven kids. But what she can do is cook, and so she's begun to cook for some groups of walkers who come through the village and have a meal in her home. They sit on the floor. She doesn't even have a tablecloth. She makes the most delicious food that's fresh from the herbs in the surrounding countryside. And so more and more walkers have come, and lately she's begun to earn an income to support her family. And so she told our team there, she said, "You have made me visible in a village where people were once ashamed to look at me." That's the potential of the Abraham path. There are literally hundreds of those kinds of communities across the Middle East, across the path. The potential is basically to change the game. And to change the game, you have to change the frame, the way we see things -- to change the frame from hostility to hospitality, from terrorism to tourism. And in that sense, the Abraham path is a game-changer. Let me just show you one thing. I have a little acorn here that I picked up while I was walking on the path earlier this year. Now the acorn is associated with the oak tree, of course -- grows into an oak tree, which is associated with Abraham. The path right now is like an acorn; it's still in its early phase. What would the oak tree look like? Well I think back to my childhood, a good part of which I spent, after being born here in Chicago, I spent in Europe. If you had been in the ruins of, say, London in 1945, or Berlin, and you had said, "Sixty years from now, this is going to be the most peaceful, prosperous part of the planet," people would have thought you were certifiably insane. But they did it thanks to a common identity -- Europe -- and a common economy. So my question is, if it can be done in Europe, why not in the Middle East? Why not, thanks to a common identity, which is the story of Abraham, and thanks to a common economy that would be based in good part on tourism? So let me conclude then by saying that in the last 35 years, as I've worked in some of the most dangerous, difficult and intractable conflicts around the planet, I have yet to see one conflict that I felt could not be transformed. It's not easy, of course, but it's possible. It was done in South Africa. It was done in Northern Ireland. It could be done anywhere. It simply depends on us. It depends on us taking the third side. So let me invite you to consider taking the third side, even as a very small step. We're about to take a break in a moment. Just go up to someone who's from a different culture, a different country, a different ethnicity, some difference, and engage them in a conversation; listen to them. That's a third side act. That's walking Abraham's path. After a TEDTalk, why not a TEDWalk? So let me just leave you with three things. One is, the secret to peace is the third side. The third side is us. Each of us, with a single step, can take the world, can bring the world a step closer to peace. There's an old African proverb that goes: "When spider webs unite, they can halt even the lion." If we're able to unite our third-side webs of peace, we can even halt the lion of war. Thank you very much. (Applause)

A few months ago the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to two teams of astronomers for a discovery that has been hailed as one of the most important astronomical observations ever. And today, after briefly describing what they found, I'm going to tell you about a highly controversial framework for explaining their discovery, namely the possibility that way beyond the Earth, the Milky Way and other distant galaxies, we may find that our universe is not the only universe, but is instead part of a vast complex of universes that we call the multiverse. Now the idea of a multiverse is a strange one. I mean, most of us were raised to believe that the word "universe" means everything. And I say most of us with forethought, as my four-year-old daughter has heard me speak of these ideas since she was born. And last year I was holding her and I said, "Sophia, I love you more than anything in the universe." And she turned to me and said, "Daddy, universe or multiverse?" (Laughter) But barring such an anomalous upbringing, it is strange to imagine other realms separate from ours, most with fundamentally different features, that would rightly be called universes of their own. And yet, speculative though the idea surely is, I aim to convince you that there's reason for taking it seriously, as it just might be right. I'm going to tell the story of the multiverse in three parts. In part one, I'm going to describe those Nobel Prize-winning results and to highlight a profound mystery which those results revealed. In part two, I'll offer a solution to that mystery. It's based on an approach called string theory, and that's where the idea of the multiverse will come into the story. Finally, in part three, I'm going to describe a cosmological theory called inflation, which will pull all the pieces of the story together. Okay, part one starts back in 1929 when the great astronomer Edwin Hubble realized that the distant galaxies were all rushing away from us, establishing that space itself is stretching, it's expanding. Now this was revolutionary. The prevailing wisdom was that on the largest of scales the universe was static. But even so, there was one thing that everyone was certain of: The expansion must be slowing down. That, much as the gravitational pull of the Earth slows the ascent of an apple tossed upward, the gravitational pull of each galaxy on every other must be slowing the expansion of space. Now let's fast-forward to the 1990s when those two teams of astronomers I mentioned at the outset were inspired by this reasoning to measure the rate at which the expansion has been slowing. And they did this by painstaking observations of numerous distant galaxies, allowing them to chart how the expansion rate has changed over time. Here's the surprise: They found that the expansion is not slowing down. Instead they found that it's speeding up, going faster and faster. That's like tossing an apple upward and it goes up faster and faster. Now if you saw an apple do that, you'd want to know why. What's pushing on it? Similarly, the astronomers' results are surely well-deserving of the Nobel Prize, but they raised an analogous question. What force is driving all galaxies to rush away from every other at an ever-quickening speed? Well the most promising answer comes from an old idea of Einstein's. You see, we are all used to gravity being a force that does one thing, pulls objects together. But in Einstein's theory of gravity, his general theory of relativity, gravity can also push things apart. How? Well according to Einstein's math, if space is uniformly filled with an invisible energy, sort of like a uniform, invisible mist, then the gravity generated by that mist would be repulsive, repulsive gravity, which is just what we need to explain the observations. Because the repulsive gravity of an invisible energy in space -- we now call it dark energy, but I've made it smokey white here so you can see it -- its repulsive gravity would cause each galaxy to push against every other, driving expansion to speed up, not slow down. And this explanation represents great progress. But I promised you a mystery here in part one. Here it is. When the astronomers worked out how much of this dark energy must be infusing space to account for the cosmic speed up, look at what they found. This number is small. Expressed in the relevant unit, it is spectacularly small. And the mystery is to explain this peculiar number. We want this number to emerge from the laws of physics, but so far no one has found a way to do that. Now you might wonder, should you care? Maybe explaining this number is just a technical issue, a technical detail of interest to experts, but of no relevance to anybody else. Well it surely is a technical detail, but some details really matter. Some details provide windows into uncharted realms of reality, and this peculiar number may be doing just that, as the only approach that's so far made headway to explain it invokes the possibility of other universes -- an idea that naturally emerges from string theory, which takes me to part two: string theory. So hold the mystery of the dark energy in the back of your mind as I now go on to tell you three key things about string theory. First off, what is it? Well it's an approach to realize Einstein's dream of a unified theory of physics, a single overarching framework that would be able to describe all the forces at work in the universe. And the central idea of string theory is quite straightforward. It says that if you examine any piece of matter ever more finely, at first you'll find molecules and then you'll find atoms and subatomic particles. But the theory says that if you could probe smaller, much smaller than we can with existing technology, you'd find something else inside these particles -- a little tiny vibrating filament of energy, a little tiny vibrating string. And just like the strings on a violin, they can vibrate in different patterns producing different musical notes. These little fundamental strings, when they vibrate in different patterns, they produce different kinds of particles -- so electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, all other particles would be united into a single framework, as they would all arise from vibrating strings. It's a compelling picture, a kind of cosmic symphony, where all the richness that we see in the world around us emerges from the music that these little, tiny strings can play. But there's a cost to this elegant unification, because years of research have shown that the math of string theory doesn't quite work. It has internal inconsistencies, unless we allow for something wholly unfamiliar -- extra dimensions of space. That is, we all know about the usual three dimensions of space. And you can think about those as height, width and depth. But string theory says that, on fantastically small scales, there are additional dimensions crumpled to a tiny size so small that we have not detected them. But even though the dimensions are hidden, they would have an impact on things that we can observe because the shape of the extra dimensions constrains how the strings can vibrate. And in string theory, vibration determines everything. So particle masses, the strengths of forces, and most importantly, the amount of dark energy would be determined by the shape of the extra dimensions. So if we knew the shape of the extra dimensions, we should be able to calculate these features, calculate the amount of dark energy. The challenge is we don't know the shape of the extra dimensions. All we have is a list of candidate shapes allowed by the math. Now when these ideas were first developed, there were only about five different candidate shapes, so you can imagine analyzing them one-by-one to determine if any yield the physical features we observe. But over time the list grew as researchers found other candidate shapes. From five, the number grew into the hundreds and then the thousands -- A large, but still manageable, collection to analyze, since after all, graduate students need something to do. But then the list continued to grow into the millions and the billions, until today. The list of candidate shapes has soared to about 10 to the 500. So, what to do? Well some researchers lost heart, concluding that was so many candidate shapes for the extra dimensions, each giving rise to different physical features, string theory would never make definitive, testable predictions. But others turned this issue on its head, taking us to the possibility of a multiverse. Here's the idea. Maybe each of these shapes is on an equal footing with every other. Each is as real as every other, in the sense that there are many universes, each with a different shape, for the extra dimensions. And this radical proposal has a profound impact on this mystery: the amount of dark energy revealed by the Nobel Prize-winning results. Because you see, if there are other universes, and if those universes each have, say, a different shape for the extra dimensions, then the physical features of each universe will be different, and in particular, the amount of dark energy in each universe will be different. Which means that the mystery of explaining the amount of dark energy we've now measured would take on a wholly different character. In this context, the laws of physics can't explain one number for the dark energy because there isn't just one number, there are many numbers. Which means we have been asking the wrong question. It's that the right question to ask is, why do we humans find ourselves in a universe with a particular amount of dark energy we've measured instead of any of the other possibilities that are out there? And that's a question on which we can make headway. Because those universes that have much more dark energy than ours, whenever matter tries to clump into galaxies, the repulsive push of the dark energy is so strong that it blows the clump apart and galaxies don't form. And in those universes that have much less dark energy, well they collapse back on themselves so quickly that, again, galaxies don't form. And without galaxies, there are no stars, no planets and no chance for our form of life to exist in those other universes. So we find ourselves in a universe with the particular amount of dark energy we've measured simply because our universe has conditions hospitable to our form of life. And that would be that. Mystery solved, multiverse found. Now some find this explanation unsatisfying. We're used to physics giving us definitive explanations for the features we observe. But the point is, if the feature you're observing can and does take on a wide variety of different values across the wider landscape of reality, then thinking one explanation for a particular value is simply misguided. An early example comes from the great astronomer Johannes Kepler who was obsessed with understanding a different number -- why the Sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth. And he worked for decades trying to explain this number, but he never succeeded, and we know why. Kepler was asking the wrong question. We now know that there are many planets at a wide variety of different distances from their host stars. So hoping that the laws of physics will explain one particular number, 93 million miles, well that is simply wrongheaded. Instead the right question to ask is, why do we humans find ourselves on a planet at this particular distance, instead of any of the other possibilities? And again, that's a question we can answer. Those planets which are much closer to a star like the Sun would be so hot that our form of life wouldn't exist. And those planets that are much farther away from the star, well they're so cold that, again, our form of life would not take hold. So we find ourselves on a planet at this particular distance simply because it yields conditions vital to our form of life. And when it comes to planets and their distances, this clearly is the right kind of reasoning. The point is, when it comes to universes and the dark energy that they contain, it may also be the right kind of reasoning. One key difference, of course, is we know that there are other planets out there, but so far I've only speculated on the possibility that there might be other universes. So to pull it all together, we need a mechanism that can actually generate other universes. And that takes me to my final part, part three. Because such a mechanism has been found by cosmologists trying to understand the Big Bang. You see, when we speak of the Big Bang, we often have an image of a kind of cosmic explosion that created our universe and set space rushing outward. But there's a little secret. The Big Bang leaves out something pretty important, the Bang. It tells us how the universe evolved after the Bang, but gives us no insight into what would have powered the Bang itself. And this gap was finally filled by an enhanced version of the Big Bang theory. It's called inflationary cosmology, which identified a particular kind of fuel that would naturally generate an outward rush of space. The fuel is based on something called a quantum field, but the only detail that matters for us is that this fuel proves to be so efficient that it's virtually impossible to use it all up, which means in the inflationary theory, the Big Bang giving rise to our universe is likely not a one-time event. Instead the fuel not only generated our Big Bang, but it would also generate countless other Big Bangs, each giving rise to its own separate universe with our universe becoming but one bubble in a grand cosmic bubble bath of universes. And now, when we meld this with string theory, here's the picture we're led to. Each of these universes has extra dimensions. The extra dimensions take on a wide variety of different shapes. The different shapes yield different physical features. And we find ourselves in one universe instead of another simply because it's only in our universe that the physical features, like the amount of dark energy, are right for our form of life to take hold. And this is the compelling but highly controversial picture of the wider cosmos that cutting-edge observation and theory have now led us to seriously consider. One big remaining question, of course, is, could we ever confirm the existence of other universes? Well let me describe one way that might one day happen. The inflationary theory already has strong observational support. Because the theory predicts that the Big Bang would have been so intense that as space rapidly expanded, tiny quantum jitters from the micro world would have been stretched out to the macro world, yielding a distinctive fingerprint, a pattern of slightly hotter spots and slightly colder spots, across space, which powerful telescopes have now observed. Going further, if there are other universes, the theory predicts that every so often those universes can collide. And if our universe got hit by another, that collision would generate an additional subtle pattern of temperature variations across space that we might one day be able to detect. And so exotic as this picture is, it may one day be grounded in observations, establishing the existence of other universes. I'll conclude with a striking implication of all these ideas for the very far future. You see, we learned that our universe is not static, that space is expanding, that that expansion is speeding up and that there might be other universes all by carefully examining faint pinpoints of starlight coming to us from distant galaxies. But because the expansion is speeding up, in the very far future, those galaxies will rush away so far and so fast that we won't be able to see them -- not because of technological limitations, but because of the laws of physics. The light those galaxies emit, even traveling at the fastest speed, the speed of light, will not be able to overcome the ever-widening gulf between us. So astronomers in the far future looking out into deep space will see nothing but an endless stretch of static, inky, black stillness. And they will conclude that the universe is static and unchanging and populated by a single central oasis of matter that they inhabit -- a picture of the cosmos that we definitively know to be wrong. Now maybe those future astronomers will have records handed down from an earlier era, like ours, attesting to an expanding cosmos teeming with galaxies. But would those future astronomers believe such ancient knowledge? Or would they believe in the black, static empty universe that their own state-of-the-art observations reveal? I suspect the latter. Which means that we are living through a remarkably privileged era when certain deep truths about the cosmos are still within reach of the human spirit of exploration. It appears that it may not always be that way. Because today's astronomers, by turning powerful telescopes to the sky, have captured a handful of starkly informative photons -- a kind of cosmic telegram billions of years in transit. and the message echoing across the ages is clear. Sometimes nature guards her secrets with the unbreakable grip of physical law. Sometimes the true nature of reality beckons from just beyond the horizon. Thank you very much. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Brian, thank you. The range of ideas you've just spoken about are dizzying, exhilarating, incredible. How do you think of where cosmology is now, in a sort of historical side? Are we in the middle of something unusual historically in your opinion? BG: Well it's hard to say. When we learn that astronomers of the far future may not have enough information to figure things out, the natural question is, maybe we're already in that position and certain deep, critical features of the universe already have escaped our ability to understand because of how cosmology evolves. So from that perspective, maybe we will always be asking questions and never be able to fully answer them. On the other hand, we now can understand how old the universe is. We can understand how to understand the data from the microwave background radiation that was set down 13.72 billion years ago -- and yet, we can do calculations today to predict how it will look and it matches. Holy cow! That's just amazing. So on the one hand, it's just incredible where we've gotten, but who knows what sort of blocks we may find in the future. CA: You're going to be around for the next few days. Maybe some of these conversations can continue. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. (BG: My pleasure.) (Applause)

Good afternoon. There's a medical revolution happening all around us, and it's one that's going to help us conquer some of society's most dreaded conditions, including cancer. The revolution is called angiogenesis, and it's based on the process that our bodies use to grow blood vessels. So why should we care about blood vessels? Well, the human body is literally packed with them: 60,000 miles worth in a typical adult. End to end, that would form a line that would circle the earth twice. The smallest blood vessels are called capillaries; we've got 19 billion of them in our bodies. And these are the vessels of life, and, as I'll show you, they can also be the vessels of death. Now the remarkable thing about blood vessels is that they have this ability to adapt to whatever environment they're growing in. For example, in the liver they form channels to detoxify the blood; in the lung they line air sacs for gas exchange; in muscle they corkscrew so that muscles can contract without cutting off circulation; and in nerves they course along like power lines, keeping those nerves alive. We get most of these blood vessels when we're actually still in the womb, And what that means is that as adults, blood vessels don't normally grow. Except in a few special circumstances: In women, blood vessels grow every month to build the lining of the uterus; during pregnancy, they form the placenta, which connects mom and baby. And after injury, blood vessels actually have to grow under the scab in order to heal a wound. And this is actually what it looks like, hundreds of blood vessels all growing toward the center of the wound. So the body has the ability to regulate the amount of blood vessels that are present at any given time. It does this through an elaborate and elegant system of checks and balances, stimulators and inhibitors of angiogenesis, such that, when we need a brief burst of blood vessels, the body can do this by releasing stimulators, proteins called angiogenic factors that act as natural fertilizer and stimulate new blood vessels to sprout. And when those excess vessels are no longer needed, the body prunes them back to baseline using naturally occurring inhibitors of angiogenesis. Now there are other situations where we start beneath the baseline and we need to grow more blood vessels just to get back to normal levels -- for example, after an injury -- and a body can do that too, but only to that normal level, that set point. But what we now know is that for a number of diseases, there are defects in the system where the body can't prune back extra blood vessels or can't grow enough new ones in the right place at the right time. And in these situations, angiogenesis is out of balance. And when angiogenesis is out of balance, a myriad of diseases result. For example, insufficient angiogenesis -- not enough blood vessels -- leads to wounds that don't heal, heart attacks, legs without circulation, death from stroke, nerve damage. And on the other end, excessive angiogenesis -- too many blood vessels -- drives disease, and we see this in cancer, blindness, arthritis, obesity, Alzheimer's disease. In total, there are more than 70 major diseases affecting more than a billion people worldwide, that all look on the surface to be different from one another, but all actually share abnormal angiogenesis as their common denominator. And this realization is allowing us to reconceptualize the way that we actually approach these diseases by controlling angiogenesis. Now I'm going to focus on cancer because angiogenesis is a hallmark of cancer, every type of cancer. So here we go. This is a tumor: dark, gray, ominous mass growing inside a brain. And under the microscope, you can see hundreds of these brown staining blood vessels, capillaries that are feeding cancer cells, bringing oxygen and nutrients. But cancers don't start out like this. And, in fact, cancers don't start out with a blood supply. They start out as small, microscopic nests of cells that can only grow to one half a cubic millimeter in size; that's the tip of a ballpoint pen. Then they can't get any larger because they don't have a blood supply, so they don't have enough oxygen or nutrients. In fact, we're probably forming these microscopic cancers all the time in our body. Autopsy studies from people who died in car accidents have shown that about 40 percent of women between the ages of 40 and 50 actually have microscopic cancers in their breasts, about 50 percent of men in their 50s and 60s have microscopic prostate cancers, and virtually 100 percent of us, by the time we reach our 70s, will have microscopic cancers growing in our thyroid. Yet, without a blood supply, most of these cancers will never become dangerous. Dr. Judah Folkman, who was my mentor and who was the pioneer of the angiogenesis field, once called this "cancer without disease." So the body's ability to balance angiogenesis, when it's working properly, prevents blood vessels from feeding cancers. And this turns out to be one of our most important defense mechanisms against cancer. In fact, if you actually block angiogenesis and prevent blood vessels from ever reaching cancer cells, tumors simply can't grow up. But once angiogenesis occurs, cancers can grow exponentially. And this is actually how a cancer goes from being harmless to deadly. Cancer cells mutate and they gain the ability to release lots of those angiogenic factors, natural fertilizer, that tip the balance in favor of blood vessels invading the cancer. And once those vessels invade the cancer, it can expand, it can invade local tissues. And the same vessels that are feeding tumors allow cancer cells to exit into the circulation as metastases. And, unfortunately, this late stage of cancer is the one at which it's most likely to be diagnosed, when angiogenesis is already turned on and cancer cells are growing like wild. So, if angiogenesis is a tipping point between a harmless cancer and a harmful one, then one major part of the angiogenesis revolution is a new approach to treating cancer by cutting off the blood supply. We call this antiangiogenic therapy, and it's completely different from chemotherapy because it selectively aims at the blood vessels that are feeding the cancers. And we can do this because tumor blood vessels are unlike normal, healthy vessels we see in other places of the body: They're abnormal; they're very poorly constructed; and, because of that, they're highly vulnerable to treatments that target them. In effect, when we give cancer patients antiangiogenic therapy -- here, an experimental drug for a glioma, which is a type of brain tumor -- you can see that there are dramatic changes that occur when the tumor is being starved. Here's a woman with a breast cancer being treated with the antiangiogenic drug called Avastin, which is FDA approved. And you can see that the halo of blood flow disappears after treatment. Well, I've just shown you two very different types of cancer that both responded to antiangiogenic therapy. So, a few years ago, I asked myself, "Can we take this one step further and treat other cancers, even in other species?" So here is a nine year-old boxer named Milo who had a very aggressive tumor called a malignant neurofibroma growing on his shoulder. It invaded into his lungs. His veterinarian only gave him three months to live. So we created a cocktail of antiangiogenic drugs that could be mixed into his dog food as well as an antiangiogenic cream that could be applied on the surface of the tumor. And within a few weeks of treatment, we were able to slow down that cancer's growth such that we were ultimately able to extend milo's survival to six times what the veterinarian had initially predicted, all with a very good quality of life. And we subsequently treated more than 600 dogs. We have about a 60 percent response rate and improved survival for these pets that were about to be euthanized. So let me show you a couple of even more interesting examples. This is 20-year-old dolphin living in Florida, and she had these lesions in her mouth that, over the course of three years, developed into invasive squamous cell cancers. So we created an antiangiogenic paste. We had it painted on top of the cancer three times a week. And over the course of seven months, the cancers completely disappeared, and the biopsies came back as normal. Here's a cancer growing on the lip of a Wuarter horse named Guinness. It's a very, very deadly type of cancer called an angiosarcoma. It had already spread to his lymph nodes, so we used an antiangiogenic skin cream for the lip and an oral cocktail, so we could treat from the inside as well as the outside. And over the course of six months, he experienced a complete remission. And here he is six years later, Guinness, with his very happy owner. (Applause) Now, obviously, antiangiogenic therapy could be used for a wide range of cancers. And, in fact, the first pioneering treatments for people, as well as dogs, are already becoming available. There's 12 different drugs, 11 different cancer types. But the real question is: How well do these work in practice? So here's actually the patient survival data from eight different types of cancer. The bars represent survival time taken from the era in which there was only chemotherapy, or surgery, or radiation available. But starting in 2004, when antiangiogenic therapies first became available, well you can see that there has been a 70 to 100 percent improvement in survival for people with kidney cancer, multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. That's impressive. But for other tumors and cancer types, the improvements have only been modest. So I started asking myself, "Why haven't we been able to do better?" And the answer, to me, is obvious; we're treating cancer too late in the game, when it's already established and, oftentimes, it's already spread or metastasized. And as a doctor, I know that once a disease progresses to an advanced stage, achieving a cure can be difficult, if not impossible. So I went back to the biology of angiogenesis and started thinking: Could the answer to cancer be preventing angiogenesis, beating cancer at its own game so the cancers could never become dangerous? This could help healthy people as well as people who've already beaten cancer once or twice and want to find a way to keep it from coming back. So to look for a way to prevent angiogenesis in cancer, I went back to look at cancer's causes. And what really intrigued me was when I saw that diet accounts for 30 to 35 percent of environmentally caused cancers. Now, the obvious thing is to think about what we could remove from our diet, what to strip out, take away. But I actually took a completely opposite approach and began asking: What could we be adding to our diet that's naturally antiangiogenic, that could boost the body's defense system and beat back those blood vessels that are feeding cancers? In other words, can we eat to starve cancer? (Laughter) Well, the answer's yes, and I'm going to show you how. Our search for this has taken us to the market, the farm and to the spice cabinet, because what we've discovered is that mother nature has laced a large number of foods and beverages and herbs with naturally occurring inhibitors of angiogenesis. So here's a test system we developed. At the center is a ring from which hundreds of blood vessels are growing out in a starburst fashion. And we can use this system to test dietary factors at concentrations that are obtainable by eating. So let me show you what happens when we put in an extract from red grapes. The active ingredient's resveratrol, it's also found in red wine. This inhibits abnormal angiogenesis by 60 percent. Here's what happens when we added an extract from strawberries; it potently inhibits angiogenesis. And extract from soybeans. And here is a growing list of our antiangiogenic foods and beverages that we're interested in studying. For each food type, we believe that there are different potencies within different strains and varietals. And we want to measure this because, well, while you're eating a strawberry or drinking tea, why not select the one that's most potent for preventing cancer. So here are four different teas that we've tested. They're all common ones: Chinese jasmine, Japanese sencha, Earl Grey and a special blend that we prepared. And you can see clearly that the teas vary in their potency from less potent to more potent. But what's very cool is when we actually combined the two less potent teas together, the combination, the blend, is more potent than either one alone. This means there's food synergy. Here's some more data from our testing. Now, in the lab, we can simulate tumor angiogenesis represented here in a black bar. And using this system, we can test the potency of cancer drugs. So the shorter the bar, less angiogenesis, that's good. And here are some common drugs that have been associated with reducing the risk of cancer in people. Statins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and a few others, they inhibit angiogenesis too. And here are the dietary factors going head to head against these drugs. You can see, they clearly hold their own and, in some cases, they're more potent than the actual drugs. Soy, parsley, garlic, grapes, berries; I could go home and cook a tasty meal using these ingredients. So imagine if we could create the world's first rating system in which we could score foods according to their antiangiogenic, cancer-preventative properties. And that's what we're doing right now. Now, I've shown you a bunch of lab data, and so the real question is: What is the evidence in people that eating certain foods can reduce angiogenesis in cancer? Well, the best example I know is a study of 79,000 men followed over 20 years, in which it was found that men who consumed cooked tomatoes two to three times a week had up to a 50 percent reduction in their risk of developing prostate cancer. Now, we know that tomatoes are a good source of lycopene, and lycopene is antiangiogenic. But what's even more interesting from this study is that in those men who did develop prostate cancer, those who ate more servings of tomato sauce actually had fewer blood vessels feeding their cancer. So this human study is a prime example of how antiangiogenic substances present in food and consumed at practical levels can impact on cancer. And we're now studying the role of a healthy diet with Dean Ornish at UCSF and Tufts University on the role of this healthy diet on markers of angiogenesis that we can find in the bloodstream. Now, obviously, what I've shared with you has some far-ranging implications, even beyond cancer research. Because if we're right, it could impact on consumer education, food services, public health and even the insurance industry. And, in fact, some insurance companies are already beginning to think along these lines. Check out this ad from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. And for many people around the world, dietary cancer prevention may be the only practical solution because not everybody can afford expensive end-stage cancer treatments, but everybody could benefit from a healthy diet based on local, sustainable, antiangiogenic crops. Now, finally, I've talked to you about food, and I've talked to you about cancer, so there's just one more disease that I have to tell you about and that's obesity. Because it turns out that adipose tissue, fat, is highly angiogenesis dependent. And, like a tumor, fat grows when blood vessels grow. So the question is: Can we shrink fat by cutting off its blood supply? So the top curve shows the body weight of a genetically obese mouse that eats nonstop until it turns fat, like this furry tennis ball. And the bottom curve is the weight of a normal mouse. If you take the obese mouse and give it an angiogenesis inhibitor, it loses weight. Stop the treatment, gains the weight back. Restart the treatment, loses the weight again. Stop the treatment, it gains the weight back. And, in fact, you can cycle the weight up and down simply by inhibiting angiogenesis. So this approach that we're taking for cancer prevention may also have an application for obesity. The really, truly interesting thing about this is that we can't take these obese mice and make them lose more weight than what the normal mouse's weight is supposed to be. In other words, we can't create supermodel mice. (Laughter) And this speaks to the role of angiogenesis in regulating healthy set points. Albert Szent-Gyorgi once said that, "Discovery consists of seeing what everyone has seen, and thinking what no one has thought." I hope I've convinced you that, for diseases like cancer, obesity and other conditions, that there may be a great power in attacking their common denominator: angiogenesis. And that's what I think the world needs now. Thank you. (Applause) June Cohen: I have a quick question for you. So these drugs aren't exactly ... they're not exactly in mainstream cancer treatments right now. For anyone out here who has cancer, what would you recommend? Do you recommend pursuing these treatments now, for most cancer patients? William Li: So there are antiangiogenic treatments that are FDA approved, and if you're a cancer patient or working for one or advocating for one, you should ask about them. And there are many clinical trials. The Angiogenesis Foundation is following almost 300 companies, and there are about 100 more drugs in that pipeline. So consider the approved ones, look for clinical trials, but then between what the doctor can do for you, we need to start asking what can we do for ourselves. And this is one of the themes that I'm talking about is we can empower ourselves to do the things that doctors can't do for us, which is to use knowledge and take action. And if Mother Nature has given us some clues, we think that there might be a new future in the value of how we eat. And what we eat is really our chemotherapy three times a day. JC: Right. And along those lines, for people who might have risk factors for cancer, would you recommend pursuing any treatments sort of prophylactically or simply pursuing the right diet with lots of tomato sauce? WL: Well, you know, there's abundant epidemiological evidence. And I think in the information age, it doesn't take long to go to a credible source like PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, to look for epidemiological studies for cancer risk reduction based on diet and based on common medications. And that's certainly something that anybody can look into. JC: Okay. Well, thank you so much. (Applause)

Because I usually take the role of trying to explain to people how wonderful the new technologies that are coming along are going to be, and I thought that, since I was among friends here, I would tell you what I really think and try to look back and try to understand what is really going on here with these amazing jumps in technology that seem so fast that we can barely keep on top of it. So I'm going to start out by showing just one very boring technology slide. And then, so if you can just turn on the slide that's on. This is just a random slide that I picked out of my file. What I want to show you is not so much the details of the slide, but the general form of it. This happens to be a slide of some analysis that we were doing about the power of RISC microprocessors versus the power of local area networks. And the interesting thing about it is that this slide, like so many technology slides that we're used to, is a sort of a straight line on a semi-log curve. In other words, every step here represents an order of magnitude in performance scale. And this is a new thing that we talk about technology on semi-log curves. Something really weird is going on here. And that's basically what I'm going to be talking about. So, if you could bring up the lights. If you could bring up the lights higher, because I'm just going to use a piece of paper here. Now why do we draw technology curves in semi-log curves? Well the answer is, if I drew it on a normal curve where, let's say, this is years, this is time of some sort, and this is whatever measure of the technology that I'm trying to graph, the graphs look sort of silly. They sort of go like this. And they don't tell us much. Now if I graph, for instance, some other technology, say transportation technology, on a semi-log curve, it would look very stupid, it would look like a flat line. But when something like this happens, things are qualitatively changing. So if transportation technology was moving along as fast as microprocessor technology, then the day after tomorrow, I would be able to get in a taxi cab and be in Tokyo in 30 seconds. It's not moving like that. And there's nothing precedented in the history of technology development of this kind of self-feeding growth where you go by orders of magnitude every few years. Now the question that I'd like to ask is, if you look at these exponential curves, they don't go on forever. Things just can't possibly keep changing as fast as they are. One of two things is going to happen. Either it's going to turn into a sort of classical S-curve like this, until something totally different comes along, or maybe it's going to do this. That's about all it can do. Now I'm an optimist, so I sort of think it's probably going to do something like that. If so, that means that what we're in the middle of right now is a transition. We're sort of on this line in a transition from the way the world used to be to some new way that the world is. And so what I'm trying to ask, what I've been asking myself, is what's this new way that the world is? What's that new state that the world is heading toward? Because the transition seems very, very confusing when we're right in the middle of it. Now when I was a kid growing up, the future was kind of the year 2000, and people used to talk about what would happen in the year 2000. Now here's a conference in which people talk about the future, and you notice that the future is still at about the year 2000. It's about as far as we go out. So in other words, the future has kind of been shrinking one year per year for my whole lifetime. Now I think that the reason is because we all feel that something's happening there. That transition is happening. We can all sense it. And we know that it just doesn't make too much sense to think out 30, 50 years because everything's going to be so different that a simple extrapolation of what we're doing just doesn't make any sense at all. So what I would like to talk about is what that could be, what that transition could be that we're going through. Now in order to do that I'm going to have to talk about a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with technology and computers. Because I think the only way to understand this is to really step back and take a long time scale look at things. So the time scale that I would like to look at this on is the time scale of life on Earth. So I think this picture makes sense if you look at it a few billion years at a time. So if you go back about two and a half billion years, the Earth was this big, sterile hunk of rock with a lot of chemicals floating around on it. And if you look at the way that the chemicals got organized, we begin to get a pretty good idea of how they do it. And I think that there's theories that are beginning to understand about how it started with RNA, but I'm going to tell a sort of simple story of it, which is that, at that time, there were little drops of oil floating around with all kinds of different recipes of chemicals in them. And some of those drops of oil had a particular combination of chemicals in them which caused them to incorporate chemicals from the outside and grow the drops of oil. And those that were like that started to split and divide. And those were the most primitive forms of cells in a sense, those little drops of oil. But now those drops of oil weren't really alive, as we say it now, because every one of them was a little random recipe of chemicals. And every time it divided, they got sort of unequal division of the chemicals within them. And so every drop was a little bit different. In fact, the drops that were different in a way that caused them to be better at incorporating chemicals around them, grew more and incorporated more chemicals and divided more. So those tended to live longer, get expressed more. Now that's sort of just a very simple chemical form of life, but when things got interesting was when these drops learned a trick about abstraction. Somehow by ways that we don't quite understand, these little drops learned to write down information. They learned to record the information that was the recipe of the cell onto a particular kind of chemical called DNA. So in other words, they worked out, in this mindless sort of evolutionary way, a form of writing that let them write down what they were, so that that way of writing it down could get copied. The amazing thing is that that way of writing seems to have stayed steady since it evolved two and a half billion years ago. In fact the recipe for us, our genes, is exactly that same code and that same way of writing. In fact, every living creature is written in exactly the same set of letters and the same code. In fact, one of the things that I did just for amusement purposes is we can now write things in this code. And I've got here a little 100 micrograms of white powder, which I try not to let the security people see at airports. (Laughter) But this has in it -- what I did is I took this code -- the code has standard letters that we use for symbolizing it -- and I wrote my business card onto a piece of DNA and amplified it 10 to the 22 times. So if anyone would like a hundred million copies of my business card, I have plenty for everyone in the room, and, in fact, everyone in the world, and it's right here. (Laughter) If I had really been a egotist, I would have put it into a virus and released it in the room. (Laughter) So what was the next step? Writing down the DNA was an interesting step. And that caused these cells -- that kept them happy for another billion years. But then there was another really interesting step where things became completely different, which is these cells started exchanging and communicating information, so that they began to get communities of cells. I don't know if you know this, but bacteria can actually exchange DNA. Now that's why, for instance, antibiotic resistance has evolved. Some bacteria figured out how to stay away from penicillin, and it went around sort of creating its little DNA information with other bacteria, and now we have a lot of bacteria that are resistant to penicillin, because bacteria communicate. Now what this communication allowed was communities to form that, in some sense, were in the same boat together; they were synergistic. So they survived or they failed together, which means that if a community was very successful, all the individuals in that community were repeated more and they were favored by evolution. Now the transition point happened when these communities got so close that, in fact, they got together and decided to write down the whole recipe for the community together on one string of DNA. And so the next stage that's interesting in life took about another billion years. And at that stage, we have multi-cellular communities, communities of lots of different types of cells, working together as a single organism. And in fact, we're such a multi-cellular community. We have lots of cells that are not out for themselves anymore. Your skin cell is really useless without a heart cell, muscle cell, a brain cell and so on. So these communities began to evolve so that the interesting level on which evolution was taking place was no longer a cell, but a community which we call an organism. Now the next step that happened is within these communities. These communities of cells, again, began to abstract information. And they began building very special structures that did nothing but process information within the community. And those are the neural structures. So neurons are the information processing apparatus that those communities of cells built up. And in fact, they began to get specialists in the community and special structures that were responsible for recording, understanding, learning information. And that was the brains and the nervous system of those communities. And that gave them an evolutionary advantage. Because at that point, an individual -- learning could happen within the time span of a single organism, instead of over this evolutionary time span. So an organism could, for instance, learn not to eat a certain kind of fruit because it tasted bad and it got sick last time it ate it. That could happen within the lifetime of a single organism, whereas before they'd built these special information processing structures, that would have had to be learned evolutionarily over hundreds of thousands of years by the individuals dying off that ate that kind of fruit. So that nervous system, the fact that they built these special information structures, tremendously sped up the whole process of evolution. Because evolution could now happen within an individual. It could happen in learning time scales. But then what happened was the individuals worked out, of course, tricks of communicating. And for example, the most sophisticated version that we're aware of is human language. It's really a pretty amazing invention if you think about it. Here I have a very complicated, messy, confused idea in my head. I'm sitting here making grunting sounds basically, and hopefully constructing a similar messy, confused idea in your head that bears some analogy to it. But we're taking something very complicated, turning it into sound, sequences of sounds, and producing something very complicated in your brain. So this allows us now to begin to start functioning as a single organism. And so, in fact, what we've done is we, humanity, have started abstracting out. We're going through the same levels that multi-cellular organisms have gone through -- abstracting out our methods of recording, presenting, processing information. So for example, the invention of language was a tiny step in that direction. Telephony, computers, videotapes, CD-ROMs and so on are all our specialized mechanisms that we've now built within our society for handling that information. And it all connects us together into something that is much bigger and much faster and able to evolve than what we were before. So now, evolution can take place on a scale of microseconds. And you saw Ty's little evolutionary example where he sort of did a little bit of evolution on the Convolution program right before your eyes. So now we've speeded up the time scales once again. So the first steps of the story that I told you about took a billion years a piece. And the next steps, like nervous systems and brains, took a few hundred million years. Then the next steps, like language and so on, took less than a million years. And these next steps, like electronics, seem to be taking only a few decades. The process is feeding on itself and becoming, I guess, autocatalytic is the word for it -- when something reinforces its rate of change. The more it changes, the faster it changes. And I think that that's what we're seeing here in this explosion of curve. We're seeing this process feeding back on itself. Now I design computers for a living, and I know that the mechanisms that I use to design computers would be impossible without recent advances in computers. So right now, what I do is I design objects at such complexity that it's really impossible for me to design them in the traditional sense. I don't know what every transistor in the connection machine does. There are billions of them. Instead, what I do and what the designers at Thinking Machines do is we think at some level of abstraction and then we hand it to the machine and the machine takes it beyond what we could ever do, much farther and faster than we could ever do. And in fact, sometimes it takes it by methods that we don't quite even understand. One method that's particularly interesting that I've been using a lot lately is evolution itself. So what we do is we put inside the machine a process of evolution that takes place on the microsecond time scale. So for example, in the most extreme cases, we can actually evolve a program by starting out with random sequences of instructions. Say, "Computer, would you please make a hundred million random sequences of instructions. Now would you please run all of those random sequences of instructions, run all of those programs, and pick out the ones that came closest to doing what I wanted." So in other words, I define what I wanted. Let's say I want to sort numbers, as a simple example I've done it with. So find the programs that come closest to sorting numbers. So of course, random sequences of instructions are very unlikely to sort numbers, so none of them will really do it. But one of them, by luck, may put two numbers in the right order. And I say, "Computer, would you please now take the 10 percent of those random sequences that did the best job. Save those. Kill off the rest. And now let's reproduce the ones that sorted numbers the best. And let's reproduce them by a process of recombination analogous to sex." Take two programs and they produce children by exchanging their subroutines, and the children inherit the traits of the subroutines of the two programs. So I've got now a new generation of programs that are produced by combinations of the programs that did a little bit better job. Say, "Please repeat that process." Score them again. Introduce some mutations perhaps. And try that again and do that for another generation. Well every one of those generations just takes a few milliseconds. So I can do the equivalent of millions of years of evolution on that within the computer in a few minutes, or in the complicated cases, in a few hours. At the end of that, I end up with programs that are absolutely perfect at sorting numbers. In fact, they are programs that are much more efficient than programs I could have ever written by hand. Now if I look at those programs, I can't tell you how they work. I've tried looking at them and telling you how they work. They're obscure, weird programs. But they do the job. And in fact, I know, I'm very confident that they do the job because they come from a line of hundreds of thousands of programs that did the job. In fact, their life depended on doing the job. (Laughter) I was riding in a 747 with Marvin Minsky once, and he pulls out this card and says, "Oh look. Look at this. It says, 'This plane has hundreds of thousands of tiny parts working together to make you a safe flight.' Doesn't that make you feel confident?" (Laughter) In fact, we know that the engineering process doesn't work very well when it gets complicated. So we're beginning to depend on computers to do a process that's very different than engineering. And it lets us produce things of much more complexity than normal engineering lets us produce. And yet, we don't quite understand the options of it. So in a sense, it's getting ahead of us. We're now using those programs to make much faster computers so that we'll be able to run this process much faster. So it's feeding back on itself. The thing is becoming faster and that's why I think it seems so confusing. Because all of these technologies are feeding back on themselves. We're taking off. And what we are is we're at a point in time which is analogous to when single-celled organisms were turning into multi-celled organisms. So we're the amoebas and we can't quite figure out what the hell this thing is we're creating. We're right at that point of transition. But I think that there really is something coming along after us. I think it's very haughty of us to think that we're the end product of evolution. And I think all of us here are a part of producing whatever that next thing is. So lunch is coming along, and I think I will stop at that point, before I get selected out. (Applause)

I have a tough job to do. You know, when I looked at the profile of the audience here, with their connotations and design, in all its forms, and with so much and so many people working on collaborative and networks, and so on, that I wanted to tell you, I wanted to build an argument for primary education in a very specific context. In order to do that in 20 minutes, I have to bring out four ideas -- it's like four pieces of a puzzle. And if I succeed in doing that, maybe you would go back with the thought that you could build on, and perhaps help me do my work. The first piece of the puzzle is remoteness and the quality of education. Now, by remoteness, I mean two or three different kinds of things. Of course, remoteness in its normal sense, which means that as you go further and further away from an urban center, you get to remoter areas. What happens to education? The second, or a different kind of remoteness is that within the large metropolitan areas all over the world, you have pockets, like slums, or shantytowns, or poorer areas, which are socially and economically remote from the rest of the city, so it's us and them. What happens to education in that context? So keep both of those ideas of remoteness. We made a guess. The guess was that schools in remote areas do not have good enough teachers. If they do have, they cannot retain those teachers. They do not have good enough infrastructure. And if they had some infrastructure, they have difficulty maintaining it. But I wanted to check if this is true. So what I did last year was we hired a car, looked up on Google, found a route into northern India from New Delhi which, you know, which did not cross any big cities or any big metropolitan centers. Drove out about 300 kilometers, and wherever we found a school, administered a set of standard tests, and then took those test results and plotted them on a graph. The graph was interesting, although you need to consider it carefully. I mean, this is a very small sample; you should not generalize from it. But it was quite obvious, quite clear, that for this particular route that I had taken, the remoter the school was, the worse its results seemed to be. That seemed a little damning, and I tried to correlate it with things like infrastructure, or with the availability of electricity, and things like that. To my surprise, it did not correlate. It did not correlate with the size of classrooms. It did not correlate with the quality of the infrastructure. It did not correlate with the poverty levels. It did not correlate. But what happened was that when I administered a questionnaire to each of these schools, with one single question for the teachers -- which was, "Would you like to move to an urban, metropolitan area?" -- 69 percent of them said yes. And as you can see from that, they say yes just a little bit out of Delhi, and they say no when you hit the rich suburbs of Delhi -- because, you know, those are relatively better off areas -- and then from 200 kilometers out of Delhi, the answer is consistently yes. I would imagine that a teacher who comes or walks into class every day thinking that, I wish I was in some other school, probably has a deep impact on what happens to the results. So it looked as though teacher motivation and teacher migration was a powerfully correlated thing with what was happening in primary schools, as opposed to whether the children have enough to eat, and whether they are packed tightly into classrooms and that sort of thing. It appears that way. When you take education and technology, then I find in the literature that, you know, things like websites, collaborative environments -- you've been listening to all that in the morning -- it's always piloted first in the best schools, the best urban schools, and, according to me, biases the result. The literature -- one part of it, the scientific literature -- consistently blames ET as being over-hyped and under-performing. The teachers always say, well, it's fine, but it's too expensive for what it does. Because it's being piloted in a school where the students are already getting, let's say, 80 percent of whatever they could do. You put in this new super-duper technology, and now they get 83 percent. So the principal looks at it and says, 3 percent for 300,000 dollars? Forget it. If you took the same technology and piloted it into one of those remote schools, where the score was 30 percent, and, let's say, took that up to 40 percent -- that will be a completely different thing. So the relative change that ET, Educational Technology, would make, would be far greater at the bottom of the pyramid than at the top, but we seem to be doing it the other way about. So I came to this conclusion that ET should reach the underprivileged first, not the other way about. And finally came the question of, how do you tackle teacher perception? Whenever you go to a teacher and show them some technology, the teacher's first reaction is, you cannot replace a teacher with a machine -- it's impossible. I don't know why it's impossible, but, even for a moment, if you did assume that it's impossible -- I have a quotation from Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the science fiction writer whom I met in Colombo, and he said something which completely solves this problem. He said a teacher than can be replaced by a machine, should be. So, you know, it puts the teacher into a tough bind, you have to think. Anyway, so I'm proposing that an alternative primary education, whatever alternative you want, is required where schools don't exist, where schools are not good enough, where teachers are not available or where teachers are not good enough, for whatever reason. If you happen to live in a part of the world where none of this applies, then you don't need an alternative education. So far I haven't come across such an area, except for one case. I won't name the area, but somewhere in the world people said, we don't have this problem, because we have perfect teachers and perfect schools. There are such areas, but -- anyway, I'd never heard that anywhere else. I'm going to talk about children and self-organization, and a set of experiments which sort of led to this idea of what might an alternative education be like. They're called the hole-in-the-wall experiments. I'll have to really rush through this. They're a set of experiments. The first one was done in New Delhi in 1999. And what we did over there was pretty much simple. I had an office in those days which bordered a slum, an urban slum, so there was a dividing wall between our office and the urban slum. They cut a hole inside that wall -- which is how it has got the name hole-in-the-wall -- and put a pretty powerful PC into that hole, sort of embedded into the wall so that its monitor was sticking out at the other end, a touchpad similarly embedded into the wall, put it on high-speed Internet, put the Internet Explorer there, put it on Altavista.com -- in those days -- and just left it there. And this is what we saw. So that was my office in IIT. Here's the hole-in-the-wall. About eight hours later, we found this kid. To the right is this eight-year-old child who -- and to his left is a six-year-old girl, who is not very tall. And what he was doing was, he was teaching her to browse. So it sort of raised more questions than it answered. Is this real? Does the language matter, because he's not supposed to know English? Will the computer last, or will they break it and steal it -- and did anyone teach them? The last question is what everybody said, but you know, I mean, they must have poked their head over the wall and asked the people in your office, can you show me how to do it, and then somebody taught him. So I took the experiment out of Delhi and repeated it, this time in a city called Shivpuri in the center of India, where I was assured that nobody had ever taught anybody anything. (Laughter) So it was a warm day, and the hole in the wall was on that decrepit old building. This is the first kid who came there; he later on turned out to be a 13-year-old school dropout. He came there and he started to fiddle around with the touchpad. Very quickly, he noticed that when he moves his finger on the touchpad something moves on the screen -- and later on he told me, "I have never seen a television where you can do something." So he figured that out. It took him over two minutes to figure out that he was doing things to the television. And then, as he was doing that, he made an accidental click by hitting the touchpad -- you'll see him do that. He did that, and the Internet Explorer changed page. Eight minutes later, he looked from his hand to the screen, and he was browsing: he was going back and forth. When that happened, he started calling all the neighborhood children, like, children would come and see what's happening over here. And by the evening of that day, 70 children were all browsing. So eight minutes and an embedded computer seemed to be all that we needed there. So we thought that this is what was happening: that children in groups can self-instruct themselves to use a computer and the Internet. But under what circumstances? At this time there was a -- the main question was about English. People said, you know, you really ought to have this in Indian languages. So I said, have what, shall I translate the Internet into some Indian language? That's not possible. So, it has to be the other way about. But let's see, how do the children tackle the English language? I took the experiment out to northeastern India, to a village called Madantusi, where, for some reason, there was no English teacher, so the children had not learned English at all. And I built a similar hole-in-the-wall. One big difference in the villages, as opposed to the urban slums: there were more girls than boys who came to the kiosk. In the urban slums, the girls tend to stay away. I left the computer there with lots of CDs -- I didn't have any Internet -- and came back three months later. So when I came back there, I found these two kids, eight- and 12-year-olds, who were playing a game on the computer. And as soon as they saw me they said, "We need a faster processor and a better mouse." (Laughter) I was real surprised. You know, how on earth did they know all this? And they said, "Well, we've picked it up from the CDs." So I said, "But how did you understand what's going on over there?" So they said, "Well, you've left this machine which talks only in English, so we had to learn English." So then I measured, and they were using 200 English words with each other -- mispronounced, but correct usage -- words like exit, stop, find, save, that kind of thing, not only to do with the computer but in their day-to-day conversations. So, Madantusi seemed to show that language is not a barrier; in fact they may be able to teach themselves the language if they really wanted to. Finally, I got some funding to try this experiment out to see if these results are replicable, if they happen everywhere else. India is a good place to do such an experiment in, because we have all the ethnic diversities, all the -- you know, the genetic diversity, all the racial diversities, and also all the socio-economic diversities. So, I could actually choose samples to cover a cross section that would cover practically the whole world. So I did this for almost five years, and this experiment really took us all the way across the length and breadth of India. This is the Himalayas. Up in the north, very cold. I also had to check or invent an engineering design which would survive outdoors, and I was using regular, normal PCs, so I needed different climates, for which India is also great, because we have very cold, very hot, and so on. This is the desert to the west. Near the Pakistan border. And you see here a little clip of -- one of these villages -- the first thing that these children did was to find a website to teach themselves the English alphabet. Then to central India -- very warm, moist, fishing villages, where humidity is a very big killer of electronics. So we had to solve all the problems we had without air conditioning and with very poor power, so most of the solutions that came out used little blasts of air put at the right places to keep the machines running. I want to just cut this short. We did this over and over again. This sequence is also nice. This is a small child, a six-year-old, telling his eldest sister what to do. And this happens very often with these computers, that the younger children are found teaching the older ones. What did we find? We found that six- to 13-year-olds can self-instruct in a connected environment, irrespective of anything that we could measure. So if they have access to the computer, they will teach themselves, including intelligence. I couldn't find a single correlation with anything, but it had to be in groups. And that may be of great, you know, interest to this group, because all of you are talking about groups. So here was the power of what a group of children can do, if you lift the adult intervention. Just a quick idea of the measurements. We took standard statistical techniques, so I'm going to not talk about that. But we got a clean learning curve, almost exactly the same as what you would get in a school. I'll leave it at that, because, I mean, it sort of says it all, doesn't it? What could they learn to do? Basic Windows functions, browsing, painting, chatting and email, games and educational material, music downloads, playing video. In short, what all of us do. And over 300 children will become computer literate and be able to do all of these things in six months with one computer. So, how do they do that? If you calculated the actual time of access, it would work out to minutes per day, so that's not how it's happening. What you have, actually, is there is one child operating the computer. And surrounding him are usually three other children, who are advising him on what they should do. If you test them, all four will get the same scores in whatever you ask them. Around these four are usually a group of about 16 children, who are also advising, usually wrongly, about everything that's going on on the computer. And all of them also will clear a test given on that subject. So they are learning as much by watching as they learn by doing. It seems counter-intuitive to adult learning, but remember, eight-year-olds live in a society where most of the time they are told, don't do this, you know, don't touch the whiskey bottle. So what does the eight-year-old do? He observes very carefully how a whiskey bottle should be touched. And if you tested him, he would answer every question correctly on that topic. So, they seem to be able to acquire very quickly. So what was the conclusion over the six years of work? It was that primary education can happen on its own, or parts of it can happen on its own. It does not have to be imposed from the top downwards. It could perhaps be a self-organizing system, so that was the second bit that I wanted to tell you, that children can self-organize and attain an educational objective. The third piece was on values, and again, to put it very briefly, I conducted a test over 500 children spread across all over India, and asked them -- I gave them about 68 different values-oriented questions and simply asked them their opinions. We got all sorts of opinions. Yes, no or I don't know. I simply took those questions where I got 50 percent yeses and 50 percent noes -- so I was able to get a collection of 16 such statements. These were areas where the children were clearly confused, because half said yes and half said no. A typical example being, "Sometimes it is necessary to tell lies." They don't have a way to determine which way to answer this question; perhaps none of us do. So I leave you with this third question. Can technology alter the acquisition of values? Finally, self-organizing systems, about which, again, I won't say too much because you've been hearing all about it. Natural systems are all self-organizing: galaxies, molecules, cells, organisms, societies -- except for the debate about an intelligent designer. But at this point in time, as far as science goes, it's self-organization. But other examples are traffic jams, stock market, society and disaster recovery, terrorism and insurgency. And you know about the Internet-based self-organizing systems. So here are my four sentences then. Remoteness affects the quality of education. Educational technology should be introduced into remote areas first, and other areas later. Values are acquired; doctrine and dogma are imposed -- the two opposing mechanisms. And learning is most likely a self-organizing system. If you put all the four together, then it gives -- according to me -- it gives us a goal, a vision, for educational technology. An educational technology and pedagogy that is digital, automatic, fault-tolerant, minimally invasive, connected and self-organized. As educationists, we have never asked for technology; we keep borrowing it. PowerPoint is supposed to be considered a great educational technology, but it was not meant for education, it was meant for making boardroom presentations. We borrowed it. Video conferencing. The personal computer itself. I think it's time that the educationists made their own specs, and I have such a set of specs. This is a brief look at that. And such a set of specs should produce the technology to address remoteness, values and violence. So I thought I'd give it a name -- why don't we call it "outdoctrination." And could this be a goal for educational technology in the future? So I want to leave that as a thought with you. Thank you. (Applause)

What is going on in this baby's mind? If you'd asked people this 30 years ago, most people, including psychologists, would have said that this baby was irrational, illogical, egocentric -- that he couldn't take the perspective of another person or understand cause and effect. In the last 20 years, developmental science has completely overturned that picture. So in some ways, we think that this baby's thinking is like the thinking of the most brilliant scientists. Let me give you just one example of this. One thing that this baby could be thinking about, that could be going on in his mind, is trying to figure out what's going on in the mind of that other baby. After all, one of the things that's hardest for all of us to do is to figure out what other people are thinking and feeling. And maybe the hardest thing of all is to figure out that what other people think and feel isn't actually exactly like what we think and feel. Anyone who's followed politics can testify to how hard that is for some people to get. We wanted to know if babies and young children could understand this really profound thing about other people. Now the question is: How could we ask them? Babies, after all, can't talk, and if you ask a three year-old to tell you what he thinks, what you'll get is a beautiful stream of consciousness monologue about ponies and birthdays and things like that. So how do we actually ask them the question? Well it turns out that the secret was broccoli. What we did -- Betty Rapacholi, who was one of my students, and I -- was actually to give the babies two bowls of food: one bowl of raw broccoli and one bowl of delicious goldfish crackers. Now all of the babies, even in Berkley, like the crackers and don't like the raw broccoli. (Laughter) But then what Betty did was to take a little taste of food from each bowl. And she would act as if she liked it or she didn't. So half the time, she acted as if she liked the crackers and didn't like the broccoli -- just like a baby and any other sane person. But half the time, what she would do is take a little bit of the broccoli and go, "Mmmmm, broccoli. I tasted the broccoli. Mmmmm." And then she would take a little bit of the crackers, and she'd go, "Eww, yuck, crackers. I tasted the crackers. Eww, yuck." So she'd act as if what she wanted was just the opposite of what the babies wanted. We did this with 15 and 18 month-old babies. And then she would simply put her hand out and say, "Can you give me some?" So the question is: What would the baby give her, what they liked or what she liked? And the remarkable thing was that 18 month-old babies, just barely walking and talking, would give her the crackers if she liked the crackers, but they would give her the broccoli if she liked the broccoli. On the other hand, 15 month-olds would stare at her for a long time if she acted as if she liked the broccoli, like they couldn't figure this out. But then after they stared for a long time, they would just give her the crackers, what they thought everybody must like. So there are two really remarkable things about this. The first one is that these little 18 month-old babies have already discovered this really profound fact about human nature, that we don't always want the same thing. And what's more, they felt that they should actually do things to help other people get what they wanted. Even more remarkably though, the fact that 15 month-olds didn't do this suggests that these 18 month-olds had learned this deep, profound fact about human nature in the three months from when they were 15 months old. So children both know more and learn more than we ever would have thought. And this is just one of hundreds and hundreds of studies over the last 20 years that's actually demonstrated it. The question you might ask though is: Why do children learn so much? And how is it possible for them to learn so much in such a short time? I mean, after all, if you look at babies superficially, they seem pretty useless. And actually in many ways, they're worse than useless, because we have to put so much time and energy into just keeping them alive. But if we turn to evolution for an answer to this puzzle of why we spend so much time taking care of useless babies, it turns out that there's actually an answer. If we look across many, many different species of animals, not just us primates, but also including other mammals, birds, even marsupials like kangaroos and wombats, it turns out that there's a relationship between how long a childhood a species has and how big their brains are compared to their bodies and how smart and flexible they are. And sort of the posterbirds for this idea are the birds up there. On one side is a New Caledonian crow. And crows and other corvidae, ravens, rooks and so forth, are incredibly smart birds. They're as smart as chimpanzees in some respects. And this is a bird on the cover of science who's learned how to use a tool to get food. On the other hand, we have our friend the domestic chicken. And chickens and ducks and geese and turkeys are basically as dumb as dumps. So they're very, very good at pecking for grain, and they're not much good at doing anything else. Well it turns out that the babies, the New Caledonian crow babies, are fledglings. They depend on their moms to drop worms in their little open mouths for as long as two years, which is a really long time in the life of a bird. Whereas the chickens are actually mature within a couple of months. So childhood is the reason why the crows end up on the cover of Science and the chickens end up in the soup pot. There's something about that long childhood that seems to be connected to knowledge and learning. Well what kind of explanation could we have for this? Well some animals, like the chicken, seem to be beautifully suited to doing just one thing very well. So they seem to be beautifully suited to pecking grain in one environment. Other creatures, like the crows, aren't very good at doing anything in particular, but they're extremely good at learning about laws of different environments. And of course, we human beings are way out on the end of the distribution like the crows. We have bigger brains relative to our bodies by far than any other animal. We're smarter, we're more flexible, we can learn more, we survive in more different environments, we migrated to cover the world and even go to outer space. And our babies and children are dependent on us for much longer than the babies of any other species. My son is 23. (Laughter) And at least until they're 23, we're still popping those worms into those little open mouths. All right, why would we see this correlation? Well an idea is that that strategy, that learning strategy, is an extremely powerful, great strategy for getting on in the world, but it has one big disadvantage. And that one big disadvantage is that, until you actually do all that learning, you're going to be helpless. So you don't want to have the mastodon charging at you and be saying to yourself, "A slingshot or maybe a spear might work. Which would actually be better?" You want to know all that before the mastodons actually show up. And the way the evolutions seems to have solved that problem is with a kind of division of labor. So the idea is that we have this early period when we're completely protected. We don't have to do anything. All we have to do is learn. And then as adults, we can take all those things that we learned when we were babies and children and actually put them to work to do things out there in the world. So one way of thinking about it is that babies and young children are like the research and development division of the human species. So they're the protected blue sky guys who just have to go out and learn and have good ideas, and we're production and marketing. We have to take all those ideas that we learned when we were children and actually put them to use. Another way of thinking about it is instead of thinking of babies and children as being like defective grownups, we should think about them as being a different developmental stage of the same species -- kind of like caterpillars and butterflies -- except that they're actually the brilliant butterflies who are flitting around the garden and exploring, and we're the caterpillars who are inching along our narrow, grownup, adult path. If this is true, if these babies are designed to learn -- and this evolutionary story would say children are for learning, that's what they're for -- we might expect that they would have really powerful learning mechanisms. And in fact, the baby's brain seems to be the most powerful learning computer on the planet. But real computers are actually getting to be a lot better. And there's been a revolution in our understanding of machine learning recently. And it all depends on the ideas of this guy, the Reverend Thomas Bayes, who was a statistician and mathematician in the 18th century. And essentially what Bayes did was to provide a mathematical way using probability theory to characterize, describe, the way that scientists find out about the world. So what scientists do is they have a hypothesis that they think might be likely to start with. They go out and test it against the evidence. The evidence makes them change that hypothesis. Then they test that new hypothesis and so on and so forth. And what Bayes showed was a mathematical way that you could do that. And that mathematics is at the core of the best machine learning programs that we have now. And some 10 years ago, I suggested that babies might be doing the same thing. So if you want to know what's going on underneath those beautiful brown eyes, I think it actually looks something like this. This is Reverend Bayes's notebook. So I think those babies are actually making complicated calculations with conditional probabilities that they're revising to figure out how the world works. All right, now that might seem like an even taller order to actually demonstrate. Because after all, if you ask even grownups about statistics, they look extremely stupid. How could it be that children are doing statistics? So to test this we used a machine that we have called the Blicket Detector. This is a box that lights up and plays music when you put some things on it and not others. And using this very simple machine, my lab and others have done dozens of studies showing just how good babies are at learning about the world. Let me mention just one that we did with Tumar Kushner, my student. If I showed you this detector, you would be likely to think to begin with that the way to make the detector go would be to put a block on top of the detector. But actually, this detector works in a bit of a strange way. Because if you wave a block over the top of the detector, something you wouldn't ever think of to begin with, the detector will actually activate two out of three times. Whereas, if you do the likely thing, put the block on the detector, it will only activate two out of six times. So the unlikely hypothesis actually has stronger evidence. It looks as if the waving is a more effective strategy than the other strategy. So we did just this; we gave four year-olds this pattern of evidence, and we just asked them to make it go. And sure enough, the four year-olds used the evidence to wave the object on top of the detector. Now there are two things that are really interesting about this. The first one is, again, remember, these are four year-olds. They're just learning how to count. But unconsciously, they're doing these quite complicated calculations that will give them a conditional probability measure. And the other interesting thing is that they're using that evidence to get to an idea, get to a hypothesis about the world, that seems very unlikely to begin with. And in studies we've just been doing in my lab, similar studies, we've show that four year-olds are actually better at finding out an unlikely hypothesis than adults are when we give them exactly the same task. So in these circumstances, the children are using statistics to find out about the world, but after all, scientists also do experiments, and we wanted to see if children are doing experiments. When children do experiments we call it "getting into everything" or else "playing." And there's been a bunch of interesting studies recently that have shown this playing around is really a kind of experimental research program. Here's one from Cristine Legare's lab. What Cristine did was use our Blicket Detectors. And what she did was show children that yellow ones made it go and red ones didn't, and then she showed them an anomaly. And what you'll see is that this little boy will go through five hypotheses in the space of two minutes. (Video) Boy: How about this? Same as the other side. Alison Gopnik: Okay, so his first hypothesis has just been falsified. (Laughter) Boy: This one lighted up, and this one nothing. AG: Okay, he's got his experimental notebook out. Boy: What's making this light up. (Laughter) I don't know. AG: Every scientist will recognize that expression of despair. (Laughter) Boy: Oh, it's because this needs to be like this, and this needs to be like this. AG: Okay, hypothesis two. Boy: That's why. Oh. (Laughter) AG: Now this is his next idea. He told the experimenter to do this, to try putting it out onto the other location. Not working either. Boy: Oh, because the light goes only to here, not here. Oh, the bottom of this box has electricity in here, but this doesn't have electricity. AG: Okay, that's a fourth hypothesis. Boy: It's lighting up. So when you put four. So you put four on this one to make it light up and two on this one to make it light up. AG: Okay,there's his fifth hypothesis. Now that is a particularly -- that is a particularly adorable and articulate little boy, but what Cristine discovered is this is actually quite typical. If you look at the way children play, when you ask them to explain something, what they really do is do a series of experiments. This is actually pretty typical of four year-olds. Well, what's it like to be this kind of creature? What's it like to be one of these brilliant butterflies who can test five hypotheses in two minutes? Well, if you go back to those psychologists and philosophers, a lot of them have said that babies and young children were barely conscious if they were conscious at all. And I think just the opposite is true. I think babies and children are actually more conscious than we are as adults. Now here's what we know about how adult consciousness works. And adults' attention and consciousness look kind of like a spotlight. So what happens for adults is we decide that something's relevant or important, we should pay attention to it. Our consciousness of that thing that we're attending to becomes extremely bright and vivid, and everything else sort of goes dark. And we even know something about the way the brain does this. So what happens when we pay attention is that the prefrontal cortex, the sort of executive part of our brains, sends a signal that makes a little part of our brain much more flexible, more plastic, better at learning, and shuts down activity in all the rest of our brains. So we have a very focused, purpose-driven kind of attention. If we look at babies and young children, we see something very different. I think babies and young children seem to have more of a lantern of consciousness than a spotlight of consciousness. So babies and young children are very bad at narrowing down to just one thing. But they're very good at taking in lots of information from lots of different sources at once. And if you actually look in their brains, you see that they're flooded with these neurotransmitters that are really good at inducing learning and plasticity, and the inhibitory parts haven't come on yet. So when we say that babies and young children are bad at paying attention, what we really mean is that they're bad at not paying attention. So they're bad at getting rid of all the interesting things that could tell them something and just looking at the thing that's important. That's the kind of attention, the kind of consciousness, that we might expect from those butterflies who are designed to learn. Well if we want to think about a way of getting a taste of that kind of baby consciousness as adults, I think the best thing is think about cases where we're put in a new situation that we've never been in before -- when we fall in love with someone new, or when we're in a new city for the first time. And what happens then is not that our consciousness contracts, it expands, so that those three days in Paris seem to be more full of consciousness and experience than all the months of being a walking, talking, faculty meeting-attending zombie back home. And by the way, that coffee, that wonderful coffee you've been drinking downstairs, actually mimics the effect of those baby neurotransmitters. So what's it like to be a baby? It's like being in love in Paris for the first time after you've had three double-espressos. (Laughter) That's a fantastic way to be, but it does tend to leave you waking up crying at three o'clock in the morning. (Laughter) Now it's good to be a grownup. I don't want to say too much about how wonderful babies are. It's good to be a grownup. We can do things like tie our shoelaces and cross the street by ourselves. And it makes sense that we put a lot of effort into making babies think like adults do. But if what we want is to be like those butterflies, to have open-mindedness, open learning, imagination, creativity, innovation, maybe at least some of the time we should be getting the adults to start thinking more like children. (Applause)

Alisa Volkman: So this is where our story begins -- the dramatic moments of the birth of our first son, Declan. Obviously a really profound moment, and it changed our lives in many ways. It also changed our lives in many unexpected ways, and those unexpected ways we later reflected on, that eventually spawned a business idea between the two of us, and a year later, we launched Babble, a website for parents. Rufus Griscom: Now I think of our story as starting a few years earlier. AV: That's true. RG: You may remember, we fell head over heels in love. AV: We did. RG: We were at the time running a very different kind of website. It was a website called Nerve.com, the tagline of which was "literate smut." It was in theory, and hopefully in practice, a smart online magazine about sex and culture. AV: That spawned a dating site. But you can understand the jokes that we get. Sex begets babies. You follow instructions on Nerve and you should end up on Babble, which we did. And we might launch a geriatric site as our third. We'll see. RG: But for us, the continuity between Nerve and Babble was not just the life stage thing, which is, of course, relevant, but it was really more about our desire to speak very honestly about subjects that people have difficulty speaking honestly about. It seems to us that when people start dissembling, people start lying about things, that's when it gets really interesting. That's a subject that we want to dive into. And we've been surprised to find, as young parents, that there are almost more taboos around parenting than there are around sex. AV: It's true. So like we said, the early years were really wonderful, but they were also really difficult. And we feel like some of that difficulty was because of this false advertisement around parenting. (Laughter) We subscribed to a lot of magazines, did our homework, but really everywhere you look around, we were surrounded by images like this. And we went into parenting expecting our lives to look like this. The sun was always streaming in, and our children would never be crying. I would always be perfectly coiffed and well rested, and in fact, it was not like that at all. RG: When we lowered the glossy parenting magazine that we were looking at, with these beautiful images, and looked at the scene in our actual living room, it looked a little bit more like this. These are our three sons. And of course, they're not always crying and screaming, but with three boys, there's a decent probability that at least one of them will not be comporting himself exactly as he should. AV: Yes, you can see where the disconnect was happening for us. We really felt like what we went in expecting had nothing to do with what we were actually experiencing, and so we decided we really wanted to give it to parents straight. We really wanted to let them understand what the realities of parenting were in an honest way. RG: So today, what we would love to do is share with you four parenting taboos. And of course, there are many more than four things you can't say about parenting, but we would like to share with you today four that are particularly relevant for us personally. So the first, taboo number one: you can't say you didn't fall in love with your baby in the very first minute. I remember vividly, sitting there in the hospital. We were in the process of giving birth to our first child. AV: We, or I? RG: I'm sorry. Misuse of the pronoun. Alisa was very generously in the process of giving birth to our first child -- (AV: Thank you.) -- and I was there with a catcher's mitt. And I was there with my arms open. The nurse was coming at me with this beautiful, beautiful child, and I remember, as she was approaching me, the voices of friends saying, "The moment they put the baby in your hands, you will feel a sense of love that will come over you that is [on] an order of magnitude more powerful than anything you've ever experienced in your entire life." So I was bracing myself for the moment. The baby was coming, and I was ready for this Mack truck of love to just knock me off my feet. And instead, when the baby was placed in my hands, it was an extraordinary moment. This picture is from literally a few seconds after the baby was placed in my hands and I brought him over. And you can see, our eyes were glistening. I was overwhelmed with love and affection for my wife, with deep, deep gratitude that we had what appeared to be a healthy child. And it was also, of course, surreal. I mean, I had to check the tags and make sure. I was incredulous, "Are you sure this is our child?" And this was all quite remarkable. But what I felt towards the child at that moment was deep affection, but nothing like what I feel for him now, five years later. And so we've done something here that is heretical. We have charted our love for our child over time. (Laughter) This, as you know, is an act of heresy. You're not allowed to chart love. The reason you're not allowed to chart love is because we think of love as a binary thing. You're either in love, or you're not in love. You love, or you don't love. And I think the reality is that love is a process, and I think the problem with thinking of love as something that's binary is that it causes us to be unduly concerned that love is fraudulent, or inadequate, or what have you. And I think I'm speaking obviously here to the father's experience. But I think a lot of men do go through this sense in the early months, maybe their first year, that their emotional response is inadequate in some fashion. AV: Well, I'm glad Rufus is bringing this up, because you can notice where he dips in the first years where I think I was doing most of the work. But we like to joke, in the first few months of all of our children's lives, this is Uncle Rufus. (Laughter) RG: I'm a very affectionate uncle, very affectionate uncle. AV: Yes, and I often joke with Rufus when he comes home that I'm not sure he would actually be able to find our child in a line-up amongst other babies. So I actually threw a pop quiz here onto Rufus. RG: Uh oh. AV: I don't want to embarrass him too much. But I am going to give him three seconds. RG: That is not fair. This is a trick question. He's not up there, is he? AV: Our eight-week-old son is somewhere in here, and I want to see if Rufus can actually quickly identify him. RG: The far left. AV: No! (Laughter) RG: Cruel. AV: Nothing more to be said. (Laughter) I'll move on to taboo number two. You can't talk about how lonely having a baby can be. I enjoyed being pregnant. I loved it. I felt incredibly connected to the community around me. I felt like everyone was participating in my pregnancy, all around me, tracking it down till the actual due-date. I felt like I was a vessel of the future of humanity. That continued into the the hospital. It was really exhilarating. I was shower with gifts and flowers and visitors. It was a really wonderful experience, but when I got home, I suddenly felt very disconnected and suddenly shut in and shut out, and I was really surprised by those feelings. I did expect it to be difficult, have sleepless nights, constant feedings, but I did not expect the feelings of isolation and loneliness that I experienced, and I was really surprised that no one had talked to me, that I was going to be feeling this way. And I called my sister whom I'm very close to -- and had three children -- and I asked her, "Why didn't you tell me I was going to be feeling this way, that I was going to have these -- feeling incredibly isolated?" And she said -- I'll never forget -- "It's just not something you want to say to a mother that's having a baby for the first time." RG: And of course, we think it's precisely what you really should be saying to mothers who have kids for the first time. And that this, of course, one of the themes for us is that we think that candor and brutal honesty is critical to us collectively being great parents. And it's hard not to think that part of what leads to this sense of isolation is our modern world. So Alisa's experience is not isolated. So your 58 percent of mothers surveyed report feelings of loneliness. Of those, 67 percent are most lonely when their kids are zero to five -- probably really zero to two. In the process of preparing this, we looked at how some other cultures around the world deal with this period of time, because here in the Western world, less than 50 percent of us live near our family members, which I think is part of why this is such a tough period. So to take one example among many: in Southern India there's a practice known as jholabhari, in which the pregnant woman, when she's seven or eight months pregnant, moves in with her mother and goes through a series of rituals and ceremonies, give birth and returns home to her nuclear family several months after the child is born. And this is one of many ways that we think other cultures offset this kind of lonely period. AV: So taboo number three: you can't talk about your miscarriage -- but today I'll talk about mine. So after we had Declan, we kind of recalibrated our expectations. We thought we actually could go through this again and thought we knew what we would be up against. And we were grateful that I was able to get pregnant, and I soon learned that we were having a boy, and then when I was five months, we learned that we had lost our child. This is actually the last little image we have of him. And it was obviously a very difficult time -- really painful. As I was working through that mourning process, I was amazed that I didn't want to see anybody. I really wanted to crawl into a hole, and I didn't really know how I was going to work my way back into my surrounding community. And I realize, I think, the way I was feeling that way, is on a really deep gut level, I was feeling a lot of shame and embarrassed, frankly, that, in some respects, I had failed at delivering what I'm genetically engineered to do. And of course, it made me question, if I wasn't able to have another child, what would that mean for my marriage, and just me as a woman. So it was a very difficult time. As I started working through it more, I started climbing out of that hole and talking with other people. I was really amazed by all the stories that started flooding in. People I interacted with daily, worked with, was friends with, family members that I had known a long time, had never shared with me their own stories. And I just remember feeling all these stories came out of the woodwork, and I felt like I happened upon this secret society of women that I now was a part of, which was reassuring and also really concerning. And I think, miscarriage is an invisible loss. There's not really a lot of community support around it. There's really no ceremony, rituals, or rites. And I think, with a death, you have a funeral, you celebrate the life, and there's a lot of community support, and it's something women don't have with miscarriage. RG: Which is too bad because, of course, it's a very common and very traumatic experience. Fifteen to 20 percent of all pregnancies result in miscarriage, and I find this astounding. In a survey, 74 percent of women said that miscarriage, they felt, was partly their fault, which is awful. And astoundingly, 22 percent said they would hide a miscarriage from their spouse. So taboo number four: you can't say that your average happiness has declined since having a child. The party line is that every single aspect of my life has just gotten dramatically better ever since I participated in the miracle that is childbirth and family. I'll never forget, I remember vividly to this day, our first son, Declan, was nine months old, and I was sitting there on the couch, and I was reading Daniel Gilbert's wonderful book, "Stumbling on Happiness." And I got about two-thirds of the way through, and there was a chart on the right-hand side -- on the right-hand page -- that we've labeled here "The Most Terrifying Chart Imaginable for a New Parent." This chart is comprised of four completely independent studies. Basically, there's this precipitous drop of marital satisfaction, which is closely aligned, we all know, with broader happiness, that doesn't rise again until your first child goes to college. So I'm sitting here looking at the next two decades of my life, this chasm of happiness that we're driving our proverbial convertible straight into. We were despondent. AV: So you can imagine, I mean again, the first few months were difficult, but we'd come out of it, and were really shocked to see this study. So we really wanted to take a deeper look at it in hopes that we would find a silver lining. RG: And that's when it's great to be running a website for parents, because we got this incredible reporter to go and interview all the scientists who conducted these four studies. We said, something is wrong here. There's something missing from these studies. It can't possibly be that bad. So Liz Mitchell did a wonderful job with this piece, and she interviewed four scientists, and she also interviewed Daniel Gilbert, and we did indeed find a silver lining. So this is our guess as to what this baseline of average happiness arguably looks like throughout life. Average happiness is, of course, inadequate, because it doesn't speak to the moment-by-moment experience, and so this is what we think it looks like when you layer in moment-to-moment experience. And so we all remember as children, the tiniest little thing -- and we see it on the faces of our children -- the teeniest little thing can just rocket them to these heights of just utter adulation, and then the next teeniest little thing can cause them just to plummet to the depths of despair. And it's just extraordinary to watch, and we remember it ourselves. And then, of course, as you get older, it's almost like age is a form of lithium. As you get older, you become more stable. And part of what happens, I think, in your '20s and '30s, is you start to learn to hedge your happiness. You start to realize that "Hey, I could go to this live music event and have an utterly transforming experience that will cover my entire body with goosebumps, but it's more likely that I'll feel claustrophobic and I won't be able to get a beer. So I'm not going to go. I've got a good stereo at home. So, I'm not going to go." So your average happiness goes up, but you lose those transcendent moments. AV: Yeah, and then you have your first child, and then you really resubmit yourself to these highs and lows -- the highs being the first steps, the first smile, your child reading to you for the first time -- the lows being, our house, any time from six to seven every night. But you realize you resubmit yourself to losing control in a really wonderful way, which we think provides a lot of meaning to our lives and is quite gratifying. RG: And so in effect, we trade average happiness. We trade the sort of security and safety of a certain level of contentment for these transcendent moments. So where does that leave the two of us as a family with our three little boys in the thick of all this? There's another factor in our case. We have violated yet another taboo in our own lives, and this is a bonus taboo. AV: A quick bonus taboo for you, that we should not be working together, especially with three children -- and we are. RG: And we had reservations about this on the front end. Everybody knows, you should absolutely not work with your spouse. In fact, when we first went out to raise money to start Babble, the venture capitalists said, "We categorically don't invest in companies founded by husbands and wives, because there's an extra point of failure. It's a bad idea. Don't do it." And we obviously went forward. We did. We raised the money, and we're thrilled that we did, because in this phase of one's life, the incredibly scarce resource is time. And if you're really passionate about what you do every day -- which we are -- and you're also passionate about your relationship, this is the only way we know how to do it. And so the final question that we would ask is: can we collectively bend that happiness chart upwards? It's great that we have these transcendent moments of joy, but they're sometimes pretty quick. And so how about that average baseline of happiness? Can we move that up a little bit? AV: And we kind of feel that the happiness gap, which we talked about, is really the result of walking into parenting -- and really any long-term partnership for that matter -- with the wrong expectations. And if you have the right expectations and expectation management, we feel like it's going to be a pretty gratifying experience. RG: And so this is what -- And we think that a lot of parents, when you get in there -- in our case anyway -- you pack your bags for a trip to Europe, and you're really excited to go. Get out of the airplane, it turns out you're trekking in Nepal. And trekking in Nepal is an extraordinary experience, particularly if you pack your bags properly and you know what you're getting in for and you're psyched. So the point of all this for us today is not just hopefully honesty for the sake of honesty, but a hope that by being more honest and candid about these experiences, that we can all collectively bend that happiness baseline up a little bit. RG + AV: Thank you. (Applause)

About 10 years ago, I took on the task to teach global development to Swedish undergraduate students. That was after having spent about 20 years together with African institutions studying hunger in Africa, so I was sort of expected to know a little about the world. And I started in our medical university, Karolinska Institute, an undergraduate course called Global Health. But when you get that opportunity, you get a little nervous. I thought, these students coming to us actually have the highest grade you can get in Swedish college systems -- so, I thought, maybe they know everything I'm going to teach them about. So I did a pre-test when they came. And one of the questions from which I learned a lot was this one: "Which country has the highest child mortality of these five pairs?" And I put them together, so that in each pair of country, one has twice the child mortality of the other. And this means that it's much bigger a difference than the uncertainty of the data. I won't put you at a test here, but it's Turkey, which is highest there, Poland, Russia, Pakistan and South Africa. And these were the results of the Swedish students. I did it so I got the confidence interval, which is pretty narrow, and I got happy, of course: a 1.8 right answer out of five possible. That means that there was a place for a professor of international health -- (Laughter) and for my course. But one late night, when I was compiling the report I really realized my discovery. I have shown that Swedish top students know statistically significantly less about the world than the chimpanzees. (Laughter) Because the chimpanzee would score half right if I gave them two bananas with Sri Lanka and Turkey. They would be right half of the cases. But the students are not there. The problem for me was not ignorance; it was preconceived ideas. I did also an unethical study of the professors of the Karolinska Institute (Laughter) -- that hands out the Nobel Prize in Medicine, and they are on par with the chimpanzee there. (Laughter) This is where I realized that there was really a need to communicate, because the data of what's happening in the world and the child health of every country is very well aware. We did this software which displays it like this: every bubble here is a country. This country over here is China. This is India. The size of the bubble is the population, and on this axis here I put fertility rate. Because my students, what they said when they looked upon the world, and I asked them, "What do you really think about the world?" Well, I first discovered that the textbook was Tintin, mainly. (Laughter) And they said, "The world is still 'we' and 'them.' And we is Western world and them is Third World." "And what do you mean with Western world?" I said. "Well, that's long life and small family, and Third World is short life and large family." So this is what I could display here. I put fertility rate here: number of children per woman: one, two, three, four, up to about eight children per woman. We have very good data since 1962 -- 1960 about -- on the size of families in all countries. The error margin is narrow. Here I put life expectancy at birth, from 30 years in some countries up to about 70 years. And 1962, there was really a group of countries here that was industrialized countries, and they had small families and long lives. And these were the developing countries: they had large families and they had relatively short lives. Now what has happened since 1962? We want to see the change. Are the students right? Is it still two types of countries? Or have these developing countries got smaller families and they live here? Or have they got longer lives and live up there? Let's see. We stopped the world then. This is all U.N. statistics that have been available. Here we go. Can you see there? It's China there, moving against better health there, improving there. All the green Latin American countries are moving towards smaller families. Your yellow ones here are the Arabic countries, and they get larger families, but they -- no, longer life, but not larger families. The Africans are the green down here. They still remain here. This is India. Indonesia's moving on pretty fast. (Laughter) And in the '80s here, you have Bangladesh still among the African countries there. But now, Bangladesh -- it's a miracle that happens in the '80s: the imams start to promote family planning. They move up into that corner. And in '90s, we have the terrible HIV epidemic that takes down the life expectancy of the African countries and all the rest of them move up into the corner, where we have long lives and small family, and we have a completely new world. (Applause) Let me make a comparison directly between the United States of America and Vietnam. 1964: America had small families and long life; Vietnam had large families and short lives. And this is what happens: the data during the war indicate that even with all the death, there was an improvement of life expectancy. By the end of the year, the family planning started in Vietnam and they went for smaller families. And the United States up there is getting for longer life, keeping family size. And in the '80s now, they give up communist planning and they go for market economy, and it moves faster even than social life. And today, we have in Vietnam the same life expectancy and the same family size here in Vietnam, 2003, as in United States, 1974, by the end of the war. I think we all -- if we don't look in the data -- we underestimate the tremendous change in Asia, which was in social change before we saw the economical change. Let's move over to another way here in which we could display the distribution in the world of the income. This is the world distribution of income of people. One dollar, 10 dollars or 100 dollars per day. There's no gap between rich and poor any longer. This is a myth. There's a little hump here. But there are people all the way. And if we look where the income ends up -- the income -- this is 100 percent the world's annual income. And the richest 20 percent, they take out of that about 74 percent. And the poorest 20 percent, they take about two percent. And this shows that the concept of developing countries is extremely doubtful. We think about aid, like these people here giving aid to these people here. But in the middle, we have most the world population, and they have now 24 percent of the income. We heard it in other forms. And who are these? Where are the different countries? I can show you Africa. This is Africa. 10 percent the world population, most in poverty. This is OECD. The rich country. The country club of the U.N. And they are over here on this side. Quite an overlap between Africa and OECD. And this is Latin America. It has everything on this Earth, from the poorest to the richest, in Latin America. And on top of that, we can put East Europe, we can put East Asia, and we put South Asia. And how did it look like if we go back in time, to about 1970? Then there was more of a hump. And we have most who lived in absolute poverty were Asians. The problem in the world was the poverty in Asia. And if I now let the world move forward, you will see that while population increase, there are hundreds of millions in Asia getting out of poverty and some others getting into poverty, and this is the pattern we have today. And the best projection from the World Bank is that this will happen, and we will not have a divided world. We'll have most people in the middle. Of course it's a logarithmic scale here, but our concept of economy is growth with percent. We look upon it as a possibility of percentile increase. If I change this, and I take GDP per capita instead of family income, and I turn these individual data into regional data of gross domestic product, and I take the regions down here, the size of the bubble is still the population. And you have the OECD there, and you have sub-Saharan Africa there, and we take off the Arab states there, coming both from Africa and from Asia, and we put them separately, and we can expand this axis, and I can give it a new dimension here, by adding the social values there, child survival. Now I have money on that axis, and I have the possibility of children to survive there. In some countries, 99.7 percent of children survive to five years of age; others, only 70. And here it seems there is a gap between OECD, Latin America, East Europe, East Asia, Arab states, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The linearity is very strong between child survival and money. But let me split sub-Saharan Africa. Health is there and better health is up there. I can go here and I can split sub-Saharan Africa into its countries. And when it burst, the size of its country bubble is the size of the population. Sierra Leone down there. Mauritius is up there. Mauritius was the first country to get away with trade barriers, and they could sell their sugar -- they could sell their textiles -- on equal terms as the people in Europe and North America. There's a huge difference between Africa. And Ghana is here in the middle. In Sierra Leone, humanitarian aid. Here in Uganda, development aid. Here, time to invest; there, you can go for a holiday. It's a tremendous variation within Africa which we rarely often make -- that it's equal everything. I can split South Asia here. India's the big bubble in the middle. But a huge difference between Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. I can split Arab states. How are they? Same climate, same culture, same religion -- huge difference. Even between neighbors. Yemen, civil war. United Arab Emirate, money which was quite equally and well used. Not as the myth is. And that includes all the children of the foreign workers who are in the country. Data is often better than you think. Many people say data is bad. There is an uncertainty margin, but we can see the difference here: Cambodia, Singapore. The differences are much bigger than the weakness of the data. East Europe: Soviet economy for a long time, but they come out after 10 years very, very differently. And there is Latin America. Today, we don't have to go to Cuba to find a healthy country in Latin America. Chile will have a lower child mortality than Cuba within some few years from now. And here we have high-income countries in the OECD. And we get the whole pattern here of the world, which is more or less like this. And if we look at it, how it looks -- the world, in 1960, it starts to move. 1960. This is Mao Tse-tung. He brought health to China. And then he died. And then Deng Xiaoping came and brought money to China, and brought them into the mainstream again. And we have seen how countries move in different directions like this, so it's sort of difficult to get an example country which shows the pattern of the world. But I would like to bring you back to about here at 1960. I would like to compare South Korea, which is this one, with Brazil, which is this one. The label went away for me here. And I would like to compare Uganda, which is there. And I can run it forward, like this. And you can see how South Korea is making a very, very fast advancement, whereas Brazil is much slower. And if we move back again, here, and we put on trails on them, like this, you can see again that the speed of development is very, very different, and the countries are moving more or less in the same rate as money and health, but it seems you can move much faster if you are healthy first than if you are wealthy first. And to show that, you can put on the way of United Arab Emirate. They came from here, a mineral country. They cached all the oil; they got all the money; but health cannot be bought at the supermarket. You have to invest in health. You have to get kids into schooling. You have to train health staff. You have to educate the population. And Sheikh Sayed did that in a fairly good way. In spite of falling oil prices, he brought this country up here. So we've got a much more mainstream appearance of the world, where all countries tend to use their money better than they used in the past. Now, this is, more or less, if you look at the average data of the countries -- they are like this. Now that's dangerous, to use average data, because there is such a lot of difference within countries. So if I go and look here, we can see that Uganda today is where South Korea was 1960. If I split Uganda, there's quite a difference within Uganda. These are the quintiles of Uganda. The richest 20 percent of Ugandans are there. The poorest are down there. If I split South Africa, it's like this. And if I go down and look at Niger, where there was such a terrible famine, lastly, it's like this. The 20 percent poorest of Niger is out here, and the 20 percent richest of South Africa is there, and yet we tend to discuss on what solutions there should be in Africa. Everything in this world exists in Africa. And you can't discuss universal access to HIV [medicine] for that quintile up here with the same strategy as down here. The improvement of the world must be highly contextualized, and it's not relevant to have it on regional level. We must be much more detailed. We find that students get very excited when they can use this. And even more policy makers and the corporate sectors would like to see how the world is changing. Now, why doesn't this take place? Why are we not using the data we have? We have data in the United Nations, in the national statistical agencies and in universities and other non-governmental organizations. Because the data is hidden down in the databases. And the public is there, and the Internet is there, but we have still not used it effectively. All that information we saw changing in the world does not include publicly-funded statistics. There are some web pages like this, you know, but they take some nourishment down from the databases, but people put prices on them, stupid passwords and boring statistics. (Laughter) (Applause) And this won't work. So what is needed? We have the databases. It's not the new database you need. We have wonderful design tools, and more and more are added up here. So we started a nonprofit venture which we called -- linking data to design -- we call it Gapminder, from the London underground, where they warn you, "mind the gap." So we thought Gapminder was appropriate. And we started to write software which could link the data like this. And it wasn't that difficult. It took some person years, and we have produced animations. You can take a data set and put it there. We are liberating U.N. data, some few U.N. organization. Some countries accept that their databases can go out on the world, but what we really need is, of course, a search function. A search function where we can copy the data up to a searchable format and get it out in the world. And what do we hear when we go around? I've done anthropology on the main statistical units. Everyone says, "It's impossible. This can't be done. Our information is so peculiar in detail, so that cannot be searched as others can be searched. We cannot give the data free to the students, free to the entrepreneurs of the world." But this is what we would like to see, isn't it? The publicly-funded data is down here. And we would like flowers to grow out on the Net. And one of the crucial points is to make them searchable, and then people can use the different design tool to animate it there. And I have a pretty good news for you. I have a good news that the present, new Head of U.N. Statistics, he doesn't say it's impossible. He only says, "We can't do it." (Laughter) And that's a quite clever guy, huh? (Laughter) So we can see a lot happening in data in the coming years. We will be able to look at income distributions in completely new ways. This is the income distribution of China, 1970. the income distribution of the United States, 1970. Almost no overlap. Almost no overlap. And what has happened? What has happened is this: that China is growing, it's not so equal any longer, and it's appearing here, overlooking the United States. Almost like a ghost, isn't it, huh? (Laughter) It's pretty scary. But I think it's very important to have all this information. We need really to see it. And instead of looking at this, I would like to end up by showing the Internet users per 1,000. In this software, we access about 500 variables from all the countries quite easily. It takes some time to change for this, but on the axises, you can quite easily get any variable you would like to have. And the thing would be to get up the databases free, to get them searchable, and with a second click, to get them into the graphic formats, where you can instantly understand them. Now, statisticians doesn't like it, because they say that this will not show the reality; we have to have statistical, analytical methods. But this is hypothesis-generating. I end now with the world. There, the Internet is coming. The number of Internet users are going up like this. This is the GDP per capita. And it's a new technology coming in, but then amazingly, how well it fits to the economy of the countries. That's why the 100 dollar computer will be so important. But it's a nice tendency. It's as if the world is flattening off, isn't it? These countries are lifting more than the economy and will be very interesting to follow this over the year, as I would like you to be able to do with all the publicly funded data. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I'm a storyteller. That's what I do in life -- telling stories, writing novels -- and today I would like to tell you a few stories about the art of storytelling and also some supernatural creatures called the djinni. But before I go there, please allow me to share with you glimpses of my personal story. I will do so with the help of words, of course, but also a geometrical shape, the circle, so throughout my talk, you will come across several circles. I was born in Strasbourg, France to Turkish parents. Shortly after, my parents got separated, and I came to Turkey with my mom. From then on, I was raised as a single child by a single mother. Now in the early 1970s, in Ankara, that was a bit unusual. Our neighborhood was full of large families, where fathers were the heads of households, so I grew up seeing my mother as a divorcee in a patriarchal environment. In fact, I grew up observing two different kinds of womanhood. On the one hand was my mother, a well-educated, secular, modern, westernized, Turkish woman. On the other hand was my grandmother, who also took care of me and was more spiritual, less educated and definitely less rational. This was a woman who read coffee grounds to see the future and melted lead into mysterious shapes to fend off the evil eye. Many people visited my grandmother, people with severe acne on their faces or warts on their hands. Each time, my grandmother would utter some words in Arabic, take a red apple and stab it with as many rose thorns as the number of warts she wanted to remove. Then one by one, she would encircle these thorns with dark ink. A week later, the patient would come back for a follow-up examination. Now, I'm aware that I should not be saying such things in front of an audience of scholars and scientists, but the truth is, of all the people who visited my grandmother for their skin conditions, I did not see anyone go back unhappy or unhealed. I asked her how she did this. Was it the power of praying? In response she said, "Yes, praying is effective, but also beware of the power of circles." From her, I learned, amongst many other things, one very precious lesson -- that if you want to destroy something in this life, be it an acne, a blemish or the human soul, all you need to do is to surround it with thick walls. It will dry up inside. Now we all live in some kind of a social and cultural circle. We all do. We're born into a certain family, nation, class. But if we have no connection whatsoever with the worlds beyond the one we take for granted, then we too run the risk of drying up inside. Our imagination might shrink; our hearts might dwindle, and our humanness might wither if we stay for too long inside our cultural cocoons. Our friends, neighbors, colleagues, family -- if all the people in our inner circle resemble us, it means we are surrounded with our mirror image. Now one other thing women like my grandma do in Turkey is to cover mirrors with velvet or to hang them on the walls with their backs facing out. It's an old Eastern tradition based on the knowledge that it's not healthy for a human being to spend too much time staring at his own reflection. Ironically, [living in] communities of the like-minded is one of the greatest dangers of today's globalized world. And it's happening everywhere, among liberals and conservatives, agnostics and believers, the rich and the poor, East and West alike. We tend to form clusters based on similarity, and then we produce stereotypes about other clusters of people. In my opinion, one way of transcending these cultural ghettos is through the art of storytelling. Stories cannot demolish frontiers, but they can punch holes in our mental walls. And through those holes, we can get a glimpse of the other, and sometimes even like what we see. I started writing fiction at the age of eight. My mother came home one day with a turquoise notebook and asked me if I'd be interested in keeping a personal journal. In retrospect, I think she was slightly worried about my sanity. I was constantly telling stories at home, which was good, except I told this to imaginary friends around me, which was not so good. I was an introverted child, to the point of communicating with colored crayons and apologizing to objects when I bumped into them, so my mother thought it might do me good to write down my day-to-day experiences and emotions. What she didn't know was that I thought my life was terribly boring, and the last thing I wanted to do was to write about myself. Instead, I began to write about people other than me and things that never really happened. And thus began my life-long passion for writing fiction. So from the very beginning, fiction for me was less of an autobiographical manifestation than a transcendental journey into other lives, other possibilities. And please bear with me: I'll draw a circle and come back to this point. Now one other thing happened around this same time. My mother became a diplomat. So from this small, superstitious, middle-class neighborhood of my grandmother, I was zoomed into this posh, international school [in Madrid], where I was the only Turk. It was here that I had my first encounter with what I call the "representative foreigner." In our classroom, there were children from all nationalities, yet this diversity did not necessarily lead to a cosmopolitan, egalitarian classroom democracy. Instead, it generated an atmosphere in which each child was seen -- not as an individual on his own, but as the representative of something larger. We were like a miniature United Nations, which was fun, except whenever something negative, with regards to a nation or a religion, took place. The child who represented it was mocked, ridiculed and bullied endlessly. And I should know, because during the time I attended that school, a military takeover happened in my country, a gunman of my nationality nearly killed the Pope, and Turkey got zero points in [the] Eurovision Song Contest. (Laughter) I skipped school often and dreamed of becoming a sailor during those days. I also had my first taste of cultural stereotypes there. The other children asked me about the movie "Midnight Express," which I had not seen; they inquired how many cigarettes a day I smoked, because they thought all Turks were heavy smokers, and they wondered at what age I would start covering my hair. I came to learn that these were the three main stereotypes about my country: politics, cigarettes and the veil. After Spain, we went to Jordan, Germany and Ankara again. Everywhere I went, I felt like my imagination was the only suitcase I could take with me. Stories gave me a sense of center, continuity and coherence, the three big Cs that I otherwise lacked. In my mid-twenties, I moved to Istanbul, the city I adore. I lived in a very vibrant, diverse neighborhood where I wrote several of my novels. I was in Istanbul when the earthquake hit in 1999. When I ran out of the building at three in the morning, I saw something that stopped me in my tracks. There was the local grocer there -- a grumpy, old man who didn't sell alcohol and didn't speak to marginals. He was sitting next to a transvestite with a long black wig and mascara running down her cheeks. I watched the man open a pack of cigarettes with trembling hands and offer one to her, and that is the image of the night of the earthquake in my mind today -- a conservative grocer and a crying transvestite smoking together on the sidewalk. In the face of death and destruction, our mundane differences evaporated, and we all became one even if for a few hours. But I've always believed that stories, too, have a similar effect on us. I'm not saying that fiction has the magnitude of an earthquake, but when we are reading a good novel, we leave our small, cozy apartments behind, go out into the night alone and start getting to know people we had never met before and perhaps had even been biased against. Shortly after, I went to a women's college in Boston, then Michigan. I experienced this, not so much as a geographical shift, as a linguistic one. I started writing fiction in English. I'm not an immigrant, refugee or exile -- they ask me why I do this -- but the commute between languages gives me the chance to recreate myself. I love writing in Turkish, which to me is very poetic and very emotional, and I love writing in English, which to me is very mathematical and cerebral. So I feel connected to each language in a different way. For me, like millions of other people around the world today, English is an acquired language. When you're a latecomer to a language, what happens is you live there with a continuous and perpetual frustration. As latecomers, we always want to say more, you know, crack better jokes, say better things, but we end up saying less because there's a gap between the mind and the tongue. And that gap is very intimidating. But if we manage not to be frightened by it, it's also stimulating. And this is what I discovered in Boston -- that frustration was very stimulating. At this stage, my grandmother, who had been watching the course of my life with increasing anxiety, started to include in her daily prayers that I urgently get married so that I could settle down once and for all. And because God loves her, I did get married. (Laughter) But instead of settling down, I went to Arizona. And since my husband is in Istanbul, I started commuting between Arizona and Istanbul -- the two places on the surface of earth that couldn't be more different. I guess one part of me has always been a nomad, physically and spiritually. Stories accompany me, keeping my pieces and memories together, like an existential glue. Yet as much as I love stories, recently, I've also begun to think that they lose their magic if and when a story is seen as more than a story. And this is a subject that I would love to think about together. When my first novel written in English came out in America, I heard an interesting remark from a literary critic. "I liked your book," he said, "but I wish you had written it differently." (Laughter) I asked him what he meant by that. He said, "Well, look at it. There's so many Spanish, American, Hispanic characters in it, but there's only one Turkish character and it's a man." Now the novel took place on a university campus in Boston, so to me, it was normal that there be more international characters in it than Turkish characters, but I understood what my critic was looking for. And I also understood that I would keep disappointing him. He wanted to see the manifestation of my identity. He was looking for a Turkish woman in the book because I happened to be one. We often talk about how stories change the world, but we should also see how the world of identity politics affects the way stories are being circulated, read and reviewed. Many authors feel this pressure, but non-Western authors feel it more heavily. If you're a woman writer from the Muslim world, like me, then you are expected to write the stories of Muslim women and, preferably, the unhappy stories of unhappy Muslim women. You're expected to write informative, poignant and characteristic stories and leave the experimental and avant-garde to your Western colleagues. What I experienced as a child in that school in Madrid is happening in the literary world today. Writers are not seen as creative individuals on their own, but as the representatives of their respective cultures: a few authors from China, a few from Turkey, a few from Nigeria. We're all thought to have something very distinctive, if not peculiar. The writer and commuter James Baldwin gave an interview in 1984 in which he was repeatedly asked about his homosexuality. When the interviewer tried to pigeonhole him as a gay writer, Baldwin stopped and said, "But don't you see? There's nothing in me that is not in everybody else, and nothing in everybody else that is not in me." When identity politics tries to put labels on us, it is our freedom of imagination that is in danger. There's a fuzzy category called multicultural literature in which all authors from outside the Western world are lumped together. I never forget my first multicultural reading, in Harvard Square about 10 years ago. We were three writers, one from the Philippines, one Turkish and one Indonesian -- like a joke, you know. (Laughter) And the reason why we were brought together was not because we shared an artistic style or a literary taste. It was only because of our passports. Multicultural writers are expected to tell real stories, not so much the imaginary. A function is attributed to fiction. In this way, not only the writers themselves, but also their fictional characters become the representatives of something larger. But I must quickly add that this tendency to see a story as more than a story does not solely come from the West. It comes from everywhere. And I experienced this firsthand when I was put on trial in 2005 for the words my fictional characters uttered in a novel. I had intended to write a constructive, multi-layered novel about an Armenian and a Turkish family through the eyes of women. My micro story became a macro issue when I was prosecuted. Some people criticized, others praised me for writing about the Turkish-Armenian conflict. But there were times when I wanted to remind both sides that this was fiction. It was just a story. And when I say, "just a story," I'm not trying to belittle my work. I want to love and celebrate fiction for what it is, not as a means to an end. Writers are entitled to their political opinions, and there are good political novels out there, but the language of fiction is not the language of daily politics. Chekhov said, "The solution to a problem and the correct way of posing the question are two completely separate things. And only the latter is an artist's responsibility." Identity politics divides us. Fiction connects. One is interested in sweeping generalizations. The other, in nuances. One draws boundaries. The other recognizes no frontiers. Identity politics is made of solid bricks. Fiction is flowing water. In the Ottoman times, there were itinerant storytellers called "meddah." They would go to coffee houses, where they would tell a story in front of an audience, often improvising. With each new person in the story, the meddah would change his voice, impersonating that character. Everybody could go and listen, you know -- ordinary people, even the sultan, Muslims and non-Muslims. Stories cut across all boundaries, like "The Tales of Nasreddin Hodja," which were very popular throughout the Middle East, North Africa, the Balkans and Asia. Today, stories continue to transcend borders. When Palestinian and Israeli politicians talk, they usually don't listen to each other, but a Palestinian reader still reads a novel by a Jewish author, and vice versa, connecting and empathizing with the narrator. Literature has to take us beyond. If it cannot take us there, it is not good literature. Books have saved the introverted, timid child that I was -- that I once was. But I'm also aware of the danger of fetishizing them. When the poet and mystic, Rumi, met his spiritual companion, Shams of Tabriz, one of the first things the latter did was to toss Rumi's books into water and watch the letters dissolve. The Sufis say, "Knowledge that takes you not beyond yourself is far worse than ignorance." The problem with today's cultural ghettos is not lack of knowledge -- we know a lot about each other, or so we think -- but knowledge that takes us not beyond ourselves: it makes us elitist, distant and disconnected. There's a metaphor which I love: living like a drawing compass. As you know, one leg of the compass is static, rooted in a place. Meanwhile, the other leg draws a wide circle, constantly moving. Like that, my fiction as well. One part of it is rooted in Istanbul, with strong Turkish roots, but the other part travels the world, connecting to different cultures. In that sense, I like to think of my fiction as both local and universal, both from here and everywhere. Now those of you who have been to Istanbul have probably seen Topkapi Palace, which was the residence of Ottoman sultans for more than 400 years. In the palace, just outside the quarters of the favorite concubines, there's an area called The Gathering Place of the Djinn. It's between buildings. I'm intrigued by this concept. We usually distrust those areas that fall in between things. We see them as the domain of supernatural creatures like the djinn, who are made of smokeless fire and are the symbol of elusiveness. But my point is perhaps that elusive space is what writers and artists need most. When I write fiction I cherish elusiveness and changeability. I like not knowing what will happen 10 pages later. I like it when my characters surprise me. I might write about a Muslim woman in one novel, and perhaps it will be a very happy story, and in my next book, I might write about a handsome, gay professor in Norway. As long as it comes from our hearts, we can write about anything and everything. Audre Lorde once said, "The white fathers taught us to say, 'I think, therefore I am.'" She suggested, "I feel, therefore I am free." I think it was a wonderful paradigm shift. And yet, why is it that, in creative writing courses today, the very first thing we teach students is "write what you know"? Perhaps that's not the right way to start at all. Imaginative literature is not necessarily about writing who we are or what we know or what our identity is about. We should teach young people and ourselves to expand our hearts and write what we can feel. We should get out of our cultural ghetto and go visit the next one and the next. In the end, stories move like whirling dervishes, drawing circles beyond circles. They connect all humanity, regardless of identity politics, and that is the good news. And I would like to finish with an old Sufi poem: "Come, let us be friends for once; let us make life easy on us; let us be lovers and loved ones; the earth shall be left to no one." Thank you. (Applause)

This meeting has really been about a digital revolution, but I'd like to argue that it's done; we won. We've had a digital revolution but we don't need to keep having it. And I'd like to look after that, to look what comes after the digital revolution. So, let me start projecting forward. These are some projects I'm involved in today at MIT, looking what comes after computers. This first one, Internet Zero, up here -- this is a web server that has the cost and complexity of an RFID tag -- about a dollar -- that can go in every light bulb and doorknob, and this is getting commercialized very quickly. And what's interesting about it isn't the cost; it's the way it encodes the Internet. It uses a kind of a Morse code for the Internet so you could send it optically; you can communicate acoustically through a power line, through RF. It takes the original principle of the Internet, which is inter-networking computers, and now lets devices inter-network. That we can take the whole idea that gave birth to the Internet and bring it down to the physical world in this Internet Zero, this internet of devices. So this is the next step from there to here, and this is getting commercialized today. A step after that is a project on fungible computers. Fungible goods in economics can be extended and traded. So, half as much grain is half as much useful, but half a baby or half a computer is less useful than a whole baby or a whole computer, and we've been trying to make computers that work that way. So, what you see in the background is a prototype. This was from a thesis of a student, Bill Butow, now at Intel, who wondered why, instead of making bigger and bigger chips, you don't make small chips, put them in a viscous medium, and pour out computing by the pound or by the square inch. And that's what you see here. On the left was postscript being rendered by a conventional computer; on the right is postscript being rendered from the first prototype we made, but there's no frame buffer, IO processor, any of that stuff -- it's just this material. Unlike this screen where the dots are placed carefully, this is a raw material. If you add twice as much of it, you have twice as much display. If you shoot a gun through the middle, nothing happens. If you need more resource, you just apply more computer. So, that's the step after this -- of computing as a raw material. That's still conventional bits, the step after that is -- this is an earlier prototype in the lab; this is high-speed video slowed down. Now, integrating chemistry in computation, where the bits are bubbles. This is showing making bits, this is showing -- once again, slowed down so you can see it, bits interacting to do logic and multiplexing and de-multiplexing. So, now we can compute that the output arranges material as well as information. And, ultimately, these are some slides from an early project I did, computing where the bits are stored quantum-mechanically in the nuclei of atoms, so programs rearrange the nuclear structure of molecules. All of these are in the lab pushing further and further and further, not as metaphor but literally integrating bits and atoms, and they lead to the following recognition. We all know we've had a digital revolution, but what is that? Well, Shannon took us, in the '40s, from here to here: from a telephone being a speaker wire that degraded with distance to the Internet. And he proved the first threshold theorem, that shows if you add information and remove it to a signal, you can compute perfectly with an imperfect device. And that's when we got the Internet. Von Neumann, in the '50s, did the same thing for computing; he showed you can have an unreliable computer but restore its state to make it perfect. This was the last great analog computer at MIT: a differential analyzer, and the more you ran it, the worse the answer got. After Von Neumann, we have the Pentium, where the billionth transistor is as reliable as the first one. But all our fabrication is down in this lower left corner. A state-of-the-art airplane factory rotating metal wax at fixed metal, or you maybe melt some plastic. A 10-billion-dollar chip fab uses a process a village artisan would recognize -- you spread stuff around and bake it. All the intelligence is external to the system; the materials don't have information. Yesterday you heard about molecular biology, which fundamentally computes to build. It's an information processing system. We've had digital revolutions in communication and computation, but precisely the same idea, precisely the same math Shannon and Von Neuman did, hasn't yet come out to the physical world. So, inspired by that, colleagues in this program -- the Center for Bits and Atoms at MIT -- which is a group of people, like me, who never understood the boundary between physical science and computer science. I would even go further and say computer science is one of the worst things that ever happened to either computers or to science -- (Laughter) -- because the canon -- computer science -- many of them are great but the canon of computer science prematurely froze a model of computation based on technology that was available in 1950, and nature's a much more powerful computer than that. So, you'll hear, tomorrow, from Saul Griffith. He was one of the first students to emerge from this program. We started to figure out how you can compute to fabricate. This was just a proof of principle he did of tiles that interact magnetically, where you write a code, much like protein folding, that specifies their structure. So, there's no feedback to a tool metrology; the material itself codes for its structure in just the same ways that protein are fabricated. So, you can, for example, do that. You can do other things. That's in 2D. It works in 3D. The video on the upper right -- I won't show for time -- shows self-replication, templating so something can make something that can make something, and we're doing that now over, maybe, nine orders of magnitude. Those ideas have been used to show the best fidelity and direct rate DNA to make an organism, in functionalizing nanoclusters with peptide tails that code for their assembly -- so, much like the magnets, but now on nanometer scales. Laser micro-machining: essentially 3D printers that digitally fabricate functional systems, all the way up to building buildings, not by having blueprints, but having the parts code for the structure of the building. So, these are early examples in the lab of emerging technologies to digitize fabrication. Computers that don't control tools but computers that are tools, where the output of a program rearranges atoms as well as bits. Now, to do that -- with your tax dollars, thank you -- I bought all these machines. We made a modest proposal to the NSF. We wanted to be able to make anything on any length scale, all in one place, because you can't segregate digital fabrication by a discipline or a length scale. So we put together focused nano beam writers and supersonic water jet cutters and excimer micro-machining systems. But I had a problem. Once I had all these machines, I was spending too much time teaching students to use them. So I started teaching a class, modestly called, "How To Make Almost Anything." And that wasn't meant to be provocative; it was just for a few research students. But the first day of class looked like this. You know, hundreds of people came in begging, all my life I've been waiting for this class; I'll do anything to do it. Then they'd ask, can you teach it at MIT? It seems too useful? And then the next -- (Laughter) -- surprising thing was they weren't there to do research. They were there because they wanted to make stuff. They had no conventional technical background. At the end of a semester they integrated their skills. I'll show an old video. Kelly was a sculptor, and this is what she did with her semester project. (Video): Kelly: Hi, I'm Kelly and this is my scream buddy. Do you ever find yourself in a situation where you really have to scream, but you can't because you're at work, or you're in a classroom, or you're watching your children, or you're in any number of situations where it's just not permitted? Well, scream buddy is a portable space for screaming. When a user screams into scream buddy, their scream is silenced. It is also recorded for later release where, when and how the user chooses. (Scream) (Laughter) (Applause) So, Einstein would like this. This student made a web browser for parrots -- lets parrots surf the Net and talk to other parrots. This student's made an alarm clock you wrestle to prove you're awake; this is one that defends -- a dress that defends your personal space. This isn't technology for communication; it's technology to prevent it. This is a device that lets you see your music. This is a student who made a machine that makes machines, and he made it by making Lego bricks that do the computing. Just year after year -- and I finally realized the students were showing the killer app of personal fabrication is products for a market of one person. You don't need this for what you can get in Wal-Mart; you need this for what makes you unique. Ken Olsen famously said, nobody needs a computer in the home. But you don't use it for inventory and payroll; DEC is now twice bankrupt. You don't need personal fabrication in the home to buy what you can buy because you can buy it. You need it for what makes you unique, just like personalization. So, with that, in turn, 20 million dollars today does this; 20 years from now we'll make Star Trek replicators that make anything. The students hijacked all the machines I bought to do personal fabrication. Today, when you spend that much of your money, there's a government requirement to do outreach, which often means classes at a local school, a website -- stuff that's just not that exciting. So, I made a deal with my NSF program managers that instead of talking about it, I'd give people the tools. This wasn't meant to be provocative or important, but we put together these Fab Labs. It's about 20,000 dollars in equipment that approximate both what the 20 million dollars does and where it's going. A laser cutter to do press-fit assembly with 3D from 2D, a sign cutter to plot in copper to do electromagnetics, a micron scale, numerically-controlled milling machine for precise structures, programming tools for less than a dollar, 100-nanosecond microcontrollers. It lets you work from microns and microseconds on up, and they exploded around the world. This wasn't scheduled, but they went from inner-city Boston to Pobal in India, to Secondi-Takoradi on Ghana's coast to Soshanguve in a township in South Africa, to the far north of Norway, uncovering, or helping uncover, for all the attention to the digital divide, we would find unused computers in all these places. A farmer in a rural village -- a kid needs to measure and modify the world, not just get information about it on a screen. That there's really a fabrication and an instrumentation divide bigger than the digital divide. And the way you close it is not IT for the masses but IT development for the masses. So, in place after place we saw this same progression: that we'd open one of these Fab Labs, where we didn't -- this is too crazy to think of. We didn't think this up, that we would get pulled to these places; we'd open it. The first step was just empowerment. You can see it in their face, just this joy of, I can do it. This is a girl in inner-city Boston who had just done a high-tech on-demand craft sale in the inner city community center. It goes on from there to serious hands-on technical education informally, out of schools. In Ghana we had set up one of these labs. We designed a network sensor, and kids would show up and refuse to leave the lab. There was a girl who insisted we stay late at night -- (Video): Kids: I love the Fab Lab. -- her first night in the lab because she was going to make the sensor. So she insisted on fabbing the board, learning how to stuff it, learning how to program it. She didn't really know what she was doing or why she was doing it, but she knew she just had to do it. There was something electric about it. This is late at, you know, 11 o'clock at night and I think I was the only person surprised when what she built worked the first time. And I've shown this to engineers at big companies, and they say they can't do this. Any one thing she's doing, they can do better, but it's distributed over many people and many sites and they can't do in an afternoon what this little girl in rural Ghana is doing. (Video): Girl: My name is Valentina Kofi; I am eight years old. I made a stacking board. And, again, that was just for the joy of it. Then these labs started doing serious problem solving -- instrumentation for agriculture in India, steam turbines for energy conversion in Ghana, high-gain antennas in thin client computers. And then, in turn, businesses started to grow, like making these antennas. And finally, the lab started doing invention. We're learning more from them than we're giving them. I was showing my kids in a Fab Lab how to use it. They invented a way to do a construction kit out of a cardboard box -- which, as you see up there, that's becoming a business -- but their design was better than Saul's design at MIT, so there's now three students at MIT doing their theses on scaling the work of eight-year-old children because they had better designs. Real invention is happening in these labs. And I still kept -- so, in the last year I've been spending time with heads of state and generals and tribal chiefs who all want this, and I keep saying, but this isn't the real thing. Wait, like, 20 years and then we'll be done. And I finally got what's been going on. This is Kernigan and Ritchie inventing UNIX on a PDP. PDPs came between mainframes and minicomputers. They were tens of thousands of dollars, hard to use, but they brought computing down to work groups, and everything we do today happened there. These Fab Labs are the cost and complexity of a PDP. The projection of digital fabrication isn't a projection for the future; we are now in the PDP era. We talked in hushed tones about the great discoveries then. It was very chaotic, it wasn't, sort of, clear what was going on. In the same sense we are now, today, in the minicomputer era of digital fabrication. The only problem with that is it breaks everybody's boundaries. In DC, I go to every agency that wants to talk, you know; in the Bay Area, I go to every organization you can think of -- they all want to talk about it, but it breaks their organizational boundaries. In fact, it's illegal for them, in many cases, to equip ordinary people to create rather than consume technology. And that problem is so severe that the ultimate invention coming from this community surprised me: it's the social engineering. That the lab in far north of Norway -- this is so far north its satellite dishes look at the ground rather than the sky because that's where the satellites are -- the lab outgrew the little barn that it was in. It was there because they wanted to find animals in the mountains but it outgrew it, so they built this extraordinary village for the lab. This isn't a university; it's not a company. It's essentially a village for invention; it's a village for the outliers in society, and those have been growing up around these Fab Labs all around the world. So this program has split into an NGO foundation, a Fab Foundation to support the scaling, a micro VC fund. The person who runs it nicely describes it as "machines that make machines need businesses that make businesses:" it's a cross between micro-finance and VC to do fan-out, and then the research partnerships back at MIT for what's making it possible. So I'd like to leave you with two thoughts. There's been a sea change in aid, from top-down mega-projects to bottom-up, grassroots, micro-finance investing in the roots, so that everybody's got that that's what works. But we still look at technology as top-down mega-projects. Computing, communication, energy for the rest of the planet are these top-down mega-projects. If this room full of heroes is just clever enough, you can solve the problems. The message coming from the Fab Labs is that the other five billion people on the planet aren't just technical sinks; they're sources. The real opportunity is to harness the inventive power of the world to locally design and produce solutions to local problems. I thought that's the projection 20 years hence into the future, but it's where we are today. It breaks every organizational boundary we can think of. The hardest thing at this point is the social engineering and the organizational engineering, but it's here today. And, finally, any talk like this on the future of computing is required to show Moore's law, but my favorite version -- this is Gordon Moore's original one from his original paper -- and what's happened is, year after year after year, we've scaled and we've scaled and we've scaled and we've scaled, and we've scaled and we've scaled, and we've scaled and we've scaled, and there's this looming bug of what's going to happen at the end of Moore's law; this ultimate bug is coming. But we're coming to appreciate, is the transition from 2D to 3D, from programming bits to programming atoms, turns the ends of Moore's law scaling from the ultimate bug to the ultimate feature. So, we're just at the edge of this digital revolution in fabrication, where the output of computation programs the physical world. So, together, these two projects answer questions I hadn't asked carefully. The class at MIT shows the killer app for personal fabrication in the developed world is technology for a market of one: personal expression in technology that touches a passion unlike anything I've seen in technology for a very long time. And the killer app for the rest of the planet is the instrumentation and the fabrication divide: people locally developing solutions to local problems. Thank you.

I write about food. I write about cooking. I take it quite seriously, but I'm here to talk about something that's become very important to me in the last year or two. It is about food, but it's not about cooking, per se. I'm going to start with this picture of a beautiful cow. I'm not a vegetarian -- this is the old Nixon line, right? But I still think that this -- (Laughter) -- may be this year's version of this. Now, that is only a little bit hyperbolic. And why do I say it? Because only once before has the fate of individual people and the fate of all of humanity been so intertwined. There was the bomb, and there's now. And where we go from here is going to determine not only the quality and the length of our individual lives, but whether, if we could see the Earth a century from now, we'd recognize it. It's a holocaust of a different kind, and hiding under our desks isn't going to help. Start with the notion that global warming is not only real, but dangerous. Since every scientist in the world now believes this, and even President Bush has seen the light, or pretends to, we can take this is a given. Then hear this, please. After energy production, livestock is the second-highest contributor to atmosphere-altering gases. Nearly one-fifth of all greenhouse gas is generated by livestock production -- more than transportation. Now, you can make all the jokes you want about cow farts, but methane is 20 times more poisonous than CO2, and it's not just methane. Livestock is also one of the biggest culprits in land degradation, air and water pollution, water shortages and loss of biodiversity. There's more. Like half the antibiotics in this country are not administered to people, but to animals. But lists like this become kind of numbing, so let me just say this: if you're a progressive, if you're driving a Prius, or you're shopping green, or you're looking for organic, you should probably be a semi-vegetarian. Now, I'm no more anti-cattle than I am anti-atom, but it's all in the way we use these things. There's another piece of the puzzle, which Ann Cooper talked about beautifully yesterday, and one you already know. There's no question, none, that so-called lifestyle diseases -- diabetes, heart disease, stroke, some cancers -- are diseases that are far more prevalent here than anywhere in the rest of the world. And that's the direct result of eating a Western diet. Our demand for meat, dairy and refined carbohydrates -- the world consumes one billion cans or bottles of Coke a day -- our demand for these things, not our need, our want, drives us to consume way more calories than are good for us. And those calories are in foods that cause, not prevent, disease. Now global warming was unforeseen. We didn't know that pollution did more than cause bad visibility. Maybe a few lung diseases here and there, but, you know, that's not such a big deal. The current health crisis, however, is a little more the work of the evil empire. We were told, we were assured, that the more meat and dairy and poultry we ate, the healthier we'd be. No. Overconsumption of animals, and of course, junk food, is the problem, along with our paltry consumption of plants. Now, there's no time to get into the benefits of eating plants here, but the evidence is that plants -- and I want to make this clear -- it's not the ingredients in plants, it's the plants. It's not the beta-carotene, it's the carrot. The evidence is very clear that plants promote health. This evidence is overwhelming at this point. You eat more plants, you eat less other stuff, you live longer. Not bad. But back to animals and junk food. What do they have in common? One: we don't need either of them for health. We don't need animal products, and we certainly don't need white bread or Coke. Two: both have been marketed heavily, creating unnatural demand. We're not born craving Whoppers or Skittles. Three: their production has been supported by government agencies at the expense of a more health- and Earth-friendly diet. Now, let's imagine a parallel. Let's pretend that our government supported an oil-based economy, while discouraging more sustainable forms of energy, knowing all the while that the result would be pollution, war and rising costs. Incredible, isn't it? Yet they do that. And they do this here. It's the same deal. The sad thing is, when it comes to diet, is that even when well-intentioned Feds try to do right by us, they fail. Either they're outvoted by puppets of agribusiness, or they are puppets of agribusiness. So, when the USDA finally acknowledged that it was plants, rather than animals, that made people healthy, they encouraged us, via their overly simplistic food pyramid, to eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, along with more carbs. What they didn't tell us is that some carbs are better than others, and that plants and whole grains should be supplanting eating junk food. But industry lobbyists would never let that happen. And guess what? Half the people who developed the food pyramid have ties to agribusiness. So, instead of substituting plants for animals, our swollen appetites simply became larger, and the most dangerous aspects of them remained unchanged. So-called low-fat diets, so-called low-carb diets -- these are not solutions. But with lots of intelligent people focusing on whether food is organic or local, or whether we're being nice to animals, the most important issues just aren't being addressed. Now, don't get me wrong. I like animals, and I don't think it's just fine to industrialize their production and to churn them out like they were wrenches. But there's no way to treat animals well, when you're killing 10 billion of them a year. That's our number. 10 billion. If you strung all of them -- chickens, cows, pigs and lambs -- to the moon, they'd go there and back five times, there and back. Now, my math's a little shaky, but this is pretty good, and it depends whether a pig is four feet long or five feet long, but you get the idea. That's just the United States. And with our hyper-consumption of those animals producing greenhouse gases and heart disease, kindness might just be a bit of a red herring. Let's get the numbers of the animals we're killing for eating down, and then we'll worry about being nice to the ones that are left. Another red herring might be exemplified by the word "locavore," which was just named word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary. Seriously. And locavore, for those of you who don't know, is someone who eats only locally grown food -- which is fine if you live in California, but for the rest of us it's a bit of a sad joke. Between the official story -- the food pyramid -- and the hip locavore vision, you have two versions of how to improve our eating. (Laughter). They both get it wrong, though. The first at least is populist, and the second is elitist. How we got to this place is the history of food in the United States. And I'm going to go through that, at least the last hundred years or so, very quickly right now. A hundred years ago, guess what? Everyone was a locavore: even New York had pig farms nearby, and shipping food all over the place was a ridiculous notion. Every family had a cook, usually a mom. And those moms bought and prepared food. It was like your romantic vision of Europe. Margarine didn't exist. In fact, when margarine was invented, several states passed laws declaring that it had to be dyed pink, so we'd all know that it was a fake. There was no snack food, and until the '20s, until Clarence Birdseye came along, there was no frozen food. There were no restaurant chains. There were neighborhood restaurants run by local people, but none of them would think to open another one. Eating ethnic was unheard of unless you were ethnic. And fancy food was entirely French. As an aside, those of you who remember Dan Aykroyd in the 1970s doing Julia Child imitations can see where he got the idea of stabbing himself from this fabulous slide. (Laughter) Back in those days, before even Julia, back in those days, there was no philosophy of food. You just ate. You didn't claim to be anything. There was no marketing. There were no national brands. Vitamins had not been invented. There were no health claims, at least not federally sanctioned ones. Fats, carbs, proteins -- they weren't bad or good, they were food. You ate food. Hardly anything contained more than one ingredient, because it was an ingredient. The cornflake hadn't been invented. (Laughter) The Pop-Tart, the Pringle, Cheez Whiz, none of that stuff. Goldfish swam. (Laughter) It's hard to imagine. People grew food, and they ate food. And again, everyone ate local. In New York, an orange was a common Christmas present, because it came all the way from Florida. From the '30s on, road systems expanded, trucks took the place of railroads, fresh food began to travel more. Oranges became common in New York. The South and West became agricultural hubs, and in other parts of the country, suburbs took over farmland. The effects of this are well known. They are everywhere. And the death of family farms is part of this puzzle, as is almost everything from the demise of the real community to the challenge of finding a good tomato, even in summer. Eventually, California produced too much food to ship fresh, so it became critical to market canned and frozen foods. Thus arrived convenience. It was sold to proto-feminist housewives as a way to cut down on housework. Now, I know everybody over the age of, like 45 -- their mouths are watering at this point. (Laughter) (Applause) If we had a slide of Salisbury steak, even more so, right? (Laughter) But this may have cut down on housework, but it cut down on the variety of food we ate as well. Many of us grew up never eating a fresh vegetable except the occasional raw carrot or maybe an odd lettuce salad. I, for one -- and I'm not kidding -- didn't eat real spinach or broccoli till I was 19. Who needed it though? Meat was everywhere. What could be easier, more filling or healthier for your family than broiling a steak? But by then cattle were already raised unnaturally. Rather than spending their lives eating grass, for which their stomachs were designed, they were forced to eat soy and corn. They have trouble digesting those grains, of course, but that wasn't a problem for producers. New drugs kept them healthy. Well, they kept them alive. Healthy was another story. Thanks to farm subsidies, the fine collaboration between agribusiness and Congress, soy, corn and cattle became king. And chicken soon joined them on the throne. It was during this period that the cycle of dietary and planetary destruction began, the thing we're only realizing just now. Listen to this, between 1950 and 2000, the world's population doubled. Meat consumption increased five-fold. Now, someone had to eat all that stuff, so we got fast food. And this took care of the situation resoundingly. Home cooking remained the norm, but its quality was down the tubes. There were fewer meals with home-cooked breads, desserts and soups, because all of them could be bought at any store. Not that they were any good, but they were there. Most moms cooked like mine: a piece of broiled meat, a quickly made salad with bottled dressing, canned soup, canned fruit salad. Maybe baked or mashed potatoes, or perhaps the stupidest food ever, Minute Rice. For dessert, store-bought ice cream or cookies. My mom is not here, so I can say this now. This kind of cooking drove me to learn how to cook for myself. (Laughter) It wasn't all bad. By the '70s, forward-thinking people began to recognize the value of local ingredients. We tended gardens, we became interested in organic food, we knew or we were vegetarians. We weren't all hippies, either. Some of us were eating in good restaurants and learning how to cook well. Meanwhile, food production had become industrial. Industrial. Perhaps because it was being produced rationally, as if it were plastic, food gained magical or poisonous powers, or both. Many people became fat-phobic. Others worshiped broccoli, as if it were God-like. But mostly they didn't eat broccoli. Instead they were sold on yogurt, yogurt being almost as good as broccoli. Except, in reality, the way the industry sold yogurt was to convert it to something much more akin to ice cream. Similarly, let's look at a granola bar. You think that that might be healthy food, but in fact, if you look at the ingredient list, it's closer in form to a Snickers than it is to oatmeal. Sadly, it was at this time that the family dinner was put in a coma, if not actually killed -- the beginning of the heyday of value-added food, which contained as many soy and corn products as could be crammed into it. Think of the frozen chicken nugget. The chicken is fed corn, and then its meat is ground up, and mixed with more corn products to add bulk and binder, and then it's fried in corn oil. All you do is nuke it. What could be better? And zapped horribly, pathetically. By the '70s, home cooking was in such a sad state that the high fat and spice contents of foods like McNuggets and Hot Pockets -- and we all have our favorites, actually -- made this stuff more appealing than the bland things that people were serving at home. At the same time, masses of women were entering the workforce, and cooking simply wasn't important enough for men to share the burden. So now, you've got your pizza nights, you've got your microwave nights, you've got your grazing nights, you've got your fend-for-yourself nights and so on. Leading the way -- what's leading the way? Meat, junk food, cheese: the very stuff that will kill you. So, now we clamor for organic food. That's good. And as evidence that things can actually change, you can now find organic food in supermarkets, and even in fast-food outlets. But organic food isn't the answer either, at least not the way it's currently defined. Let me pose you a question. Can farm-raised salmon be organic, when its feed has nothing to do with its natural diet, even if the feed itself is supposedly organic, and the fish themselves are packed tightly in pens, swimming in their own filth? And if that salmon's from Chile, and it's killed down there and then flown 5,000 miles, whatever, dumping how much carbon into the atmosphere? I don't know. Packed in Styrofoam, of course, before landing somewhere in the United States, and then being trucked a few hundred more miles. This may be organic in letter, but it's surely not organic in spirit. Now here is where we all meet. The locavores, the organivores, the vegetarians, the vegans, the gourmets and those of us who are just plain interested in good food. Even though we've come to this from different points, we all have to act on our knowledge to change the way that everyone thinks about food. We need to start acting. And this is not only an issue of social justice, as Ann Cooper said -- and, of course, she's completely right -- but it's also one of global survival. Which bring me full circle and points directly to the core issue, the overproduction and overconsumption of meat and junk food. As I said, 18 percent of greenhouse gases are attributed to livestock production. How much livestock do you need to produce this? 70 percent of the agricultural land on Earth, 30 percent of the Earth's land surface is directly or indirectly devoted to raising the animals we'll eat. And this amount is predicted to double in the next 40 years or so. And if the numbers coming in from China are anything like what they look like now, it's not going to be 40 years. There is no good reason for eating as much meat as we do. And I say this as a man who has eaten a fair share of corned beef in his life. The most common argument is that we need nutrients -- even though we eat, on average, twice as much protein as even the industry-obsessed USDA recommends. But listen: experts who are serious about disease reduction recommend that adults eat just over half a pound of meat per week. What do you think we eat per day? Half a pound. But don't we need meat to be big and strong? Isn't meat eating essential to health? Won't a diet heavy in fruit and vegetables turn us into godless, sissy, liberals? (Laughter) Some of us might think that would be a good thing. But, no, even if we were all steroid-filled football players, the answer is no. In fact, there's no diet on Earth that meets basic nutritional needs that won't promote growth, and many will make you much healthier than ours does. We don't eat animal products for sufficient nutrition, we eat them to have an odd form of malnutrition, and it's killing us. To suggest that in the interests of personal and human health Americans eat 50 percent less meat -- it's not enough of a cut, but it's a start. It would seem absurd, but that's exactly what should happen, and what progressive people, forward-thinking people should be doing and advocating, along with the corresponding increase in the consumption of plants. I've been writing about food more or less omnivorously -- one might say indiscriminately -- for about 30 years. During that time, I've eaten and recommended eating just about everything. I'll never stop eating animals, I'm sure, but I do think that for the benefit of everyone, the time has come to stop raising them industrially and stop eating them thoughtlessly. Ann Cooper's right. The USDA is not our ally here. We have to take matters into our own hands, not only by advocating for a better diet for everyone -- and that's the hard part -- but by improving our own. And that happens to be quite easy. Less meat, less junk, more plants. It's a simple formula: eat food. Eat real food. We can continue to enjoy our food, and we continue to eat well, and we can eat even better. We can continue the search for the ingredients we love, and we can continue to spin yarns about our favorite meals. We'll reduce not only calories, but our carbon footprint. We can make food more important, not less, and save ourselves by doing so. We have to choose that path. Thank you.

The big residual is always value for money. All the time we are trying to get value for money. What we don't look for is value for many, while we are generating value for money. Do we care about those four billion people whose income levels are less than two dollars a day, the so-called bottom of the pyramid? What are the challenges in getting value for money as well as value for many? We have described here in terms of the performance and the price. If you have money, of course, you can get the value. You can get a Mercedes for a very high price, very high performance. But if you don't have money, what happens? Well, you are to ride a bicycle, carrying your own weight and also some other weight, so that you can earn the bread for the day. Well, poor do not remain poor; they become lower-middle-class. And if they do so, then, of course, the conditions improve, and they start riding on scooters. But the challenge is, again, they don't get much value, because they can't afford anything more than the scooter. The issue is, at that price, can you give them some extra value? A super value, in terms of their ability to ride in a car, to get that dignity, to get that safety, looks practically impossible, isn't it. Now, this is something that we see on Indian streets all the time. But many people see the same thing and think things differently, and one of them is here, Ratan Tata. The great thing about our leaders is that, should they not only have passion in their belly, which practically all of them have, they're also very innovative. An innovator is one who does not know it cannot be done. They believe that things can be done. But great leaders like Ratan have compassion. And what you said, Lakshmi, is absolutely true: it's not just Ratan Tata, it's the house of Tatas over time. Let me confirm what she said. Yes, I went barefoot until I was 12. I struggled to [unclear] day was a huge issue. And when I finished my SSC, the eleventh standard, I stood eleventh among 125,000 students. But I was about to leave the school, because my poor mother couldn't afford schooling. And it was [unclear] Tata Trust, which gave me six rupees per month, almost a dollar per month for six years. That's how I'm standing before you. So that is the House of Tata. (Applause) Innovation, compassion and passion. They combine all that. And it was that compassion which bothered them, because when he saw -- in fact, he told me about eight or nine years ago how he was driving his own car -- he drives his own car by the way -- and he saw in the rain, a family like the one that I showed to you getting drenched with an infant. And then he said, "Well, I must give them a car that they can afford, one lakh car, $2,000 car." Of course, as soon as you say something like this people say it is impossible, and that's what was said by Suzuki. He said, oh, probably he is going to build a three-wheeler with stepney. And you can see the cartoon here. Well they didn't build that. They built a proper car. Nano. And mind you, I'm six feet half an inch, Ratan is taller than me, and we have ample space in the front and ample space in the back in this particular car. And incredible car. And of course, nothing succeeds like success; the cynics then turned around, and one after the other they also started saying, "Yes, we also want to make a car in the Nano Segment. We'll manufacture a car in the Nano Segment." How did this great story unfold, the making of Nano? Let me tell you a bit about it. For example, how we started: Ratan just began with a five-engineer team, young people in their mid-twenties. And he said, "Well, I won't define the vehicle for you, but I will define the cost for you. It is one lakh, 100,000 rupees, and you are to make it within that." And he told them, "Question the unquestionable. Stretch the envelope." And at a point in time, he got so engrossed in the whole challenge, that he himself became a member of the team. Can you believe it? I still am told about this story of that single wiper design in which he participated. Until midnight, he'd be thinking. Early morning he'll be coming back with sort of solutions. But who was the team leader? The team leader was Girish Wagh, a 34 year-old boy in [unclear]. And the Nano team average age was just 27 years. And they did innovation in design and beyond. Broke many norms of the standard conventions for the first time. For example, that a two-cylinder gas engine was used in a car with a single balancer shaft. Adhesives were replacing the rivets. There was a co-creation, a huge co-creation, with vendors and suppliers. All ideas on board were welcome. 100 vendors were co-located adjacent to the plant, and innovative business models for automobile dealerships were developed. Imagine that a fellow who sells cloth, for example, will be selling Nano. I mean, it was incredible innovation. Seeking solutions for non-auto sectors. It was an open innovation, ideas from all over were welcome. The mechanism of helicopters seats and windows was used, by the way, as well as a dashboard that was inspired by two-wheelers. The fuel lines and lamps were as in two-wheelers. And the crux of the matter was, however, getting more from less. All the time, you have been given an envelope. You can't cross that envelope, which is 100,000 rupees, 2,000 dollars. And therefore, each component had to have a dual functionality. And the seat riser, for example, serving as a mounting for the seat as well as a structural part of the functional rigidity. Half the number of parts are contained in Nano in comparison to a typical passenger car. The length is smaller by eight percent by the way. But the current entry-level cars in comparison to that is eight percent less, but 21 percent more inside space. And what happened was that -- more from less -- you can see how much more for how much less. When the Model T was launched -- and this is, by the way, all the figures that are adjusted to 2007 dollar prices -- Model T was 19,700 by Ford. Volkswagon was 11,333. And British Motor was around 11,000. And Nano was, bang, 2,000 dollars. This is why you started actually a new paradigm shift, where the same people who could not dream of sitting in a car, who were carrying their entire family in a scooter, started dreaming of being in a car. And those dreams are getting fulfilled. This is a photograph of a house and a driver and a car near my own home. The driver's name is Naran. He has bought his own Nano. And you can see, there is a physical space that has been created for him, parking that car, along with the owner's car, but more importantly, they've created a space in their mind that "Yes, my chauffeur is going to come in his own car and park it." And that's why I call it a transformational innovation. It is not just technological, it is social innovation that we talk about. And that is where, ladies and gentlemen, this famous theme of getting more from less for more becomes important. I remember talking about this for the first time in Australia, about one and a half years ago, when their academy honored me with a fellowship. And unbelievably, in 40 years, I was the first Indian to be honored. And the title of my talk was therefore "Indian innovation from Gandhi to Gandhian engineering." And I titled this more from less for more and more people as Gandhian engineering. And Gandhian engineering, in my judgment, is the one which is going to take the world forward, is going to make a difference, not just for a few, but for everyone. Let me move from mobility in a car to individual mobility for those unfortunates who have lost their legs. Here is an American citizen and his son having an artificial foot. What is its price? 20,000 dollars. And of course, these feet are so designed that they can walk only on such perfect pavement or roads. Unfortunately, that's not the case in India. You can see him walk barefoot on an awkward land, sometimes in a marshy land, and so on and so forth. More importantly, they not only walk far to work, and not only do they cycle to work, but they cycle for work, as you can see here. And they climb up for their work. You have to design an artificial foot for such conditions. A challenge, of course. Four billion people, their incomes are less then two dollars a day. And if you talk about a 20,000-dollar shoe, you're talking about 10,000 days of income. You just don't have it. And therefore, you ought to look at alternatives. And that is how Jaipur Foot was created in India. It had a revolutionary prosthetic fitment and delivery system, a quick molding and modular components, enabling custom-made, on-the-spot limb fitments. You could feel it actually in an hour, by the way, whereas the equivalent other feet took something like a day, as so on. Outer socket made by using heated high-density polyethylene pipes, rather than using heated sheets. And unique high-ankle design and human-like looks, [unclear] and functions. And I like to show how it looks and how it works. (Music) See, he jumps. You can see what stress it must have. (Text: ... any person with a below the knee limb could do this. ... above the limb, yes, it would be difficult ... "Did it hurt?" "No ... not at all." ... he can run a kilometer in four minutes and 30 seconds ...) One kilometer in four minutes and 30 seconds. (Applause) So that's what it is all about. And therefore Time took notice of this 28-dollar foot, basically. (Applause) An incredible story. Let's move on to something else. I've been talking about getting more from less for more. Let's move to health. We've talked about mobility and the rest of it, let's talk about health. What's happening in the area of health? You know, you have new diseases that require new drugs. And if you look at the drug development 10 years ago and now, what has happened? 10 years ago, it used to cost about a quarter billion. Today it costs 1.5 billion dollars. Time taken for moving a molecule to marketplace, after all the human and animal testing, was 10 years, now it is 15 years. Are you getting more drugs because you are spending more time and more money? No, I'm sorry. We used to have 40, now they have come down to 30. So actually we are getting less from more for less and less people. Why less and less people? Because it is so expensive, so very few will be able to basically afford that. Let us just take an example. Psoriasis is very dreadful disease of the skin. The cost of treatment, 20,000 dollars. 1,000-dollar antibody injections under the skin, by the way, and 20 of them. Time for development -- it took around 10 years and 700 million dollars. Let's start in the spirit of more from less and more for more and start putting some targets. For example, we don't want 20,000 dollars; we don't have it. Can we do it [for] 100 dollars? Time for development, not 10 years. We are in a hurry. Five years. Cost of development -- 300 million dollars. Sorry. I can't spend more than 10 million dollars. Looks absolutely audacious. Looks absolutely ridiculous. You know something? This has been achieved in India. These targets have been achieved in India. And how they have been achieved ... Sir Francis Bacon once said, "When you wish to achieve results that have not been achieved before, it is an unwise fancy to think that they can be achieved by using methods that have been used before." And therefore, the standard process, where you develop a molecule, put it into mice, into men, are not yielding those results -- the billions of dollars that have been spent. The Indian cleverness was using its traditional knowledge, however, scientifically validating it and making that journey from men to mice to men, not molecule to mice to men, you know. And that is how this difference has come. And you can see this blending of traditional medicine, modern medicine, modern science. I launched a big program [unclear] CSIR about nine years ago. He is giving us not just for Psoriasis, for cancer and a whole range of things, changing the whole paradigm. And you can see this Indian Psoriasis breakthrough obtained by this reverse form of [unclear] by doing things differently. You can see before treatment and after treatment. This is really getting more from less for more and more people, because these are all affordable treatments now. Let me just remind you of what Mahatma Gandhi had said. He had said, "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed." So the message he was giving us was you must get more from less and less and less so that you can share it for more and more people, not only the current generation, but the future generations. And he also said, "I would prize every invention of science made for the benefit for all." So he was giving you the message that you must have it for more and more people, not just a few people. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, this is the theme, getting more from less for more. And mind you, it is not getting just a little more for just a little less. It's not about low cost. It's about ultra-low cost. You cannot say it's a mere treatment 10,000 dollars, but because you are poor I'll give it for 9,000. Sorry, it doesn't work. You have to give it for 100 dollars, 200 dollars. Is it possible? It has been made possible, by the way, for certain other different reasons. So you are not talking about low cost, you are talking about ultra-low cost. You are not talking about affordability, you are talking about extreme affordability. Because of the four billion people whose income is under two dollars a day. You're not talking exclusive innovation. You're talking about inclusive innovation. And therefore, you're not talking about incremental innovation, you're talking about disruptive innovation. The ideas have to be such that you think in completely different terms. And I would also add, it is not only getting more from less for more by more and more people, the whole world working for it. I was very touched when I saw a breakthrough the other day. You know, incubators for infants, for example. They're not available in Africa. They're not available in Indian villages. And infants die. And incubator costs 2,000 dollars. And there's a 25-dollar incubator giving that performance that had been created. And by whom? By young students from Standford University on an extreme affordability project that they had, basically. Their heart is in the right place, like Ratan Tata. It's not just innovation, compassion and passion -- compassion in the heart and passion in the belly. That's the new world that we want to create. And that is why the message is that of Gandhian engineering. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to end before time. I was also afraid of those 18 minutes. I've still one and a half to go. The message, the final message, is this: India gave a great gift to the world. What was that? [In the] 20th century, we gave Gandhi to the world. The 21st century gift, which is very, very important for the whole world, whether it is global economic meltdown, whether it is climate change -- any problem that you talk about is gaining more from less for more and more -- not only the current generations, for the future generations. And that can come only from Gandhian engineering. So ladies and gentlemen, I'm very happy to announce, this gift of the 21st century to the world from India, Gandhian engineering. (Applause) Lakshmi Pratury: Thank you, Dr. Mashelkar. (R.A. Mashelkar: Thank you very much.) LP: A quick question for you. Now, when you were a young boy in this school, what were your thoughts, like what did you think you could become? What do you think that drove you? Was there a vision you had? What is it that drove you? RAM: I'll tell you a story that drove me, that transformed my life. I remember, I went to a poor school, because my mother could not gather the 21 rupees, that half a dollar that was required within the stipulated time. It was [unclear] high school. But it was a poor school with rich teachers, honestly. And one of them was [unclear] who taught us physics. One day he took us out into the sun and tried to show us how to find the focal length of a convex lens. The lens was here. The piece of paper was there. He moved it up and down. And there was a bright spot up there. And then he said, "This is the focal length." But then he held it for a little while, Lakshmi. And then the paper burned. When the paper burned, for some reason he turned to me, and he said, "Mashelkar, like this, if you do not diffuse your energies, if you focus your energies, you can achieve anything in the world." That gave me a great message: focus and you can achieve. I said, "Whoa, science is so wonderful, I have to become a scientist." But more importantly, focus and you can achieve. And that message, very frankly, is valuable for society today. What does that focal length do? It has parallel lines, which are sun rays. And the property of parallel lines is that they never meet. What does that convex lens do? It makes them meet. This is convex lens leadership. You know what today's leadership is doing? Concave length. They divide them farther. So I learned the lesson of convex lens leadership from that. And when I was at National Chemical Laboratory [unclear]. When I was at Council of Scientific Industry Research -- 40 laboratories -- when two laboratories were not talking to each other, I would [unclear]. And currently I'm president of Global Research Alliance, 60,000 scientists in nine counties, right from India to the U.S. I'm trying to build a global team, which will look at the global grand challenges that the world is facing. That was the lesson. That was the inspirational moment. LP: Thank you very much. (RAM: Thank you.) (Applause)

I'm going to talk to you about some stuff that's in this book of mine that I hope will resonate with other things you've already heard, and I'll try to make some connections myself, in case you miss them. I want to start with what I call the "official dogma." The official dogma of what? The official dogma of all western industrial societies. And the official dogma runs like this: if we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens, the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom. The reason for this is both that freedom is in and of itself good, valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human. And because if people have freedom, then each of us can act on our own to do the things that will maximize our welfare, and no one has to decide on our behalf. The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice. The more choice people have, the more freedom they have, and the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have. This, I think, is so deeply embedded in the water supply that it wouldn't occur to anyone to question it. And it's also deeply embedded in our lives. I'll give you some examples of what modern progress has made possible for us. This is my supermarket. Not such a big one. I want to say just a word about salad dressing. 175 salad dressings in my supermarket, if you don't count the 10 extra-virgin olive oils and 12 balsamic vinegars you could buy to make a very large number of your own salad dressings, in the off-chance that none of the 175 the store has on offer suit you. So this is what the supermarket is like. And then you go to the consumer electronics store to set up a stereo system -- speakers, CD player, tape player, tuner, amplifier -- and in this one single consumer electronics store, there are that many stereo systems. We can construct six-and-a-half-million different stereo systems out of the components that are on offer in one store. You've got to admit that's a lot of choice. In other domains -- the world of communications. There was a time, when I was a boy, when you could get any kind of telephone service you wanted, as long as it came from Ma Bell. You rented your phone. You didn't buy it. One consequence of that, by the way, is that the phone never broke. And those days are gone. We now have an almost unlimited variety of phones, especially in the world of cell phones. These are cell phones of the future. My favorite is the middle one -- the MP3 player, nose hair trimmer, and creme brulee torch. And if by some chance you haven't seen that in your store yet, you can rest assured that one day soon you will. And what this does is it leads people to walk into their stores asking this question. And do you know what the answer to this question now is? The answer is "No." It is not possible to buy a cell phone that doesn't do too much. So, in other aspects of life that are much more significant than buying things, the same explosion of choice is true. Health care -- it is no longer the case in the United States that you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you what to do. Instead, you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you, "Well, we could do A, or we could do B. A has these benefits, and these risks. B has these benefits, and these risks. What do you want to do?" And you say, "Doc, what should I do?" And the doc says, "A has these benefits and risks, and B has these benefits and risks. What do you want to do?" And you say, "If you were me, Doc, what would you do?" And the doc says, "But I'm not you." And the result is -- we call it "patient autonomy," which makes it sound like a good thing, but what it really is is a shifting of the burden and the responsibility for decision-making from somebody who knows something -- namely, the doctor -- to somebody who knows nothing and is almost certainly sick and thus not in the best shape to be making decisions -- namely, the patient. There's enormous marketing of prescription drugs to people like you and me, which, if you think about it, makes no sense at all, since we can't buy them. Why do they market to us if we can't buy them? The answer is that they expect us to call our doctors the next morning and ask for our prescriptions to be changed. Something as dramatic as our identity has now become a matter of choice, as this slide is meant to indicate. We don't inherit an identity; we get to invent it. And we get to re-invent ourselves as often as we like. And that means that everyday, when you wake up in the morning, you have to decide what kind of person you want to be. With respect to marriage and family, there was a time when the default assumption that almost everyone had is that you got married as soon as you could, and then you started having kids as soon as you could. The only real choice was who, not when, and not what you did after. Nowadays, everything is very much up for grabs. I teach wonderfully intelligent students, and I assign 20 percent less work than I used to. And it's not because they're less smart, and it's not because they're less diligent. It's because they are preoccupied, asking themselves, "Should I get married or not? Should I get married now? Should I get married later? Should I have kids first, or a career first?" All of these are consuming questions. And they're going to answer these questions, whether or not it means not doing all the work I assign and not getting a good grade in my courses. And indeed they should. These are important questions to answer. Work -- we are blessed, as Carl was pointing out, with the technology that enables us to work every minute of every day from any place on the planet -- except the Randolph Hotel. (Laughter) There is one corner, by the way, that I'm not going to tell anybody about, where the WiFi works. I'm not telling you about it because I want to use it. So what this means, this incredible freedom of choice we have with respect to work, is that we have to make a decision, again and again and again, about whether we should or shouldn't be working. We can go to watch our kid play soccer, and we have our cell phone on one hip, and our Blackberry on our other hip, and our laptop, presumably, on our laps. And even if they're all shut off, every minute that we're watching our kid mutilate a soccer game, we are also asking ourselves, "Should I answer this cell phone call? Should I respond to this email? Should I draft this letter?" And even if the answer to the question is "no," it's certainly going to make the experience of your kid's soccer game very different than it would've been. So everywhere we look, big things and small things, material things and lifestyle things, life is a matter of choice. And the world we used to live in looked like this. That is to say, there were some choices, but not everything was a matter of choice. And the world we now live in looks like this. And the question is, is this good news, or bad news? And the answer is yes. (Laughter) We all know what's good about it, so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it. All of this choice has two effects, two negative effects on people. One effect, paradoxically, is that it produces paralysis, rather than liberation. With so many options to choose from, people find it very difficult to choose at all. I'll give you one very dramatic example of this: a study that was done of investments in voluntary retirement plans. A colleague of mine got access to investment records from Vanguard, the gigantic mutual fund company of about a million employees and about 2,000 different workplaces. And what she found is that for every 10 mutual funds the employer offered, rate of participation went down two percent. You offer 50 funds -- 10 percent fewer employees participate than if you only offer five. Why? Because with 50 funds to choose from, it's so damn hard to decide which fund to choose that you'll just put it off until tomorrow. And then tomorrow, and then tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, and of course tomorrow never comes. Understand that not only does this mean that people are going to have to eat dog food when they retire because they don't have enough money put away, it also means that making the decision is so hard that they pass up significant matching money from the employer. By not participating, they are passing up as much as 5,000 dollars a year from the employer, who would happily match their contribution. So paralysis is a consequence of having too many choices. And I think it makes the world look like this. (Laughter) You really want to get the decision right if it's for all eternity, right? You don't want to pick the wrong mutual fund, or even the wrong salad dressing. So that's one effect. The second effect is that even if we manage to overcome the paralysis and make a choice, we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from. And there are several reasons for this. One of them is that with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from, if you buy one, and it's not perfect -- and, you know, what salad dressing is? -- it's easy to imagine that you could have made a different choice that would have been better. And what happens is this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made, and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get out of the decision you made, even if it was a good decision. The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose. Second, what economists call "opportunity costs." Dan Gilbert made a big point this morning of talking about how much the way in which we value things depends on what we compare them to. Well, when there are lots of alternatives to consider, it is easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject, that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen. Here's an example. For those of you who aren't New Yorkers, I apologize. (Laughter) But here's what you're supposed to be thinking. Here's this couple on the Hamptons. Very expensive real estate. Gorgeous beach. Beautiful day. They have it all to themselves. What could be better? "Well, damn it," this guy is thinking, "It's August. Everybody in my Manhattan neighborhood is away. I could be parking right in front of my building." And he spends two weeks nagged by the idea that he is missing the opportunity, day after day, to have a great parking space. Opportunity costs subtract from the satisfaction we get out of what we choose, even when what we choose is terrific. And the more options there are to consider, the more attractive features of these options are going to be reflected by us as opportunity costs. Here's another example. Now this cartoon makes a lot of points. It makes points about living in the moment as well, and probably about doing things slowly. But one point it makes is that whenever you're choosing one thing, you're choosing not to do other things. And those other things may have lots of attractive features, and it's going to make what you're doing less attractive. Third: escalation of expectations. This hit me when I went to replace my jeans. I wear jeans almost all the time. And there was a time when jeans came in one flavor, and you bought them, and they fit like crap, and they were incredibly uncomfortable, and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times, they started to feel OK. So I went to replace my jeans after years and years of wearing these old ones, and I said, you know, "I want a pair of jeans. Here's my size." And the shopkeeper said, "Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit? You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid-washed? Do you want them distressed? You want boot cut, you want tapered, blah blah blah ..." On and on he went. My jaw dropped, and after I recovered, I said, "I want the kind that used to be the only kind." (Laughter) He had no idea what that was, so I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans, and I walked out of the store -- truth! -- with the best-fitting jeans I had ever had. I did better. All this choice made it possible for me to do better. But I felt worse. Why? I wrote a whole book to try to explain this to myself. (Laughter) The reason I felt worse is that, with all of these options available, my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up. I had very low -- I had no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor. When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect. And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect. And so I compared what I got to what I expected, and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected. Adding options to people's lives can't help but increase the expectations people have about how good those options will be. And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results, even when they're good results. Nobody in the world of marketing knows this, because if they did, you wouldn't all know what this was about. The truth is more like this. (Laughter) The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse is that when everything was worse, it was actually possible for people to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise. Nowadays, the world we live in -- we affluent, industrialized citizens, with perfection the expectation -- the best you can ever hope for is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be. You will never be pleasantly surprised because your expectations, my expectations, have gone through the roof. The secret to happiness -- this is what you all came for -- the secret to happiness is low expectations. (Laughter) (Applause) I want to say -- just a little autobiographical moment -- that I actually am married to a wife, and she's really quite wonderful. I couldn't have done better. I didn't settle. But settling isn't always such a bad thing. Finally, one consequence of buying a bad-fitting pair of jeans when there is only one kind to buy is that when you are dissatisfied, and you ask why, who's responsible, the answer is clear: the world is responsible. What could you do? When there are hundreds of different styles of jeans available, and you buy one that is disappointing, and you ask why, who's responsible? It is equally clear that the answer to the question is you. You could have done better. With a hundred different kinds of jeans on display, there is no excuse for failure. And so when people make decisions, and even though the results of the decisions are good, they feel disappointed about them; they blame themselves. Clinical depression has exploded in the industrial world in the last generation. I believe a significant -- not the only, but a significant -- contributor to this explosion of depression, and also suicide, is that people have experiences that are disappointing because their standards are so high, and then when they have to explain these experiences to themselves, they think they're at fault. And so the net result is that we do better in general, objectively, and we feel worse. So let me remind you. This is the official dogma, the one that we all take to be true, and it's all false. It is not true. There's no question that some choice is better than none, but it doesn't follow from that that more choice is better than some choice. There's some magical amount. I don't know what it is. I'm pretty confident that we have long since passed the point where options improve our welfare. Now, as a policy matter -- I'm almost done -- as a policy matter, the thing to think about is this: what enables all of this choice in industrial societies is material affluence. There are lots of places in the world, and we have heard about several of them, where their problem is not that they have too much choice. Their problem is that they have too little. So the stuff I'm talking about is the peculiar problem of modern, affluent, Western societies. And what is so frustrating and infuriating is this: Steve Levitt talked to you yesterday about how these expensive and difficult-to-install child seats don't help. It's a waste of money. What I'm telling you is that these expensive, complicated choices -- it's not simply that they don't help. They actually hurt. They actually make us worse off. If some of what enables people in our societies to make all of the choices we make were shifted to societies in which people have too few options, not only would those people's lives be improved, but ours would be improved also. This is what economists call a "Pareto-improving move." Income redistribution will make everyone better off -- not just poor people -- because of how all this excess choice plagues us. So to conclude. You're supposed to read this cartoon, and, being a sophisticated person, say, "Ah! What does this fish know? You know, nothing is possible in this fishbowl." Impoverished imagination, a myopic view of the world -- and that's the way I read it at first. The more I thought about it, however, the more I came to the view that this fish knows something. Because the truth of the matter is that if you shatter the fishbowl so that everything is possible, you don't have freedom. You have paralysis. If you shatter this fishbowl so that everything is possible, you decrease satisfaction. You increase paralysis, and you decrease satisfaction. Everybody needs a fishbowl. This one is almost certainly too limited -- perhaps even for the fish, certainly for us. But the absence of some metaphorical fishbowl is a recipe for misery, and, I suspect, disaster. Thank you very much. (Applause)

So I have bad news, I have good news, and I have a task. So the bad news is that we all get sick. I get sick. You get sick. And every one of us gets sick, and the question really is, how sick do we get? Is it something that kills us? Is it something that we survive? Is it something that we can treat? And we've gotten sick as long as we've been people. And so we've always looked for reasons to explain why we get sick. And for a long time, it was the gods, right? The gods are angry with me, or the gods are testing me, right? Or God, singular, more recently, is punishing me or judging me. And as long as we've looked for explanations, we've wound up with something that gets closer and closer to science, which is hypotheses as to why we get sick, and as long as we've had hypotheses about why we get sick, we've tried to treat it as well. So this is Avicenna. He wrote a book over a thousand years ago called "The Canon of Medicine," and the rules he laid out for testing medicines are actually really similar to the rules we have today, that the disease and the medicine must be the same strength, the medicine needs to be pure, and in the end we need to test it in people. And so if you put together these themes of a narrative or a hypothesis in human testing, right, you get some beautiful results, even when we didn't have very good technologies. This is a guy named Carlos Finlay. He had a hypothesis that was way outside the box for his time, in the late 1800s. He thought yellow fever was not transmitted by dirty clothing. He thought it was transmitted by mosquitos. And they laughed at him. For 20 years, they called this guy "the mosquito man." But he ran an experiment in people, right? He had this hypothesis, and he tested it in people. So he got volunteers to go move to Cuba and live in tents and be voluntarily infected with yellow fever. So some of the people in some of the tents had dirty clothes and some of the people were in tents that were full of mosquitos that had been exposed to yellow fever. And it definitively proved that it wasn't this magic dust called fomites in your clothes that caused yellow fever. But it wasn't until we tested it in people that we actually knew. And this is what those people signed up for. This is what it looked like to have yellow fever in Cuba at that time. You suffered in a tent, in the heat, alone, and you probably died. But people volunteered for this. And it's not just a cool example of a scientific design of experiment in theory. They also did this beautiful thing. They signed this document, and it's called an informed consent document. And informed consent is an idea that we should be very proud of as a society, right? It's something that separates us from the Nazis at Nuremberg, enforced medical experimentation. It's the idea that agreement to join a study without understanding isn't agreement. It's something that protects us from harm, from hucksters, from people that would try to hoodwink us into a clinical study that we don't understand, or that we don't agree to. And so you put together the thread of narrative hypothesis, experimentation in humans, and informed consent, and you get what we call clinical study, and it's how we do the vast majority of medical work. It doesn't really matter if you're in the north, the south, the east, the west. Clinical studies form the basis of how we investigate, so if we're going to look at a new drug, right, we test it in people, we draw blood, we do experiments, and we gain consent for that study, to make sure that we're not screwing people over as part of it. But the world is changing around the clinical study, which has been fairly well established for tens of years if not 50 to 100 years. So now we're able to gather data about our genomes, but, as we saw earlier, our genomes aren't dispositive. We're able to gather information about our environment. And more importantly, we're able to gather information about our choices, because it turns out that what we think of as our health is more like the interaction of our bodies, our genomes, our choices and our environment. And the clinical methods that we've got aren't very good at studying that because they are based on the idea of person-to-person interaction. You interact with your doctor and you get enrolled in the study. So this is my grandfather. I actually never met him, but he's holding my mom, and his genes are in me, right? His choices ran through to me. He was a smoker, like most people were. This is my son. So my grandfather's genes go all the way through to him, and my choices are going to affect his health. The technology between these two pictures cannot be more different, but the methodology for clinical studies has not radically changed over that time period. We just have better statistics. The way we gain informed consent was formed in large part after World War II, around the time that picture was taken. That was 70 years ago, and the way we gain informed consent, this tool that was created to protect us from harm, now creates silos. So the data that we collect for prostate cancer or for Alzheimer's trials goes into silos where it can only be used for prostate cancer or for Alzheimer's research. Right? It can't be networked. It can't be integrated. It cannot be used by people who aren't credentialed. So a physicist can't get access to it without filing paperwork. A computer scientist can't get access to it without filing paperwork. Computer scientists aren't patient. They don't file paperwork. And this is an accident. These are tools that we created to protect us from harm, but what they're doing is protecting us from innovation now. And that wasn't the goal. It wasn't the point. Right? It's a side effect, if you will, of a power we created to take us for good. And so if you think about it, the depressing thing is that Facebook would never make a change to something as important as an advertising algorithm with a sample size as small as a Phase III clinical trial. We cannot take the information from past trials and put them together to form statistically significant samples. And that sucks, right? So 45 percent of men develop cancer. Thirty-eight percent of women develop cancer. One in four men dies of cancer. One in five women dies of cancer, at least in the United States. And three out of the four drugs we give you if you get cancer fail. And this is personal to me. My sister is a cancer survivor. My mother-in-law is a cancer survivor. Cancer sucks. And when you have it, you don't have a lot of privacy in the hospital. You're naked the vast majority of the time. People you don't know come in and look at you and poke you and prod you, and when I tell cancer survivors that this tool we created to protect them is actually preventing their data from being used, especially when only three to four percent of people who have cancer ever even sign up for a clinical study, their reaction is not, "Thank you, God, for protecting my privacy." It's outrage that we have this information and we can't use it. And it's an accident. So the cost in blood and treasure of this is enormous. Two hundred and twenty-six billion a year is spent on cancer in the United States. Fifteen hundred people a day die in the United States. And it's getting worse. So the good news is that some things have changed, and the most important thing that's changed is that we can now measure ourselves in ways that used to be the dominion of the health system. So a lot of people talk about it as digital exhaust. I like to think of it as the dust that runs along behind my kid. We can reach back and grab that dust, and we can learn a lot about health from it, so if our choices are part of our health, what we eat is a really important aspect of our health. So you can do something very simple and basic and take a picture of your food, and if enough people do that, we can learn a lot about how our food affects our health. One interesting thing that came out of this — this is an app for iPhones called The Eatery — is that we think our pizza is significantly healthier than other people's pizza is. Okay? (Laughter) And it seems like a trivial result, but this is the sort of research that used to take the health system years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to accomplish. It was done in five months by a startup company of a couple of people. I don't have any financial interest in it. But more nontrivially, we can get our genotypes done, and although our genotypes aren't dispositive, they give us clues. So I could show you mine. It's just A's, T's, C's and G's. This is the interpretation of it. As you can see, I carry a 32 percent risk of prostate cancer, 22 percent risk of psoriasis and a 14 percent risk of Alzheimer's disease. So that means, if you're a geneticist, you're freaking out, going, "Oh my God, you told everyone you carry the ApoE E4 allele. What's wrong with you?" Right? When I got these results, I started talking to doctors, and they told me not to tell anyone, and my reaction is, "Is that going to help anyone cure me when I get the disease?" And no one could tell me yes. And I live in a web world where, when you share things, beautiful stuff happens, not bad stuff. So I started putting this in my slide decks, and I got even more obnoxious, and I went to my doctor, and I said, "I'd like to actually get my bloodwork. Please give me back my data." So this is my most recent bloodwork. As you can see, I have high cholesterol. I have particularly high bad cholesterol, and I have some bad liver numbers, but those are because we had a dinner party with a lot of good wine the night before we ran the test. (Laughter) Right. But look at how non-computable this information is. This is like the photograph of my granddad holding my mom from a data perspective, and I had to go into the system and get it out. So the thing that I'm proposing we do here is that we reach behind us and we grab the dust, that we reach into our bodies and we grab the genotype, and we reach into the medical system and we grab our records, and we use it to build something together, which is a commons. And there's been a lot of talk about commonses, right, here, there, everywhere, right. A commons is nothing more than a public good that we build out of private goods. We do it voluntarily, and we do it through standardized legal tools. We do it through standardized technologies. Right. That's all a commons is. It's something that we build together because we think it's important. And a commons of data is something that's really unique, because we make it from our own data. And although a lot of people like privacy as their methodology of control around data, and obsess around privacy, at least some of us really like to share as a form of control, and what's remarkable about digital commonses is you don't need a big percentage if your sample size is big enough to generate something massive and beautiful. So not that many programmers write free software, but we have the Apache web server. Not that many people who read Wikipedia edit, but it works. So as long as some people like to share as their form of control, we can build a commons, as long as we can get the information out. And in biology, the numbers are even better. So Vanderbilt ran a study asking people, we'd like to take your biosamples, your blood, and share them in a biobank, and only five percent of the people opted out. I'm from Tennessee. It's not the most science-positive state in the United States of America. (Laughter) But only five percent of the people wanted out. So people like to share, if you give them the opportunity and the choice. And the reason that I got obsessed with this, besides the obvious family aspects, is that I spend a lot of time around mathematicians, and mathematicians are drawn to places where there's a lot of data because they can use it to tease signals out of noise. And those correlations that they can tease out, they're not necessarily causal agents, but math, in this day and age, is like a giant set of power tools that we're leaving on the floor, not plugged in in health, while we use hand saws. If we have a lot of shared genotypes, and a lot of shared outcomes, and a lot of shared lifestyle choices, and a lot of shared environmental information, we can start to tease out the correlations between subtle variations in people, the choices they make and the health that they create as a result of those choices, and there's open-source infrastructure to do all of this. Sage Bionetworks is a nonprofit that's built a giant math system that's waiting for data, but there isn't any. So that's what I do. I've actually started what we think is the world's first fully digital, fully self-contributed, unlimited in scope, global in participation, ethically approved clinical research study where you contribute the data. So if you reach behind yourself and you grab the dust, if you reach into your body and grab your genome, if you reach into the medical system and somehow extract your medical record, you can actually go through an online informed consent process -- because the donation to the commons must be voluntary and it must be informed -- and you can actually upload your information and have it syndicated to the mathematicians who will do this sort of big data research, and the goal is to get 100,000 in the first year and a million in the first five years so that we have a statistically significant cohort that you can use to take smaller sample sizes from traditional research and map it against, so that you can use it to tease out those subtle correlations between the variations that make us unique and the kinds of health that we need to move forward as a society. And I've spent a lot of time around other commons. I've been around the early web. I've been around the early creative commons world, and there's four things that all of these share, which is, they're all really simple. And so if you were to go to the website and enroll in this study, you're not going to see something complicated. But it's not simplistic. These things are weak intentionally, right, because you can always add power and control to a system, but it's very difficult to remove those things if you put them in at the beginning, and so being simple doesn't mean being simplistic, and being weak doesn't mean weakness. Those are strengths in the system. And open doesn't mean that there's no money. Closed systems, corporations, make a lot of money on the open web, and they're one of the reasons why the open web lives is that corporations have a vested interest in the openness of the system. And so all of these things are part of the clinical study that we've created, so you can actually come in, all you have to be is 14 years old, willing to sign a contract that says I'm not going to be a jerk, basically, and you're in. You can start analyzing the data. You do have to solve a CAPTCHA as well. (Laughter) And if you'd like to build corporate structures on top of it, that's okay too. That's all in the consent, so if you don't like those terms, you don't come in. It's very much the design principles of a commons that we're trying to bring to health data. And the other thing about these systems is that it only takes a small number of really unreasonable people working together to create them. It didn't take that many people to make Wikipedia Wikipedia, or to keep it Wikipedia. And we're not supposed to be unreasonable in health, and so I hate this word "patient." I don't like being patient when systems are broken, and health care is broken. I'm not talking about the politics of health care, I'm talking about the way we scientifically approach health care. So I don't want to be patient. And the task I'm giving to you is to not be patient. So I'd like you to actually try, when you go home, to get your data. You'll be shocked and offended and, I would bet, outraged, at how hard it is to get it. But it's a challenge that I hope you'll take, and maybe you'll share it. Maybe you won't. If you don't have anyone in your family who's sick, maybe you wouldn't be unreasonable. But if you do, or if you've been sick, then maybe you would. And we're going to be able to do an experiment in the next several months that lets us know exactly how many unreasonable people are out there. So this is the Athena Breast Health Network. It's a study of 150,000 women in California, and they're going to return all the data to the participants of the study in a computable form, with one-clickability to load it into the study that I've put together. So we'll know exactly how many people are willing to be unreasonable. So what I'd end [with] is, the most beautiful thing I've learned since I quit my job almost a year ago to do this, is that it really doesn't take very many of us to achieve spectacular results. You just have to be willing to be unreasonable, and the risk we're running is not the risk those 14 men who got yellow fever ran. Right? It's to be naked, digitally, in public. So you know more about me and my health than I know about you. It's asymmetric now. And being naked and alone can be terrifying. But to be naked in a group, voluntarily, can be quite beautiful. And so it doesn't take all of us. It just takes all of some of us. Thank you. (Applause)

I'll tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. Not yours, of course -- other people's. (Laughter) So after being at MIT for a few years, I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting. You know, I don't know how many of those you read, but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write -- even worse to write. So I decided to try and write something more fun. And I came up with an idea that I will write a cookbook. And the title for my cookbook was going to be "Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink." (Laughter) And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen. And I was quite excited about this. I was going to talk a little bit about research, a little bit about the kitchen. You know, we do so much in the kitchen I thought this would be interesting. And I wrote a couple of chapters. And I took it to MIT press and they said, "Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else." I tried other people and everybody said the same thing, "Cute. Not for us." Until somebody said, "Look, if you're serious about this, you first have to write a book about your research. You have to publish something, and then you'll get the opportunity to write something else. If you really want to do it you have to do it." So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research. I do this all day long. I want to write something else. Something a bit more free, less constrained." And this person was very forceful and said, "Look. That's the only way you'll ever do it." So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- " I had a sabbatical. I said, "I'll write about my research if there is no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook." So I wrote a book on my research. And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways. First of all, I enjoyed writing. But the more interesting thing was that I started learning from people. It's a fantastic time to write, because there is so much feedback you can get from people. People write me about their personal experience, and about their examples, and what they disagree, and nuances. And even being here -- I mean the last few days, I've known really heights of obsessive behavior I never thought about. (Laughter) Which I think is just fascinating. I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. And I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion as a metaphor for rationality. So think about these two tables. And you must have seen this illusion. If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left, or the horizontal line on the table on the right? Which one seems longer? Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer? No, right? It's impossible. But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes. So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help. I can animate the lines. And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines, which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you. Now, the interesting thing about this is when I take the lines away, it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute. (Laughter) You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality as it is." Right? It's impossible to overcome this sense that this is indeed longer. Our intuition is really fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way. And there is almost nothing we can do about it, aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it. Here is another one -- this is one of my favorite illusions. What do you see the color that top arrow is pointing to? Brown. Thank you. The bottom one? Yellow. Turns out they're identical. Can anybody see them as identical? Very very hard. I can cover the rest of the cube up. And if I cover the rest of the cube you can see that they are identical. And if you don't believe me you can get the slide later and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical. But again it's the same story that if we take the background away, the illusion comes back. Right. There is no way for us not to see this illusion. I guess maybe if you're colorblind I don't think you can see that. I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor. Vision is one of the best things we do. We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision -- bigger than dedicated to anything else. We do more vision more hours of the day than we do anything else. And we are evolutionarily designed to do vision. And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision, which we're so good at, what's the chance that we don't make even more mistakes in something we're not as good at -- for example, financial decision making: (Laughter) something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do, we don't have a specialized part of the brain, and we don't do that many hours of the day. And the argument is in those cases it might be the issue that we actually make many more mistakes and, worse, not have an easy way to see them. Because in visual illusions we can easily demonstrate the mistakes; in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder to demonstrate to people the mistakes. So I want to show you some cognitive illusions, or decision-making illusions, in the same way. And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences. It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein. And it basically shows the percentage of people who indicated they would be interested in giving their organs to donation. And these are different countries in Europe. And you basically see two types of countries: countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot; and countries on the left that seem to giving very little, or much less. The question is, why? Why do some countries give a lot and some countries give a little? When you ask people this question, they usually think that it has to be something about culture. Right? How much do you care about people? Giving your organs to somebody else is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are. Or maybe it is about religion. But, if you look at this plot, you can see that countries that we think about as very similar actually exhibit very different behavior. For example, Sweden is all the way on the right, and Denmark, that we think is culturally very similar, is all the way on the left. Germany is on the left. And Austria is on the right. The Netherlands is on the left. And Belgium is on the right. And finally, depending on your particular version of European similarity, you can think about the U.K and France as either similar culturally or not. But it turns out that from organ donation they are very different. By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story. You see the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group. Turns out that they got to 28 percent after mailing every household in the country a letter begging people to join this organ donation program. You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far"? It's 28 percent in organ donation. (Laughter) But whatever the countries on the right are doing they are doing a much better job than begging. So what are they doing? Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV. And here is the story. The countries on the left have a form at the DMV that looks something like this. Check the box below if you want to participate in the organ donor program. And what happens? People don't check, and they don't join. The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot, have a slightly different form. It says check the box below if you don't want to participate. Interestingly enough, when people get this, they again don't check -- but now they join. (Laughter) Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision. Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us. I'll give you one more example for this. This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Schaefer. And they said, "Well, this effect also happens to experts, people who are well-paid, experts in their decisions, do it a lot." And they basically took a group of physicians. And they presented to them a case study of a patient. Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer. He's been suffering from a right hip pain for a while. And then they said to the physician, "You decided a few weeks ago that nothing is working for this patient. All these medications, nothing seems to be working. So you refer the patient to hip replacement therapy. Hip replacement. Okay?" So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced. And then they said to half the physicians, they said, "Yesterday you reviewed the patient's case and you realized that you forgot to try one medication. You did not try ibuprofen. What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen? Or do you let them go and have hip replacement?" Well the good news is that most physicians in this case decided to pull the patient and try the ibuprofen. Very good for the physicians. The other group of the physicians, they said, "Yesterday when you reviewed the case you discovered there were two medications you didn't try out yet, ibuprofen and piroxicam." And they said, "You have two medications you didn't try out yet. What do you do? You let them go. Or you pull them back. And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?" Now think of it. This decision makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement. But pulling them back, all of the sudden becomes more complex. There is one more decision. What happens now? Majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go to hip replacement. I hope this worries you, by the way -- (Laughter) when you go to see your physician. The thing is is that no physician would ever say, "Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement. Let's go for hip replacement." But the moment you set this as the default it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing. I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making. Imagine I give you a choice. Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome? All expenses paid: hotel, transportation, food, breakfast, a continental breakfast, everything. Or a weekend in Paris? Now, a weekend in Paris, a weekend in Rome, these are different things; they have different food, different culture, different art. Now imagine I added a choice to the set that nobody wanted. Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome, a weekend in Paris, or having your car stolen?" (Laughter) It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen, in this set, influence anything? (Laughter) But what if the option to have your car stolen was not exactly like this. What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid, transportation, breakfast, but doesn't include coffee in the morning. If you want coffee you have to pay for it yourself. It's two euros 50. Now in some ways, given that you can have Rome with coffee, why would you possibly want Rome without coffee? It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option. But guess what happened. The moment you add Rome without coffee, Rome with coffee becomes more popular. And people choose it. The fact that you have Rome without coffee makes Rome with coffee look superior, and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris. (Laughter) Here are two examples of this principle. This was an ad from The Economist a few years ago that gave us three choices. An online subscription for 59 dollars. A print subscription for 125. Or you could get both for 125. (Laughter) Now I looked at this and I called up The Economist. And I tried to figure out what were they thinking. And they passed me from one person to another to another, until eventually I got to a person who was in charge of the website. And I called them up. And they went to check what was going on. The next thing I know, the ad is gone. And no explanation. So I decided to do the experiment that I would have loved The Economist to do with me. I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students. I said, "What would you choose?" These are the market share. Most people wanted the combo deal. Thankfully nobody wanted the dominated option. That means our students can read. (Laughter) But now if you have an option that nobody wants, you can take it off. Right? So I printed another version of this, where I eliminated the middle option. I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happens. Now the most popular option became the least popular. And the least popular became the most popular. What was happening was the option that was useless, in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it. But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out what they wanted. In fact, relative to the option in the middle, which was get only the print for 125, the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal. And as a consequence, people chose it. The general idea here, by the way, is that we actually don't know our preferences that well. And because we don't know our preferences that well we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces: the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on. One more example of this. People believe that when we deal with physical attraction, we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not, attracted or not. Which is why we have these four-minute dates. So I decided to do this experiment with people. I'll show you graphic images of people -- not real people. The experiment was with people. I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry. I said "Who do you want to date? Tom or Jerry?" But for half the people I added an ugly version of Jerry. I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive. (Laughter) The other people, I added an ugly version of Tom. And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom help their respective, more attractive brothers? The answer was absolutely yes. When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular. When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular. (Laughter) This of course has two very clear implications for life in general. If you ever go bar hopping, who do you want to take with you? (Laughter) You want a slightly uglier version of yourself. (Laughter) Similar. Similar ... but slightly uglier. (Laughter) The second point, or course, is that if somebody else invites you, you know how they think about you. (Laughter) Now you're getting it. What is the general point? The general point is that when we think about economics we have this beautiful view of human nature. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!" We have this view of ourselves, of others. The behavioral economics perspective is slightly less generous to people. In fact in medical terms, that's our view. (Laughter) But there is a silver lining. The silver lining is, I think, kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting. Are we Superman? Or are we Homer Simpson? When it comes to building the physical world, we kind of understand our limitations. We build steps. And we build these things that not everybody can use obviously. (Laughter) We understand our limitations, and we build around it. But for some reason when it comes to the mental world, when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stockmarkets, we somehow forget the idea that we are limited. I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations in the same way that we understand our physical limitations, even though they don't stare us in the face in the same way, we could design a better world. And that, I think, is the hope of this thing. Thank you very much. (Applause)

I should tell you that when I was asked to be here, I thought to myself that well, it's TED. And these TEDsters are -- you know, as innocent as that name sounds -- these are the philanthropists and artists and scientists who sort of shape our world. And what could I possibly have to say that would be distinguished enough to justify my participation in something like that? And so I thought perhaps a really civilized-sounding British accent might help things a bit. And then I thought no, no. I should just get up there and be myself and just talk the way I really talk because, after all, this is the great unveiling. And so I thought I'd come up here and unveil my real voice to you. Although many of you already know that I do speak the Queen's English because I am from Queens, New York. (Laughter) But the theme of this session, of course, is invention. And while I don't have any patents that I'm aware of, you will be meeting a few of my inventions today. I suppose it's fair to say that I am interested in the invention of self or selves. We're all born into certain circumstances with particular physical traits, unique developmental experiences, geographical and historical contexts. But then what? To what extent do we self-construct, do we self-invent? How do we self-identify and how mutable is that identity? Like, what if one could be anyone at any time? Well my characters, like the ones in my shows, allow me to play with the spaces between those questions. And so I've brought a couple of them with me. And well, they're very excited. What I should tell you -- what I should tell you is that they've each prepared their own little TED talks. So feel free to think of this as Sarah University. (Laughter) Okay. Okay. Oh, well. Oh, wonderful. Good evening everybody. Thank you so very much for having me here today. Ah, thank you very much. My name is Lorraine Levine. Oh my! There's so many of you. Hi sweetheart. Okay. (Laughter) Anyway, I am here because of a young girl, Sarah Jones. She's a very nice, young black girl. Well you know, she calls herself black -- she's really more like a caramel color if you look at her. But anyway. (Laughter) She has me here because she puts me in her show, what she calls her one-woman show. And you know what that means, of course. That means she takes the credit and then makes us come out here and do all the work. But I don't mind. Frankly, I'm kvelling just to be here with all the luminaries you have attending something like this, you know. Really, it's amazing. Not only, of course, the scientists and all the wonderful giants of the industries but the celebrities. There are so many celebrities running around here. I saw -- Glenn Close I saw earlier. I love her. And she was getting a yogurt in the Google cafe. Isn't that adorable? (Laughter) So many others you see, they're just wonderful. It's lovely to know they're concerned, you know. And -- oh, I saw Goldie Hawn. Oh, Goldie Hawn. I love her, too; she's wonderful. Yeah. You know, she's only half Jewish. Did you know that about her? Yeah. But even so, a wonderful talent. (Laughter) And I -- you know, when I saw her, such a wonderful feeling. Yeah, she's lovely. But anyway, I should have started by saying just how lucky I feel. It's such an eye-opening experience to be here. You're all so responsible for this world that we live in today. You know, I couldn't have dreamed of such a thing as a young girl. And you've all made these advancements happen in such a short time -- you're all so young. You know, your parents must be very proud. But I -- I also appreciate the diversity that you have here. I noticed it's very multicultural. You know, when you're standing up here, you can see all the different people. It's like a rainbow. It's okay to say rainbow. Yeah. I just -- I can't keep up with whether you can say, you know, the different things. What are you allowed to say or not say? I just -- I don't want to offend anybody. You know. But anyway, you know, I just think that to be here with all of you accomplished young people -- literally, some of you, the architects building our brighter future. You know, it's heartening to me. Even though, quite frankly, some of your presentations are horrifying, absolutely horrifying. It's true. It's true. You know, between the environmental degradation and the crashing of the world markets you're talking about. And of course, we know it's all because of the -- all the ... Well, I don't know how else to say it to you, so I'll just say it my way: the ganeyvish schticklich coming from the governments and the, you know, the bankers and the Wall Street. You know it. Anyway. (Laughter) The point is, I'm happy somebody has practical ideas to get us out of this mess. So I salute each of you and your stellar achievements. Thank you for all that you do. And congratulations on being such big makhers that you've become TED meisters. So, happy continued success. Congratulations. Mazel tov. (Applause) Hi. Hi. Thank you everybody. Sorry, this is such a wonderful opportunity and everything, to be here right now. My name is Noraida. And I'm just -- I'm so thrilled to be part of like your TED conference that you're doing and everything like that. I am Dominican-American. Actually, you could say I grew up in the capital of Dominican Republic, otherwise known as Washington Heights in New York City. But I don't know if there's any other Dominican people here, but I know that Juan Enriquez, he was here yesterday. And I think he's Mexican, so that's -- honestly, that's close enough for me right now. So -- (Laughter) I just -- I'm sorry. I'm just trying not to be nervous because this is a very wonderful experience for me and everything. And I just -- you know I'm not used to doing the public speaking. And whenever I get nervous I start to talk really fast. Nobody can understand nothing I'm saying, which is very frustrating for me, as you can imagine. I usually have to just like try to calm down and take a deep breath. But then on top of that, you know, Sarah Jones told me we only have 18 minutes. So then I'm like, should I be nervous, you know, because maybe it's better. And I'm just trying not to panic and freak out. So I like, take a deep breath. Okay. Sorry. So anyway, what I was trying to say is that I really love TED. Like, I love everything about this. It's amazing. Like, it's -- I can't get over this right now. And, like, people would not believe, seriously, where I'm from, that this even exists. You know, like even, I mean I love like the name, the -- TED. I mean I know it's a real person and everything, but I'm just saying that like, you know, I think it's very cool how it's also an acronym, you know, which is like, you know, is like very high concept and everything like that. I like that. And actually, I can relate to the whole like acronym thing and everything. Because, actually, I'm a sophomore at college right now. At my school -- actually I was part of co-founding an organization, which is like a leadership thing, you know, like you guys, you would really like it and everything. And the organization is called DA BOMB, A\and DA BOMB -- not like what you guys can build and everything -- it's like, DA BOMB, it means like Dominican -- it's an acronym -- Dominican-American Benevolent Organization for Mothers and Babies. So, I know, see, like the name is like a little bit long, but with the war on terror and everything, the Dean of Student Activities has asked us to stop saying DA BOMB and use the whole thing so nobody would get the wrong idea, whatever. So, basically like DA BOMB -- what Dominican-American Benevolent Organization for Mothers and Babies does is, basically, we try to advocate for students who show a lot of academic promise and who also happen to be mothers like me. I am a working mother, and I also go to school full-time. And, you know, it's like -- it's so important to have like role models out there. I mean, I know sometimes our lifestyles are very different, whatever. But like even at my job -- like, I just got promoted. Right now it's very exciting actually for me because I'm the Junior Assistant to the Associate Director under the Senior Vice President for Business Development -- that's my new title. So, but I think whether you own your own company or you're just starting out like me, like something like this is so vital for people to just continue expanding their minds and learning. And if everybody, like all people really had access to that, it would be a very different world out there, as I know you know. So, I think all people, we need that, but especially, I look at people like me, you know like, I mean, Latinos -- we're about to be the majority, in like two weeks. So, we deserve just as much to be part of the exchange of ideas as everybody else. So, I'm very happy that you're, you know, doing this kind of thing, making the talks available online. That's very good. I love that. And I just -- I love you guys. I love TED. And if you don't mind, privately now, in the future, I'm going to think of TED as an acronym for Technology, Entertainment and Dominicans. Thank you very much. (Laughter) (Applause) So, that was Noraida, and just like Lorraine and everybody else you're meeting today, these are folks who are based on real people from my real life: friends, neighbors, family members. I come from a multicultural family. In fact, the older lady you just met: very, very loosely based on a great aunt on my mother's side. It's a long story, believe me. But on top of my family background, my parents also sent me to the United Nations school, where I encountered a plethora of new characters, including Alexandre, my French teacher, okay. Well, you know, it was beginner French, that I am taking with her, you know. And it was Madame Bousson, you know, she was very [French]. It was like, you know, she was there in the class, you know, she was kind of typically French. You know, she was very chic, but she was very filled with ennui, you know. And she would be there, you know, kind of talking with the class, you know, talking about the, you know, the existential futility of life, you know. And we were only 11 years old, so it was not appropriate. (Laughter) But [German]. Yes, I took German for three years, [German], and it was quite the experience because I was the only black girl in the class, even in the UN school. Although, you know, it was wonderful. The teacher, Herr Schtopf, he never discriminated. Never. He always, always treated each of us, you know, equally unbearably during the class. So, there were the teachers and then there were my friends, classmates from everywhere, many of whom are still dear friends to this day. And they've inspired many characters as well. For example, a friend of mine. Well, I just wanted to quickly say good evening. My name is Praveen Manvi and thank you very much for this opportunity. Of course, TED, the reputation precedes itself all over the world. But, you know, I am originally from India, and I wanted to start by telling you that once Sarah Jones told me that we will be having the opportunity to come here to TED in California, originally, I was very pleased and, frankly, relieved because, you know, I am a human rights advocate. And usually my work, it takes me to Washington D.C. And there, I must attend these meetings, mingling with some tiresome politicians, trying to make me feel comfortable by telling how often they are eating the curry in Georgetown. (Laughter) So, you can just imagine -- right. So, but I'm thrilled to be joining all of you here. I wish we had more time together, but that's for another time. Okay? Great. (Applause) And, sadly, I don't think we'll have time for you to meet everybody I brought, but -- I'm trying to behave myself, it's my first time here. But I do want to introduce you to a couple of folks you may recognize, if you saw "Bridge and Tunnel." Uh, well, thank you. Good evening. My name is Pauline Ning, and first I want to tell you that I'm -- of course I am a member of the Chinese community in New York. But when Sarah Jones asked me to please come to TED, I said, well, you know, first, I don't know that, you know -- before two years ago, you would not find me in front of an audience of people, much less like this because I did not like to give speeches because I feel that, as an immigrant, I do not have good English skills for speaking. But then, I decided, just like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, I try anyway. (Laughter) My daughter -- my daughter wrote that, she told me, "Always start your speech with humor." But my background -- I want to tell you story only briefly. My husband and I, we brought our son and daughter here in 1980s to have the freedom we cannot have in China at that time. And we tried to teach our kids to be proud of their tradition, but it's very hard. You know, as immigrant, I would speak Chinese to them, and they would always answer me back in English. They love rock music, pop culture, American culture. But when they got older, when the time comes for them to start think about getting married, that's when we expect them to realize, a little bit more, their own culture. But that's where we had some problems. My son, he says he is not ready to get married. And he has a sweetheart, but she is American woman, not Chinese. It's not that it's bad, but I told him, "What's wrong with a Chinese woman?" But I think he will change his mind soon. So, then I decide instead, I will concentrate on my daughter. The daughter's marriage is very special to the mom. But first, she said she's not interested. She only wants to spend time with her friends. And then at college, it's like she never came home. And she doesn't want me to come and visit. So I said, "What's wrong in this picture?" So, I accused my daughter to have like a secret boyfriend. But she told me, "Mom, you don't have to worry about boys because I don't like them." (Laughter) And I said, "Yes, men can be difficult, but all women have to get used to that." She said, "No Mom. I mean, I don't like boys. I like girls. I am lesbian." So, I always teach my kids to respect American ideas, but I told my daughter that this is one exception -- (Laughter) -- that she is not gay, she is just confused by this American problem. But she told me, "Mom, it's not American." She said she is in love -- in love with a nice Chinese girl. (Laughter) So, these are the words I am waiting to hear, but from my son, not my daughter. (Laughter) But at first I did not know what to do. But then, over time, I have come to understand that this is who she is. So, even though sometimes it's still hard, I will share with you that it helps me to realize society is more tolerant, usually because of places like this, because of ideas like this, and people like you, with an open mind. So I think maybe TED, you impact people's lives in the ways maybe even you don't realize. So, for my daughter's sake, I thank you for your ideas worth spreading. Thank you. Xie xie. (Applause) Good evening. My name is Habbi Belahal. And I would like to first of all thank Sarah Jones for putting all of the pressure on the only Arab who she brought with her to be last today. I am originally from Jordan. And I teach comparative literature at Queens College. It is not Harvard. But I feel a bit like a fish out of water. But I am very proud of my students. And I see that a few of them did make it here to the conference. So you will get the extra credit I promised you. But, while I know that I may not look like the typical TED-izen, as you would say, I do like to make the point that we in global society, we are never as different as the appearances may suggest. So, if you will indulge me, I will share quickly with you a bit of verse, which I memorized as a young girl at 16 years of age. So, back in the ancient times. [Arabic] And this roughly translates: "Please, let me hold your hand. I want to hold your hand. I want to hold your hand. And when I touch you, I feel happy inside. It's such a feeling that my love, I can't hide, I can't hide, I can't hide." Well, so okay, but please, please, but please. If it is sounding familiar, it is because I was at the same time in my life listening to the Beatles. On the radio [unclear], they were very popular. So, all of that is to say that I like to believe that for every word intended as to render us deaf to one another, there is always a lyric connecting ears and hearts across the continents in rhyme. And I pray that this is the way that we will self-invent, in time. That's all, shukran. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Okay? Great. (Applause) Thank you all very much. It was lovely. Thank you for having me. (Applause) Thank you very, very much. I love you. (Applause) Well, you have to let me say this. I just -- thank you. I want to thank Chris and Jacqueline, and just everyone for having me here. It's been a long time coming, and I feel like I'm home. And I know I've performed for some of your companies or some of you have seen me elsewhere, but this is honestly one of the best audiences I've ever experienced. The whole thing is amazing, and so don't you all go reinventing yourselves any time soon. (Applause)

I do want to test this question we're all interested in: Does extinction have to be forever? I'm focused on two projects I want to tell you about. One is the Thylacine Project. The other one is the Lazarus Project, and that's focused on the gastric-brooding frog. And it would be a fair question to ask, why have we focused on these two animals? Well, point number one, each of them represents a unique family of its own. We've lost a whole family. That's a big chunk of the global genome gone. I'd like it back. The second reason is that we killed these things. In the case of the thylacine, regrettably, we shot every one that we saw. We slaughtered them. In the case of the gastric-brooding frog, we may have "fungicided" it to death. There's a dreadful fungus that's moving through the world that's called the chytrid fungus, and it's nailing frogs all over the world. We think that's probably what got this frog, and humans are spreading this fungus. And this introduces a very important ethical point, and I think you will have heard this many times when this topic comes up. What I think is important is that, if it's clear that we exterminated these species, then I think we not only have a moral obligation to see what we can do about it, but I think we've got a moral imperative to try to do something, if we can. OK. Let me talk to you about the Lazarus Project. It's a frog. And you think, frog. Yeah, but this was not just any frog. Unlike a normal frog, which lays its eggs in the water and goes away and wishes its froglets well, this frog swallowed its fertilized eggs, swallowed them into the stomach, where it should be having food, didn't digest the eggs, and turned its stomach into a uterus. In the stomach, the eggs went on to develop into tadpoles, and in the stomach, the tadpoles went on to develop into frogs, and they grew in the stomach until eventually the poor old frog was at risk of bursting apart. It has a little cough and a hiccup, and out comes sprays of little frogs. Now, when biologists saw this, they were agog. They thought, this is incredible. No animal, let alone a frog, has been known to do this, to change one organ in the body into another. And you can imagine the medical world went nuts over this as well. If we could understand how that frog is managing the way its tummy works, is there information here that we need to understand or could usefully use to help ourselves? Now, I'm not suggesting we want to raise our babies in our stomach, but I am suggesting it's possible we might want to manage gastric secretion in the gut. And just as everybody got excited about it, bang! It was extinct. I called up my friend, Professor Mike Tyler in the University of Adelaide. He was the last person who had this frog, a colony of these things, in his lab. And I said, "Mike, by any chance --" This was 30 or 40 years ago. "By any chance had you kept any frozen tissue of this frog?" And he thought about it, and he went to his deep freezer, minus 20 degrees centigrade, and he poured through everything in the freezer, and there in the bottom was a jar and it contained tissues of these frogs. This was very exciting, but there was no reason why we should expect that this would work, because this tissue had not had any antifreeze put in it, cryoprotectants, to look after it when it was frozen. And normally, when water freezes, as you know, it expands, and the same thing happens in a cell. If you freeze tissues, the water expands, damages or bursts the cell walls. Well, we looked at the tissue under the microscope. It actually didn't look bad. The cell walls looked intact. So we thought, let's give it a go. What we did is something called somatic cell nuclear transplantation. We took the eggs of a related species, a living frog, and we inactivated the nucleus of the egg. We used ultraviolet radiation to do that. And then we took the dead nucleus from the dead tissue of the extinct frog and we inserted those nuclei into that egg. Now, by rights, this is kind of like a cloning project, like what produced Dolly, but it's actually very different, because Dolly was live sheep into live sheep cells. That was a miracle, but it was workable. What we're trying to do is take a dead nucleus from an extinct species and put it into a completely different species and expect that to work. Well, we had no real reason to expect it would, and we tried hundreds and hundreds of these. And just last February, the last time we did these trials, I saw a miracle starting to happen. What we found was most of these eggs didn't work, but then suddenly, one of them began to divide. That was so exciting. And then the egg divided again. And then again. And pretty soon, we had early-stage embryos with hundreds of cells forming those. We even DNA-tested some of these cells, and the DNA of the extinct frog is in those cells. So we're very excited. This is not a tadpole. It's not a frog. But it's a long way along the journey to producing, or bringing back, an extinct species. And this is news. We haven't announced this publicly before. We're excited. We've got to get past this point. We now want this ball of cells to start to gastrulate, to turn in so that it will produce the other tissues. It'll go on and produce a tadpole and then a frog. Watch this space. I think we're going to have this frog hopping glad to be back in the world again. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) We haven't done it yet, but keep the applause ready. The second project I want to talk to you about is the Thylacine Project. The thylacine looks a bit, to most people, like a dog, or maybe like a tiger, because it has stripes. But it's not related to any of those. It's a marsupial. It raised its young in a pouch, like a koala or a kangaroo would do, and it has a long history, a long, fascinating history, that goes back 25 million years. But it's also a tragic history. The first one that we see occurs in the ancient rain forests of Australia about 25 million years ago, and the National Geographic Society is helping us to explore these fossil deposits. This is Riversleigh. In those fossil rocks are some amazing animals. We found marsupial lions. We found carnivorous kangaroos. It's not what you usually think about as a kangaroo, but these are meat-eating kangaroos. We found the biggest bird in the world, bigger than that thing that was in Madagascar, and it too was a flesh eater. It was a giant, weird duck. And crocodiles were not behaving at that time either. You think of crocodiles as doing their ugly thing, sitting in a pool of water. These crocodiles were actually out on the land and they were even climbing trees and jumping on prey on the ground. We had, in Australia, drop crocs. They really do exist. (Laughter) But what they were dropping on was not only other weird animals but also thylacines. There were five different kinds of thylacines in those ancient forests, and they ranged from great big ones to middle-sized ones to one that was about the size of a chihuahua. Paris Hilton would have been able to carry one of these things around in a little handbag, until a drop croc landed on her. At any rate, it was a fascinating place, but unfortunately, Australia didn't stay this way. Climate change has affected the world for a long period of time, and gradually, the forests disappeared, the country began to dry out, and the number of kinds of thylacines began to decline, until by five million years ago, only one left. By 10,000 years ago, they had disappeared from New Guinea, and unfortunately, by 4,000 years ago, somebodies, we don't know who this was, introduced dingoes -- this is a very archaic kind of a dog -- into Australia. And as you can see, dingoes are very similar in their body form to thylacines. That similarity meant they probably competed. They were eating the same kinds of foods. It's even possible that aborigines were keeping some of these dingoes as pets, and therefore they may have had an advantage in the battle for survival. All we know is, soon after the dingoes were brought in, thylacines were extinct in the Australian mainland, and after that they only survived in Tasmania. Then, unfortunately, the next sad part of the thylacine story is that Europeans arrived in 1788, and they brought with them the things they valued, and that included sheep. They took one look at the thylacine in Tasmania, and they thought, hang on, this is not going to work. That guy is going to eat all our sheep. That was not what happened, actually. Wild dogs did eat a few of the sheep, but the thylacine got a bad rap. But immediately, the government said, that's it, let's get rid of them, and they paid people to slaughter every one that they saw. By the early 1930s, 3,000 to 4,000 thylacines had been murdered. It was a disaster, and they were about to hit the wall. Have a look at this bit of film footage. It makes me very sad because, while it's a fascinating animal, and it's amazing to think that we had the technology to film it before it actually plunged off that cliff of extinction, we didn't, unfortunately, at this same time, have a molecule of concern about the welfare for this species. These are photos of the last surviving thylacine, Benjamin, who was in the Beaumaris Zoo in Hobart. To add insult to injury, having swept this species nearly off the table, this animal, when it died of neglect -- The keepers didn't let it into the hutch on a cold night in Hobart. It died of exposure, and in the morning, when they found the body of Benjamin, they still cared so little for this animal that they threw the body in the dump. Does it have to stay this way? In 1990, I was in the Australian Museum. I was fascinated by thylacines. I've always been obsessed with these animals. And I was studying skulls, trying to figure out their relationships to other sorts of animals, and I saw this jar, and here, in the jar, was a little girl thylacine pup, perhaps six months old. The guy who had found it and killed the mother had pickled the pup, and they pickled it in alcohol. I'm a paleontologist, but I still knew alcohol was a DNA preservative. But this was 1990, and I asked my geneticist friends, couldn't we think about going into this pup and extracting DNA, if it's there, and then somewhere down the line in the future, we'll use this DNA to bring the thylacine back? The geneticists laughed. But this was six years before Dolly. Cloning was science fiction. It had not happened. But then suddenly cloning did happen. And I thought, when I became director of the Australian Museum, I'm going to give this a go. I put a team together. We went into that pup to see what was in it, and we did find thylacine DNA. It was a eureka moment. We were very excited. Unfortunately, we also found a lot of human DNA. Every old curator who'd been in that museum had seen this wonderful specimen, put their hand in the jar, pulled it out and thought, "Wow, look at that," plop, dropped it back in the jar, contaminating this specimen. And that was a worry. If the goal here was to get the DNA out and use the DNA down the track to try to bring a thylacine back, what we didn't want happening when the information was shoved into the machine and the wheel turned around and the lights flashed, was to have a wizened old horrible curator pop out the other end of the machine. It would've kept the curator very happy, but it wasn't going to keep us happy. So we went back to these specimens and we started digging around, and particularly, we looked into the teeth of skulls, hard parts where humans had not been able to get their fingers, and we found much better quality DNA. We found nuclear mitochondrial genes. It's there. So we got it. OK. What could we do with this stuff? Well, George Church, in his book, "Regenesis," has mentioned many of the techniques that are rapidly advancing to work with fragmented DNA. We would hope that we'll be able to get that DNA back into a viable form, and then, much like we've done with the Lazarus Project, get that stuff into an egg of a host species. It has to be a different species. What could it be? Why couldn't it be a Tasmanian devil? They're related, distantly, to thylacines. And then the Tasmanian devil is going to pop a thylacine out the south end. Critics of this project say, hang on. Thylacine, Tasmanian devil? That's going to hurt. No, it's not. These are marsupials. They give birth to babies that are the size of a jelly bean. That Tasmanian devil's not even going to know it gave birth. It is, shortly, going to think it's got the ugliest Tasmanian devil baby in the world, so maybe it'll need some help to keep it going. Andrew Pask and his colleagues have demonstrated this might not be a waste of time. And it's sort of in the future, we haven't got there yet, but it's the kind of thing we want to think about. They took some of this same pickled thylacine DNA and they spliced it into a mouse genome, but they put a tag on it so that anything that this thylacine DNA produced would appear blue-green in the mouse baby. In other words, if thylacine tissues were being produced by the thylacine DNA, it would be able to be recognized. When the baby popped up, it was filled with blue-green tissues. And that tells us if we can get that genome back together, get it into a live cell, it's going to produce thylacine stuff. Is this a risk? You've taken the bits of one animal and you've mixed them into the cell of a different kind of an animal. Are we going to get a Frankenstein? Some kind of weird hybrid chimera? And the answer is no. If the only nuclear DNA that goes into this hybrid cell is thylacine DNA, that's the only thing that can pop out the other end of the devil. OK, if we can do this, could we put it back? This is a key question for everybody. Does it have to stay in a laboratory, or could we put it back where it belongs? Could we put it back in the throne of the king of beasts in Tasmania, restore that ecosystem? Or has Tasmania changed so much that that's no longer possible? I've been to Tasmania. I've been to many of the areas where the thylacines were common. I've even spoken to people, like Peter Carter here, who when I spoke to him, was 90 years old, but in 1926, this man and his father and his brother caught thylacines. They trapped them. And when I spoke to this man, I was looking in his eyes and thinking, "Behind those eyes is a brain that has memories of what thylacines feel like, what they smelled like, what they sounded like." He led them around on a rope. He has personal experiences that I would give my left leg to have in my head. We'd all love to have this sort of thing happen. Anyway, I asked Peter, by any chance, could he take us back to where he caught those thylacines. My interest was in whether the environment had changed. He thought hard. It was nearly 80 years before this that he'd been at this hut. At any rate, he led us down this bush track, and there, right where he remembered, was the hut, and tears came into his eyes. He looked at the hut. We went inside. There were the wooden boards on the sides of the hut where he and his father and his brother had slept at night. And he told me, as it all was flooding back in memories. He said, "I remember the thylacines going around the hut wondering what was inside," and he said they made sounds like "Yip! Yip! Yip!" All of these are parts of his life and what he remembers. And the key question for me was to ask Peter, has it changed? And he said no. The southern beech forests surrounded his hut just like it was when he was there in 1926. The grasslands were sweeping away. That's classic thylacine habitat. And the animals in those areas were the same that were there when the thylacine was around. So could we put it back? Yes. Is that all we would do? And this is an interesting question. Sometimes you might be able to put it back, but is that the safest way to make sure it never goes extinct again? And I don't think so. I think gradually, as we see species all around the world, it's kind of a mantra that wildlife is increasingly not safe in the wild. We'd love to think it is, but we know it isn't. We need other parallel strategies coming online. And this one interests me. Some of the thylacines that were being turned in to zoos, sanctuaries, even at the museums, had collar marks on the neck. They were being kept as pets, and we know a lot of bush tales and memories of people who had them as pets, and they say they were wonderful, friendly. This particular one came in out of the forest to lick this boy and curled up around the fireplace to go to sleep. A wild animal. And I'd like to ask the question. We need to think about this. If it had not been illegal to keep these thylacines as pets then, would the thylacine be extinct now? And I'm positive it wouldn't. We need to think about this in today's world. Could it be that getting animals close to us so that we value them, maybe they won't go extinct? And this is such a critical issue for us because if we don't do that, we're going to watch more of these animals plunge off the precipice. As far as I'm concerned, this is why we're trying to do these kinds of de-extinction projects. We are trying to restore that balance of nature that we have upset. Thank you. (Applause)

I was informed by this kind of unoriginal and trite idea that new technologies were an opportunity for social transformation, which is what drove me then, and still, it's a delusion that drives me now. I wanted to update what I've been doing since then -- but it's still the same theme song -- and introduce you to my lab and current work, which is the Environmental Health Clinic that I run at NYU. And what it is -- it's a twist on health. Because, really, what I'm trying to do now is redefine what counts as health. It's a clinic like a health clinic at any other university, except people come to the clinic with environmental health concerns, and they walk out with prescriptions for things they can do to improve environmental health, as opposed to coming to a clinic with medical concerns and walking out with prescriptions for pharmaceuticals. It's a handy-dandy quote from Hippocrates of the Hippocratic oath that says, "The greater part of the soul lays outside the body, treatment of the inner requires treatment of the outer." But that suggests the issue that I'm trying to get at here, that we have an opportunity to redefine what is health. Because this idea that health is internal and atomized and individual and pharmaceutical is largely an error. And I would use this study, a recent study by Philip Landrigan, to motivate a different view of health, where he went to most of the pediatricians in Manhattan and the New York area and logged what they spent their patient hours on. 80 to 90 percent of their time was spent on five things. Number one was asthma, number two was developmental delays, number three was 400-fold increases in rare childhood cancers in the last eight to 10, 15 years. Number four and five were childhood obesity and diabetes-related issues. So all of those -- what's common about all of those? The environment is implicated, radically implicated, right. This is not the germs that medicos were trained to deal with; this is a different definition of health, health that has a great advantage because it's external, it's shared, we can do something about it, as opposed to internal, genetically predetermined or individualized. People who come to the clinic are called, not patients, but impatients, because they're too impatient to wait for legislative change to address local and environmental health issues. And I meet them at the University, I also have a few field offices that I set up in various places that provide an immersion in some of the environmental challenges we face. I like this one from the Belgian field office, where we met in a roundabout, precisely because the roundabout iconified the headless social movement that informs much social transformation, as opposed to the top-down control of red light traffic intersections. In this case, of course, the roundabout with that micro-decisions being made in situ by people not being told what to do. But, of course, affords greater throughput, fewer accidents, and an interesting model of social movement. Some of the things that the monitoring protocols have developed: this is the tadpole bureaucrat protocol, or keeping tabs, if you will. What they are is an addition of tadpoles that are named after a local bureaucrat whose decisions affect your water quality. So an impatient concerned for water quality would raise a tadpole bureaucrat in a sample of water in which they're interested. And we give them a couple of things to do that, to help them do companion animal devices while they're blogging and doing their email. This is a tadpole walker to take your tadpole walking in the evening. And the interesting thing that happens -- because we're using tadpoles, of course, because they have the most exquisite biosenses that we have, several orders of magnitude more sensitive than some of our senses for sensing, responding in a biologically meaningful way, to that whole class of industrial contaminants we call endocrine disruptors or hormone emulators. But by taking your tadpole out for a walk in the evening -- there's a few action shots -- your neighbors are likely to say, "What are you doing?" And then you have to introduce your tadpole and who it's named after. You have to explain what you're doing and how the developmental events of a tadpole are, of course, very observable and they use the same T3-mediated hormones that we do. And so next time your neighbor sees you they'll say, "How is that tadpole doing?" And you can let them social network with your tadpole, because the Environmental Health Clinic has a social networking site for, not only impatients, humans, but non-humans, social networking for humans and non-humans. And of course, these endocrine disruptors are things that are implicated in the breast cancer epidemic, the obesity epidemic, the two and a half year drop in the average age of onset of puberty in young girls and other related things. The culmination of this is if you've successfully raised your tadpole, observing the behavioral and developmental events, you will then go and introduce your tadpole to its namesake and discuss the evidence that you've seen. Another quick protocol -- and I'm going to go through these quickly, but just to give you the material sense of what we're doing here -- instead of asking you for urine samples, I'll ask you for a mouse sample. Anyone here lucky enough to share, to cohabit with a mouse -- a domestic partnership with mice? Very lucky. Mice, of course, are the quintessential model organism. They're even better models of environmental health, because not only the same mammalian biology, but they share your diet, largely. They share your environmental stressors, the asbestos levels and lead levels, whatever you're exposed to. And they're geographically more limited than you are, because we don't know if you've been exposed to persistent organic pollutants in your home, or occupationally or as a child. Mice are a very good representation. So it starts by building a better mousetrap, of course. This is one of them. Coping with environmental stressors is tricky. Is anybody here on antidepressants? (Laughter) There's a lot of people in Manhattan are. And we were testing if the mice would also self-administer SSRIs. So this was Prozac, this was Zoloft, this was a black jellybean and this was muscle relaxant, all of which were the medications that the impatient was taking. So do you think the mice self-administered antidepressants? What's the -- (Audience: Sure. Yes.) How did you know that? They did. This was vodka and solution, gin and solution. This guy also liked plain water and the muscle relaxant. Where's our expert? Vodka, gin -- (Audience: [unclear]) Yes. Yes. You know your mice well. They did, yes. So they drank as much vodka as they did plain water, which was interesting. Then of course, it goes into the entrapment device. There's an old cellphone in there -- a good use for old cellphones -- which dials the clinic, we go and pick up the mouse. We take the blood sample and do the blood work and hair work on the mice. And I want to sort of point out the big advantage of framing health in this external way. But we do have a few prescription products through this. It's very different from the medical model. Anything you do to improve your water quality or air quality, or to understand it or to change it, the benefits are enjoyed by anyone you share that water quality or air quality with. And that aggregating effect, that collective action effect, is actually something we can use to our advantage. So I want to show you one prescription product in the clinic called the No Park. This is a prescription to improve water quality. Many impatients are very concerned for water quality and air quality. What we do is we take a fire hydrant, a "no parking" space associated with a fire hydrant, and we prescribe the removal of the asphalt to create an engineered micro landscape, to create an infiltration opportunity. Because, many of you will know, that the biggest pollution burden that we have on the New York, New Jersey harbor right now is no longer the point sources, no longer the big polluters, no longer the GEs, but that massive network of roads, [those] impervious surfaces, that collect all that cadmium neurotoxin that comes from your brake liners or the oily hydrocarbon waste in every single storm event and medieval infrastructure washes it straight into the estuary system. That doesn't do a lot of good. These are little opportunities to intercept those pollutants before they enter the harbor, and they're produced by impatients on various city blocks in some very interesting ways. I just want to say it was sort of a rule of thumb though, there's about two or three fire hydrants on every city block. By creating engineered micro landscapes to infiltrate in them, we don't prevent them from being used as emergency vehicle parking spaces, because, of course, a firetruck can come and park there. They flatten a few plants. No big deal, they'll regenerate. But if we did this in every single -- every fire hydrant we could redefine the emergency. That 99 percent of the time when a firetruck is not parking there, it's infiltrating pollutants. It's also increasing fixing CO2s, sequestering some of the airborne pollutants. And aggregated, these smaller interceptions could actually infiltrate all the roadborne pollution that now runs into the estuary system, up to a seven inch rain event, up to a hundred-year storm. So these are small actions that can amount to a significant effect to improve local environmental health. This is one of the more ambitious ones. What the climate crisis has revealed to us is a secondary, more insidious and more pervasive crisis, which is the crisis of agency, which is what to do. Somehow buying a local lettuce, changing a light bulb, driving the speed limit, changing your tires regularly, doesn't seem sufficient in the face of climate crisis. And this is an interesting icon that happened -- you remember these: fallout shelters. What is the fallout shelter for the climate crisis? This was civic mobilization. Churches, school groups, hospitals, private residents -- everyone built one of these in a matter of months. And they still remain as icons of civic response in the face of shared, uncertain, collective threat. Fallout shelter for the climate crisis, I would say, looks something like this, or this, which is an intensive urban agriculture facility that's due to go on my lab building at NYU. What it does is a very simple idea of taking -- 80 to 90 percent of the CO2 produced in Manhattan is building related -- we take, just like a commercial greenhouse, we take the CO2 from the building -- CO2-enriched air -- we force it through the urban agriculture facility, and then we resupply oxygen-enriched air. You can't actually build much on a roof, they're not designed for that. So it's on legs, so it focuses all the load on the masonry walls and the columns. It's built as a barn raising, using open source hardware. This is the quarter-scale prototype that was functioning in Spain. This is what it will look like, fingers crossed, NYU willing. And what I want to show you is -- actually this is one of the components of it that we've just recently been testing -- which is a solar chimney -- we have got 17 of them now put around New York at the moment -- that passively draws air up. You understand a solar chimney. Hot air rises. You put a bit of black plastic on the side of a building, it'll heat up, and you'll get passive airflow. What we do is actually put a standard HVAC filter on the top of that. That actually removes about 95 percent of the carbon black, that stuff that, with ozone, is responsible for about half of global warming's effects, because it changes, it settles on the snow, it changes the reflectors, it changes the transmission qualities of the atmosphere. Carbon black is that grime that otherwise lodges in your pretty pink lungs, and it's associated with. It's not good stuff, and it's from inefficient combustion, not from combustion itself. When we put it through our solar chimney, we remove actually about 95 percent of that. And then I swap it out with the students and actually re-release that carbon black. And we make pencils the length of which measures the grime that we've pulled out of the air. Here's one of them that we have up now. Here's who put them up and who are avid pencil users. Okay, so I want to show you just two more interfaces, because I think one of our big challenges is re-imagining our relationship to natural systems, not only through this model of twisted personalized health, but through the animals with whom we cohabit. We are not alone; the animals are moving in. In fact, urban migration now describes the movement of animals formerly known as wild into urban centers. You know, coyote in Central Park, a whale in the Gowanus Canal, elk in Westchester County. It's happening all over the Developed World, probably for loss of habitat, but also because our cities are a little bit more livable than they have been. And every green space we create is an invitation for non-humans to cohabit with us. But we've kind of lacked imagination in how we could do that well or interestingly. And I want to show you a few of the technological interfaces that have been developed under the moniker of OOZ -- which is zoo backwards and without cages -- to try and reform that relationship. This is communication technology for birds. It looks like this. When a bird lands on it, they trigger a sound file. This is actually in the Whitney Museum, where there were six of them, each of which had a different argument on it, different sound file. They said things like this. (Whistling) Recorded Voice: Here's what you need to do. Go down there and buy some of those health food bars, the ones you call bird food, and bring it here and scatter it around. There's a good person. Natalie Jeremijenko: Okay. (Laugher) So there was several of these. The birds were able to jump from one to the other. These are just your average urban pigeon. And an early test which argument elicited cooperative behavior from the people below -- about a hundred to one decided that this was the argument that worked best on us. Recorded Voice: Tick, tick, tick. That's the sound of genetic mutations of the avian flu becoming a deadly human flu. Do you know what slows it down? Healthy sub-populations of birds, increasing biodiversity generally. It is in your interests that I'm healthy, happy, well-fed. Hence, you could share some of your nutritional resources instead of monopolizing them. That is, share your lunch. (Laughter) NJ: It worked, and it's true. The final project I'd like to show you is a new interface for fish that has just been launched -- it's actually officially launched next week -- with a wonderful commission from the Architectural League. You may not have known that you need to communicate with fish, but there is now a device for you to do so. It looks like this: buoys that float on the water, project three foot up, three foot down. When a fish swims underneath, a light goes on. This is what it looks like. So there's another function on here. This top light is -- I'm sorry if I'm making you seasick -- this top light is actually a water quality display that shifts from red, when the dissolved oxygen is low, to a blue/green, when its dissolved oxygen is high. And then you can also text the fish. So there's business cards down there that'll give you contact details. And they text back. When the buoys get your text, they wink at you twice to say, we've got your message. But perhaps the most popular has been that we've got another array of these boys in the Bronx River, where the first beaver -- crazy as he is -- to have moved in and built a lodge in New York in 250 years, hangs out. So updates from a beaver. You can subscribe to updates from him. You can talk to him. And what I like to think of is this is an interface that re-scripts how we interact with natural systems, specifically by changing who has information, where they have it, who can make sense of that information, and what you can do about it. In this case, instead of throwing chewing gum, or Doritos or whatever you have in your pocket at the fish -- There's a body of water in Iceland that I've been dealing with that's in the middle of the city, and the largest pollution burden on it is not the roadborne pollution, it's actually white bread from people feeding the fish and the birds. Instead of doing that actually, we've developed some fish sticks that you can feed the fish. They're delicious. They're cross-species delicious that is, delicious for humans and non-humans. But they also have a chelating agent in them. They're nutritionally appropriate, not like Doritos. And so every time that desire to interact with the animals, which is at least as ubiquitous as that sign: "Do not feed the animals." And there's about three of them on every New York City park. And Yellowstone National Park, there's more "do not feed the animals" signs than there are animals you might wish to feed. But in that action, that interaction, by re-scripting that, by changing it into an opportunity to offer food that is nutritionally appropriate, that could augment the nutritional resources that we ourselves have depleted for augmenting the fish population and also adding chelating agent, which, like any chelating agent that we use medicinally, binds to the bioaccumulated heavy metals and PCBs that are in the fish living in this particular habitat and allows them to pass it out as a harmless salt where it's complexed by a reactive, effectively removing it from bioavailability. But I wanted to say that interaction, re-scripting that interaction, into collective action, collective remediative action, very different from the approach that's being used on the other side on the Hudson River, where we're dredging the PCBs -- after 30 years of legislative and legal struggle, GE's paying for the dredging of the largest Superfund site in the world -- we're dredging it, and it'll probably get shipped off to Pennsylvania or the nearest Third World country, where it will continue to be toxic sludge. Displacement is not the way to deal with environmental issues. And that's typically the paradigm under which we've operated. By actually taking the opportunity that new technologies, new interactive technologies, present to re-script our interactions, to script them, not just as isolated, individuated interactions, but as collective aggregating actions that can amount to something, we can really begin to address some of our important environmental challenges. Thank you. (Applause)

I was informed by this kind of unoriginal and trite idea that new technologies were an opportunity for social transformation, which is what drove me then, and still, it's a delusion that drives me now. I wanted to update what I've been doing since then -- but it's still the same theme song -- and introduce you to my lab and current work, which is the Environmental Health Clinic that I run at NYU. And what it is -- it's a twist on health. Because, really, what I'm trying to do now is redefine what counts as health. It's a clinic like a health clinic at any other university, except people come to the clinic with environmental health concerns, and they walk out with prescriptions for things they can do to improve environmental health, as opposed to coming to a clinic with medical concerns and walking out with prescriptions for pharmaceuticals. It's a handy-dandy quote from Hippocrates of the Hippocratic oath that says, "The greater part of the soul lays outside the body, treatment of the inner requires treatment of the outer." But that suggests the issue that I'm trying to get at here, that we have an opportunity to redefine what is health. Because this idea that health is internal and atomized and individual and pharmaceutical is largely an error. And I would use this study, a recent study by Philip Landrigan, to motivate a different view of health, where he went to most of the pediatricians in Manhattan and the New York area and logged what they spent their patient hours on. 80 to 90 percent of their time was spent on five things. Number one was asthma, number two was developmental delays, number three was 400-fold increases in rare childhood cancers in the last eight to 10, 15 years. Number four and five were childhood obesity and diabetes-related issues. So all of those -- what's common about all of those? The environment is implicated, radically implicated, right. This is not the germs that medicos were trained to deal with; this is a different definition of health, health that has a great advantage because it's external, it's shared, we can do something about it, as opposed to internal, genetically predetermined or individualized. People who come to the clinic are called, not patients, but impatients, because they're too impatient to wait for legislative change to address local and environmental health issues. And I meet them at the University, I also have a few field offices that I set up in various places that provide an immersion in some of the environmental challenges we face. I like this one from the Belgian field office, where we met in a roundabout, precisely because the roundabout iconified the headless social movement that informs much social transformation, as opposed to the top-down control of red light traffic intersections. In this case, of course, the roundabout with that micro-decisions being made in situ by people not being told what to do. But, of course, affords greater throughput, fewer accidents, and an interesting model of social movement. Some of the things that the monitoring protocols have developed: this is the tadpole bureaucrat protocol, or keeping tabs, if you will. What they are is an addition of tadpoles that are named after a local bureaucrat whose decisions affect your water quality. So an impatient concern for water quality would raise a tadpole bureaucrat in a sample of water in which they're interested. And we give them a couple of things to do that, to help them do companion animal devices while they're blogging and doing their email. This is a tadpole walker to take your tadpole walking in the evening. And the interesting thing that happens -- because we're using tadpoles, of course, because they have the most exquisite biosenses that we have, several orders of magnitude more sensitive than some of our senses for sensing, responding in a biologically meaningful way, to that whole class of industrial contaminants we call endocrine disruptors or hormone emulators. But by taking your tadpole out for a walk in the evening -- there's a few action shots -- your neighbors are likely to say, "What are you doing?" And then you have to introduce your tadpole and who it's named after. You have to explain what you're doing and how the developmental events of a tadpole are, of course, very observable and they use the same T3-mediated hormones that we do. And so next time your neighbor sees you they'll say, "How is that tadpole doing?" And you can let them social network with your tadpole, because the Environmental Health Clinic has a social networking site for, not only impatients, humans, but non-humans, social networking for humans and non-humans. And of course, these endocrine disruptors are things that are implicated in the breast cancer epidemic, the obesity epidemic, the two and a half year drop in the average age of onset of puberty in young girls and other related things. The culmination of this is if you've successfully raised your tadpole, observing the behavioral and developmental events, you will then go and introduce your tadpole to its namesake and discuss the evidence that you've seen. Another quick protocol -- and I'm going to go through these quickly, but just to give you the material sense of what we're doing here -- instead of asking you for urine samples, I'll ask you for a mouse sample. Anyone here lucky enough to share, to cohabit with a mouse -- a domestic partnership with mice? Very lucky. Mice, of course, are the quintessential model organism. They're even better models of environmental health, because not only the same mammalian biology, but they share your diet, largely. They share your environmental stressors, the asbestos levels and lead levels, whatever you're exposed to. And they're geographically more limited than you are, because we don't know if you've been exposed to persistent organic pollutants in your home, or occupationally or as a child. Mice are a very good representation. So it starts by building a better mousetrap, of course. This is one of them. Coping with environmental stressors is tricky. Is anybody here on antidepressants? (Laughter) There's a lot of people in Manhattan are. And we were testing if the mice would also self-administer SSRIs. So this was Prozac, this was Zoloft, this was a black jellybean and this was muscle relaxant, all of which were the medications that the impatient was taking. So do you think the mice self-administered antidepressants? What's the -- (Audience: Sure. Yes.) How did you know that? They did. This was vodka and solution, gin and solution. This guy also liked plain water and the muscle relaxant. Where's our export? Vodka, gin -- (Audience: [unclear]) Yes. Yes. You know your mice well. They did, yes. So they drank as much vodka as they did plain water, which was interesting. Then of course, it goes into the entrapment device. There's an old cellphone in there -- a good use for old cellphones -- which dials the clinic, we go and pick up the mouse. We take the blood sample and do the blood work and hair work on the mice. And I want to sort of point out the big advantage of framing health in this external way. But we do have a few prescription products through this. It's very different from the medical model. Anything you do to improve your water quality or air quality, or to understand it or to change it, the benefits are enjoyed by anyone you share that water quality or air quality with. And that aggregating effect, that collective action effect, is actually something we can use to our advantage. So I want to show you one prescription product in the clinic called the No Park. This is a prescription to improve water quality. Many impatients are very concerned for water quality and air quality. What we do is we take a fire hydrant, a "no parking" space associated with a fire hydrant, and we prescribe the removal of the asphalt to create an engineered micro landscape, to create an infiltration opportunity. Because, many of you will know, that the biggest pollution burden that we have on the New York, New Jersey harbor right now is no longer the point sources, no longer the big polluters, no longer the GEs, but that massive network of roads, [those] impervious surfaces, that collect all that cadmium neurotoxin that comes from your brake liners or the oily hydrocarbon waste in every single storm event and medieval infrastructure washes it straight into the estuary system. That doesn't do a lot of good. These are little opportunities to intercept those pollutants before they enter the harbor, and they're produced by impatients on various city blocks in some very interesting ways. I just want to say it was sort of a rule of thumb though, there's about two or three fire hydrants on every city block. By creating engineered micro landscapes to infiltrate in them, we don't prevent them from being used as emergency vehicle parking spaces, because, of course, a firetruck can come and park there. They flatten a few plants. No big deal, they'll regenerate. But if we did this in every single -- every fire hydrant we could redefine the emergency. That 99 percent of the time when a firetruck is not parking there, it's infiltrating pollutants. It's also increasing fixing CO2s, sequestering some of the airborne pollutants. And aggregated, these smaller interceptions could actually infiltrate all the roadborne pollution that now runs into the estuary system, up to a seven inch rain event, up to a hundred-year storm. So these are small actions that can amount to a significant effect to improve local environmental health. This is one of the more ambitious ones. What the climate crisis has revealed to us is a secondary, more insidious and more pervasive crisis, which is the crisis of agency, which is what to do. Somehow buying a local lettuce, changing a light bulb, driving the speed limit, changing your tires regularly, doesn't seem sufficient in the face of climate crisis. And this is an interesting icon that happened -- you remember these: fallout shelters. What is the fallout shelter for the climate crisis? This was civic mobilization. Churches, school groups, hospitals, private residents -- everyone built one of these in a matter of months. And they still remain as icons of civic response in the face of shared, uncertain, collective threat. Fallout shelter for the climate crisis, I would say, looks something like this, or this, which is an intensive urban agriculture facility that's due to go on my lab building at NYU. What it does is a very simple idea of taking -- 80 to 90 percent of the CO2 produced in Manhattan is building related -- we take, just like a commercial greenhouse, we take the CO2 from the building -- CO2-enriched air -- we force it through the urban agriculture facility, and then we resupply oxygen-enriched air. You can't actually build much on a roof, they're not designed for that. So it's on legs, so it focuses all the load on the masonry walls and the columns. It's built as a barn raising, using open source hardware. This is the quarter-scale prototype that was functioning in Spain. This is what it will look like, fingers crossed, NYU willing. And what I want to show you is -- actually this is one of the components of it that we've just recently been testing -- which is a solar chimney -- we have got 17 of them now put around New York at the moment -- that passively draws air up. You understand a solar chimney. Hot air rises. You put a bit of black plastic on the side of a building, it'll heat up, and you'll get passive airflow. What we do is actually put a standard HVAC filter on the top of that. That actually removes about 95 percent of the carbon black, that stuff that, with ozone, is responsible for about half of global warming's effects, because it changes, it settles on the snow, it changes the reflectors, it changes the transmission qualities of the atmosphere. Carbon black is that grime that otherwise lodges in your pretty pink lungs, and it's associated with. It's not good stuff, and it's from inefficient combustion, not from combustion itself. When we put it through our solar chimney, we remove actually about 95 percent of that. And then I swap it out with the students and actually re-release that carbon black. And we make pencils the length of which measures the grime that we've pulled out of the air. Here's one of them that we have up now. Here's who put them up and who are avid pencil users. Okay, so I want to show you just two more interfaces, because I think one of our big challenges is re-imagining our relationship to natural systems, not only through this model of twisted personalized health, but through the animals with whom we cohabit. We are not alone; the animals are moving in. In fact, urban migration now describes the movement of animals formerly known as wild into urban centers. You know, coyote in Central Park, a whale in the Gowanus Canal, elk in Westchester County. It's happening all over the Developed World, probably for loss of habitat, but also because our cities are a little bit more livable than they have been. And every green space we create is an invitation for non-humans to cohabit with us. But we've kind of lacked imagination in how we could do that well or interestingly. And I want to show you a few of the technological interfaces that have been developed under the moniker of OOZ -- which is zoo backwards and without cages -- to try and reform that relationship. This is communication technology for birds. I looks like this. When a bird lands on it, they trigger a sound file. This is actually in the Whitney Museum, where there were six of them, each of which had a different argument on it, different sound file. They said things like this. (Whistling) Recorded Voice: Here's what you need to do. Go down there and buy some of those health food bars, the ones you call bird food, and bring it here and scatter it around. There's a good person. Natalie Jeremijenko: Okay. (Laugher) So there was several of these. The birds were able to jump from one to the other. These are just your average urban pigeon. And an early test which argument elicited cooperative behavior from the people below -- about a hundred to one decided that this was the argument that worked best on us. Recorded Voice: Tick, tick, tick. That's the sound of genetic mutations of the avian flu becoming a deadly human flu. Do you know what slows it down? Healthy sub-populations of birds, increasing biodiversity generally. It is in your interests that I'm healthy, happy, well-fed. Hence, you could share some of your nutritional resources instead of monopolizing them. That is, share your lunch. (Laughter) NJ: It worked, and it's true. The final project I'd like to show you is a new interface for fish that has just been launched -- it's actually officially launched next week -- with a wonderful commission from the Architectural League. You may not have known that you need to communicate with fish, but there is now a device for you to do so. It looks like this: buoys that float on the water, project three foot up, three foot down. When a fish swims underneath, a light goes on. This is what it looks like. So there's another function on here. This top light is -- I'm sorry if I'm making you seasick -- this top light is actually a water quality display that shifts from red, when the dissolved oxygen is low, to a blue/green, when its dissolved oxygen is high. And then you can also text the fish. So there's business cards down there that'll give you contact details. And they text back. When the buoys get your text, they wink at you twice to say, we've got your message. But perhaps the most popular has been that we've got another array of these boys in the Bronx River, where the first beaver -- crazy as he is -- to have moved in and built a lodge in New York in 250 years, hangs out. So updates from a beaver. You can subscribe to updates from him. You can talk to him. And what I like to think of is this is an interface that re-scripts how we interact with natural systems, specifically by changing who has information, where they have it, who can make sense of that information, and what you can do about it. In this case, instead of throwing chewing gum, or Doritos or whatever you have in your pocket at the fish -- There's a body of water in Iceland that I've been dealing with that's in the middle of the city, and the largest pollution burden on it is not the roadborne pollution, it's actually white bread from people feeding the fish and the birds. Instead of doing that actually, we've developed some fish sticks that you can feed the fish. They're delicious. They're cross-species delicious that is, delicious for humans and non-humans. But they also have a chelating agent in them. They're nutritionally appropriate, not like Doritos. And so every time that desire to interact with the animals, which is at least as ubiquitous as that sign: "Do not feed the animals." And there's about three of them on every New York City park. And Yellowstone National Park, there's more "do not feed the animals" signs than there are animals you might wish to feed. But in that action, that interaction, by re-scripting that, by changing it into an opportunity to offer food that is nutritionally appropriate, that could augment the nutritional resources that we ourselves have depleted for augmenting the fish population and also adding chelating agent, which, like any chelating agent that we use medicinally, binds to the bioaccumulated heavy metals and PCBs that are in the fish living in this particular habitat and allows them to pass it out as a harmless salt where it's complexed by a reactive, effectively removing it from bioavailability. But I wanted to say that interaction, re-scripting that interaction, into collective action, collective remediative action, very different from the approach that's being used on the other side on the Hudson River, where we're dredging the PCBs -- after 30 years of legislative and legal struggle, GE's paying for the dredging of the largest Superfund site in the world -- we're dredging it, and it'll probably get shipped off to Pennsylvania or the nearest Third World country, where it will continue to be toxic sludge. Displacement is not the way to deal with environmental issues. And that's typically the paradigm under which we've operated. By actually taking the opportunity that new technologies, new interactive technologies, present to re-script our interactions, to script them, not just as isolated, individuated interactions, but as collective aggregating actions that can amount to something, we can really begin to address some of our important environmental challenges. Thank you. (Applause)

As a researcher, every once in a while you encounter something a little disconcerting. And this is something that changes your understanding of the world around you, and teaches you that you're very wrong about something that you really believed firmly in. And these are unfortunate moments, because you go to sleep that night dumber than when you woke up. So, that's really the goal of my talk, is to A, communicate that moment to you and B, have you leave this session a little dumber than when you entered. So, I hope I can really accomplish that. So, this incident that I'm going to describe really began with some diarrhea. Now, we've known for a long time the cause of diarrhea. That's why there's a glass of water up there. For us, it's a problem, the people in this room. For babies, it's deadly. They lack nutrients, and diarrhea dehydrates them. And so, as a result, there is a lot of death, a lot of death. In India in 1960, there was a 24 percent child mortality rate, lots of people didn't make it. This is incredibly unfortunate. One of the big reasons this happened was because of diarrhea. Now, there was a big effort to solve this problem, and there was actually a big solution. This solution has been called, by some, "potentially the most important medical advance this century." Now, the solution turned out to be simple. And what it was was oral rehydration salts. Many of you have probably used this. It's brilliant. It's a way to get sodium and glucose together so that when you add it to water the child is able to absorb it even during situations of diarrhea. Remarkable impact on mortality. Massive solution to the problem. Flash forward: 1960, 24 percent child mortality has dropped to 6.5 percent today. Still a big number, but a big drop. It looks like the technological problem is solved. But if you look, even today there are about 400,000 diarrhea-related deaths in India alone. What's going on here? Well the easy answer is, we just haven't gotten those salts to those people. That's actually not true. If you look in areas where these salts are completely available, the price is low or zero, these deaths still continue abated. Maybe there's a biological answer. Maybe these are the deaths that simple rehydration alone doesn't solve. That's not true either. Many of these deaths were completely preventable, and this what I want to think of as the disconcerting thing, what I want to call "the last mile" problem. See, we spent a lot of energy, in many domains -- technological, scientific, hard work, creativity, human ingenuity -- to crack important social problems with technology solutions. That's been the discoveries of the last 2,000 years, that's mankind moving forward. But in this case we cracked it, but a big part of the problem still remains. Nine hundred and ninety-nine miles went well, the last mile's proving incredibly stubborn. Now, that's for oral rehydration therapy. Maybe this is something unique about diarrhea. Well, it turns out -- and this is where things get really disconcerting -- it's not unique to diarrhea. It's not even unique to poor people in India. Here's an example from a variety of contexts. I've put a bunch of examples up here. I'll start with insulin, diabetes medication in the U.S. OK, the American population. On Medicaid -- if you're fairly poor you get Medicaid, or if you have health insurance -- insulin is pretty straightforward. You get it, either in pill form or you get it as an injection; you have to take it every day to maintain your blood sugar levels. Massive technological advance: took an incredibly deadly disease, made it solvable. Adherence rates. How many people are taking their insulin every day? About on average, a typical person is taking it 75 percent of the time. As a result, 25,000 people a year go blind, hundreds of thousands lose limbs, every year, for something that's solvable. Here I have a bunch of other examples, all suffer from the last mile problem. It's not just medicine. Here's another example from technology: agriculture. We think there's a food problem, so we create new seeds. We think there's an income problem, so we create new ways of farming that increase income. Well, look at some old ways, some ways that we'd already cracked. Intercropping. Intercropping really increases income. Sometimes in rice we found incredible increases in yield when you mix different varieties of rice side by side. Some people are doing that, many are not. What's going on? This is the last mile. The last mile is, everywhere, problematic. Alright, what's the problem? The problem is this little three-pound machine that's behind your eyes and between your ears. This machine is really strange, and one of the consequences is that people are weird. They do lots of inconsistent things. (Applause) They do lots of inconsistent things. And the inconsistencies create, fundamentally, this last mile problem. See, when we were dealing with our biology, bacteria, the genes, the things inside here, the blood? That's complex, but it's manageable. When we're dealing with people like this? The mind is more complex. That's not as manageable, and that's what we're struggling with. Let me go back to diarrhea for a second. Here's a question that was asked in the National Sample Survey, which is a survey asked of many Indian women: "Your child has diarrhea. Should you increase, maintain or decrease the number of fluids?" Just so you don't embarrass yourselves, I'll give you the right answer: It's increase. Now, diarrhea's interesting because it's been around for thousands of years, ever since humankind really lived side by side enough to have really polluted water. One Roman strategy that was very interesting was that -- and it really gave them a comparative advantage -- they made sure their soldiers didn't drink even remotely muddied waters. Because if some of your troops get diarrhea they're not that effective on the battlefield. So, if you think of Roman comparative advantage part of it was the breast shields, the breastplates, but part of it was drinking the right water. So, here are these women. They've seen their parents have struggled with diarrhea, they've struggled with diarrhea, they've seen lots of deaths. How do they answer this question? In India, 35 to 50 percent say "Reduce." Think about what that means for a second. Thirty-five to 50 percent of women forget oral rehydration therapy, they are increasing -- they are actually making their child more likely to die through their actions. How is that possible? Well, one possibility -- I think that's how most people respond to this -- is to say, "That's just stupid." I don't think that's stupid. I think there is something very profoundly right in what these women are doing. And that is, you don't put water into a leaky bucket. So, think of the mental model that goes behind reducing the intake. Just doesn't make sense. Now, the model is intuitively right. It just doesn't happen to be right about the world. But it makes a whole lot of sense at some deep level. And that, to me, is the fundamental challenge of the last mile. This first challenge is what I refer to as the persuasion challenge. Convincing people to do something -- take oral rehydration therapy, intercrop, whatever it might be -- is not an act of information: "Let's give them the data, and when they have data they'll do the right thing." It's more complex than that. And if you want to understand how it's more complex let me start with something kind of interesting. I'm going to give you a little math problem, and I want you to just yell out the answer as fast as possible. A bat and a ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Quick. So, somebody out there says, "Five." A lot of you said, "Ten." Let's think about 10 for a second. If the ball costs 10, the bat costs... this is easy, $1.10. Yeah. So, together they would cost $1.20. So, here you all are, ostensibly educated people. Most of you look smart. The combination of that produces something that is actually, you got this thing wrong. How is that possible? Let's go to something else. I know algebra can be complicated. So, let's dial this back. That's what? Fifth grade? Fourth grade? Let's go back to kindergarten. OK? There's a great show on American television that you have to watch. It's called "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" I think we've learned the answer to that here. Let's move to kindergarten. Let's see if we can beat five-year-olds. Here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to put objects on the screen. I just want you to name the color of the object. That's all it is. OK? I want you to do it fast, and say it out loud with me, and do it quickly. I'll make the first one easy for you. Ready? Black. Now the next ones I want you to do quickly and say it out loud. Ready? Go. Audience: Red. Green. Yellow. Blue. Red. (Laughter) Sendhil Mullainathan: That's pretty good. Almost out of kindergarten. What is all this telling us? You see, what's going on here, and in the bat and ball problem is that you have some intuitive ways of interacting with the world, some models that you use to understand the world. These models, like the leaky bucket, work well in most situations. I suspect most of you -- I hope that's true for the rest of you -- actually do pretty well with addition and subtraction in the real world. I found a problem, a specific problem that actually found an error with that. Diarrhea, and many last mile problems, are like that. They are situations where the mental model doesn't match the reality. Same thing here: You had an intuitive response to this that was very quick. You read "blue" and you wanted to say "blue," even though you knew your task was red. Now, I do this stuff because it's fun. But it's more profound than fun. I'll give you a good example of how it actually effects persuasion. BMW is a pretty safe car. And they are trying to figure out, "Safety is good. I want to advertise safety. How am I going to advertise safety?" "I could give people numbers. We do well on crash tests." But the truth of the matter is, you look at that car, it doesn't look like a Volvo, and it doesn't look like a Hummer. So, what I want you to think about for a few minutes is: How would you convey safety of the BMW? Okay? So now, while you're thinking about that let's move to a second task. The second task is fuel efficiency. Okay? Here's another puzzle for all of you. One person walks into a car lot, and they're thinking about buying this Toyota Yaris. They are saying, "This is 35 miles per gallon. I'm going to do the environmentally right thing, I'm going to buy the Prius, 50 miles per gallon." Another person walks into the lot, and they're about to buy a Hummer, nine miles per gallon, fully loaded, luxury. And they say, "You know what? Do I need turbo? Do I need this heavyweight car?" I'm going to do something good for the environment. I'm going to take off some of that weight, and I'm going to buy a Hummer that's 11 miles per gallon." Which one of these people has done more for the environment? See, you have a mental model. Fifty versus 35, that's a big move. Eleven versus nine? Come on. Turns out, go home and do the math, the nine to 11 is a bigger change. That person has saved more gallons. Why? Because we don't care about miles per gallon, we care about gallons per mile. Think about how powerful that is if you're trying to encourage fuel efficiency. Miles per gallon is the way we present things. If we want to encourage change of behavior, gallons per mile would have far more effectiveness. Researchers have found these type of anomalies. Okay, back to BMW. What should they do? The problem BMW faces is this car looks safe. This car, which is my Mini, doesn't look that safe. Here was BMW's brilliant insight, which they embodied into an ad campaign. They showed a BMW driving down the street. There's a truck on the right. Boxes fall out of the truck. The car swerves to avoid it, and therefore doesn't get into an accident. BWM realizes safety, in people's minds, has two components. You can be safe because when you're hit, you survive, or you can be safe because you avoid accidents. Remarkably successful campaign, but notice the power of it. It harnesses something you already believe. Now, even if I persuaded you to do something, it's hard sometimes to actually get action as a result. You all probably intended to wake up, I don't know, 6:30, 7 a.m. This is a battle we all fight every day, along with trying to get to the gym. Now, this is an example of that battle, and makes us realize intentions don't always translate into action, and so one of the fundamental challenges is how we would actually do that. OK? So, let me now talk about the last mile problem. So far, I've been pretty negative. I've been trying to show you the oddities of human behavior. And I think maybe I'm being too negative. Maybe it's the diarrhea. Maybe the last mile problem really should be thought of as the last mile opportunity. Let's go back to diabetes. This is a typical insulin injection. Now, carrying this thing around is complicated. You gotta carry the bottle, you gotta carry the syringe. It's also painful. Now, you may think to yourself, "Well, if my eyes depended on it, you know, I would obviously use it every day." But the pain, the discomfort, you know, paying attention, remembering to put it in your purse when you go on a long trip: These are the day-to-day of life, and they do pose problems. Here is an innovation, a design innovation. This is a pen, it's called an insulin pen, preloaded. The needle is particularly sharp. You just gotta carry this thing around. It's much easier to use, much less painful. Anywhere between five and 10 percent increase in adherence, just as a result of this. That's what I'm talking about as a last mile opportunity. You see, we tend to think the problem is solved when we solve the technology problem. But the human innovation, the human problem still remains, and that's a great frontier that we have left. This isn't about the biology of people; this is now about the brains, the psychology of people, and innovation needs to continue all the way through the last mile. Here's another example of this. This is from a company called Positive Energy. This is about energy efficiency. We're spending a lot of time on fuel cells right now. What this company does is they send a letter to households that say, "Here's your energy use, here's your neighbor's energy use: You're doing well." Smiley face. "You're doing worse." Frown. And what they find is just this letter, nothing else, has a two to three percent reduction in electricity use. And you want to think about the social value of that in terms of carbon offsets, reduced electricity, 900 million dollars per year. Why? Because for free, this isn't a new technology, this is a letter -- we're getting a Big Bang in behavior. So, how do we tackle the last mile? I think this tells us there is an opportunity. And I think to tackle it, we need to combine psychology, marketing, art, we've seen that. But you know what we need to combine it with? We need to combine this with the scientific method. See what's really puzzling and frustrating about the last mile, to me, is that the first 999 miles are all about science. No one would say, "Hey, I think this medicine works, go ahead and use it." We have testing, we go to the lab, we try it again, we have refinement. But you know what we do on the last mile? "Oh, this is a good idea. People will like this. Let's put it out there." The amount of resources we put in are disparate. We put billions of dollars into fuel-efficient technologies. How much are we putting into energy behavior change in a credible, systematic, testing way? Now, I think that we're on the verge of something big. We're on the verge of a whole new social science. It's a social science that recognizes -- much like science recognizes the complexity of the body, biology recognizes the complexity of the body -- we'll recognize the complexity of the human mind. The careful testing, retesting, design, are going to open up vistas of understanding, complexities, difficult things. And those vistas will both create new science, and fundamental change in the world as we see it, in the next hundred years. All right. Thank you very much. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Sendhil, thank you so much. So, this whole area is so fascinating. I mean, it sometimes feels, listening to behavioral economists that they are kind of putting into place academically, what great marketers have sort of intuitively known for a long time. How much is your field talking to great marketers about their insights into human psychology? Because they've seen it on the ground. Sendhil Mullainathan: Yeah, we spend a lot of time talking to marketers, and I think 60 percent of it is exactly what you say, there are insights to be gleaned there. Forty percent of it is about what marketing is. Marketing is selling an ad to a firm. So, in some sense, a lot of marketing is about convincing a CEO, "This is a good ad campaign." So, there is a little bit of slippage there. That's just a caveat. That's different from actually having an effective ad campaign. And one of the new movements in marketing is: How do we actually measure effectiveness? Are we effective? CA: How you take your insights here and actually get them integrated into working business models on the ground, in Indian villages, for example? SM: So, the scientific method I alluded to is pretty important. We work closely with companies that have operational capacity, or nonprofits that have operational capacity. And then we say, "Well, you want to get this behavior change. Let's come up with a few ideas, test them, see which is working, go back, synthesize, and try to come up with a thing that works," and then we're able to scale with partners. It's kind of the model that has worked in other contexts. If you have biological problems we try and fix it, see if it works, and then work the scale. CA: Alright Sendhil, thanks so much for coming to TED. Thank you. (Applause)

So I really consider myself a storyteller. But I don't really tell stories in the usual way, in the sense that I don't usually tell my own stories. Instead, I'm really interested in building tools that allow large numbers of other people to tell their stories, people all around the world. I do this because I think that people actually have a lot in common. I think people are very similar, but I also think that we have trouble seeing that. You know, as I look around the world I see a lot of gaps, and I think we all see a lot of gaps. And we define ourselves by our gaps. There's language gaps, there's ethnicity and racial gaps, there's age gaps, there's gender gaps, there's sexuality gaps, there's wealth and money gaps, there's education gaps, there's also religious gaps. You know, we have all these gaps and I think we like our gaps because they make us feel like we identify with something, some smaller community. But I think that actually, despite our gaps, we really have a lot in common. And I think one thing we have in common is a very deep need to express ourselves. I think this is a very old human desire. It's nothing new. But the thing about self-expression is that there's traditionally been this imbalance between the desire that we have to express ourselves and the number of sympathetic friends who are willing to stand around and listen. (Laughter) This, also, is nothing new. Since the dawn of human history, we've tried to rectify this imbalance by making art, writing poems, singing songs, scripting editorials and sending them in to a newspaper, gossiping with friends. This is nothing new. What's new is that in the last several years a lot of these very traditional physical human activities, these acts of self-expression, have been moving onto the Internet. And as that's happened, people have been leaving behind footprints, footprints that tell stories of their moments of self-expression. And so what I do is, I write computer programs that study very large sets of these footprints, and then try to draw conclusions about the people who left them -- what they feel, what they think, what's different in the world today than usual, these sorts of questions. One project that explores these ideas, which was made about a year ago, is a piece called We Feel Fine. This is a piece that every two or three minutes scans the world's newly-posted blog entries for occurrences of the phrases "I feel" or "I am feeling." And when it finds one of those phrases, it grabs the sentence up to the period, and then automatically tries to deduce the age, gender and geographical location of the person that wrote that sentence. Then, knowing the geographical location and the time, we can also then figure out the weather when that person wrote the sentence. All of this information is saved in a database that collects about 20,000 feelings a day. It's been running for about a year and a half. It's reached about seven-and-a-half million human feelings now. And I'll show you a glimpse of how this information is then visualized. So this is We Feel Fine. What you see here is a madly swarming mass of particles, each of which represents a single human feeling that was stated in the last few hours. The color of each particle corresponds to the type of feeling inside -- so that happy, positive feelings are brightly colored. And sad, negative feelings are darkly colored. The diameter of each dot represents the length of the sentence inside, so that the large dots contain large sentences, and the small dots contain small sentences. Any dot can be clicked and expanded. And we see here, "I would just feel so much better if I could curl up in his arms right now and feel his affection for me in the embrace of his body and the tenderness of his lips." So it gets pretty hot and steamy sometimes in the world of human emotions. And all of these are stated by people: "I know that objectively it really doesn't mean much, but after spending so many years as a small fish in a big pond, it's nice to feel bigger again." The dots exhibit human qualities. They kind of have their own physics, and they swarm wildly around, kind of exploring the world of life. And then they also exhibit curiosity. You can see a few of them are swarming around the cursor right now. You can see some other ones are swarming around the bottom left corner of the screen around six words. Those six words represent the six movements of We Feel Fine. We're currently seeing Madness. There's also Murmurs, Montage, Mobs, Metrics and Mounds. And I'll walk you through a few of those now. Murmurs causes all of the feelings to fly to the ceiling. And then, one by one, in reverse chronological order, they excuse themselves, entering the scrolling list of feelings. "I feel a bit better now." (Laughter) "I feel confused and unsure of what the hell I want to do." "I feel gypped out of something awesome here." "I feel so free; I feel so good." "I feel like I'm in this fog of depression that I can't get out of." And you can click any of these to go out and visit the blog from which it was collected. And in that way, you can connect with the authors of these statements if you feel some degree of empathy. The next movement is called Montage. Montage causes all of the feelings that contain photographs to become extracted and display themselves in a grid. This grid is then said to represent the picture of the world's feelings in the last few hours, if you will. Each of these can be clicked and we can blow it up. We see, "I just feel like I'm not going to have fun if it's not the both of us." That was from someone in Michigan. We see, "I feel like I have been at a computer all day." (Laughter) These are automatically constructed using the found objects: "I think I feel a little full." The next movement is called mobs. Mobs provides different statistical breakdowns of the population of the world's feelings in the last few hours. We see that "better" is the most frequent feeling right now, followed by "good," "bad," "guilty," "right," "down," "sick" and so on. We can also get a gender breakdown. And we see that women are slightly more prolific talking about their emotions in the last few hours than men. We can do an age breakdown, which gives us a histogram of the world's emotional distribution by age. We see people in their twenties are the most prolific, followed by teenagers, and then people in their thirties, and it dies out very quickly from there. In weather, the feelings assume the physical characteristics of the weather that they represent, so that the ones collected on a sunny day swirl around as if they're part of the sun. The cloudy ones float along as if they're on a breeze. The rainy ones fall down as if they're in a rainstorm, and the snowy ones kind of flutter to the ground. Finally, location causes the feelings to move to their positions on a world map showing the geographical distribution of feelings. Metrics provides more numerical views on the data. We see that the world is feeling "used" at 3.3 times the normal level right now. (Laughter) They're feeling "warm" at 2.9 times the normal level, and so on. Other views are also available. Here are gender, age, weather, location. The final movement is called Mounds. It's a bit different from the others. Mounds visualizes the entire dataset as large, gelatinous blobs which kind of jiggle. And if I hold down my cursor, they do a little dance. We see "better" is the most frequent feeling, followed by "bad." And then if I go over here, the list begins to scroll, and there are actually thousands of feelings that have been collected. You can see the little pink cursor moving along, representing our position. Here we see people that feel "slipping," "nauseous," "responsible." There's also a search capability, if you're interested in finding out about a certain population. For instance, you could find women who feel "addicted" in their 20s when it was cloudy in Bangladesh. (Laughter) But I'll spare you that. So here are some of my favorite montages that have been collected: "I feel so much of my dad alive in me that there isn't even room for me." "I feel very lonely." "I need to be in some backwoods redneck town so that I can feel beautiful." "I feel invisible to you." "I wouldn't hide it if society didn't make me feel like I needed to." "I feel in love with Carolyn." "I feel so naughty." "I feel these weirdoes are actually an asset to college life." (Laughter) "I love how I feel today." So as you can see, We Feel Fine uses a technique that I call "passive observation." What I mean by that is that it passively observes people as they live their lives. It scans the world's blogs and looks at what people are writing, and these people don't know they're being watched or interviewed. And because of that, you end up getting very honest, candid, sincere responses that are often very moving. And this is a technique that I usually prefer in my work because people don't know they're being interviewed. They're just living life, and they end up just acting like that. Another technique is directly questioning people. And this is a technique that I explored in a different project, the Yahoo! Time Capsule, which was designed to take a fingerprint of the world in 2006. It was divided into ten very simple themes -- love, anger, sadness and so on -- each of which contained a single, very open-ended question put to the world: What do you love? What makes you angry? What makes you sad? What do you believe in? And so on. The time capsule was available for one month online, translated into 10 languages, and this is what it looked like. It's a spinning globe, the surface of which is entirely composed of the pictures and words and drawings of people that submitted to the time capsule. The ten themes radiate out and orbit the time capsule. You can sift through this data and see what people have submitted. This is in response to, What's beautiful? "Miss World." There are two modes to the time capsule. There's One World, which presents the spinning globe, and Many Voices, which splits the data out into film strips and lets you sift through them one by one. So this project was punctuated by a really amazing event, which was held in the desert outside Albuquerque in New Mexico at the Jemez Pueblo, where for three consecutive nights, the contents of the capsule were projected onto the sides of the ancient Red Rock Canyon walls, which stand about 200 feet tall. It was really incredible. And we also projected the contents of the time capsule as binary code using a 35-watt laser into outer space. You can see the orange line leaving the desert floor at about a 45 degree angle there. This was amazing because the first night I looked at all this information and really started seeing the gaps that I talked about earlier -- the differences in age, gender and wealth and so on. But, you know, as I looked at this more and more and more, and saw these images go across the rocks, I realized I was seeing the same archetypal events depicted again and again and again. You know: weddings, births, funerals, the first car, the first kiss, the first camel or horse -- depending on the culture. And it was really moving. And this picture here was taken the final night from a distant cliff about two miles away, where the contents of the capsule were being beamed into space. And there was something very moving about all of this human expression being shot off into the night sky. And it started to make me think a lot about the night sky, and how humans have always used the night sky to project their great stories. You know, as a child in Vermont, on a farm where I grew up, I would often look up into the dark sky and see the three star belt of Orion, the Hunter. And as an adult, I've been more aware of the great Greek myths playing out in the sky overhead every night. You know, Orion facing the roaring bull. Perseus flying to the rescue of Andromeda. Zeus battling Chronos for control of Mount Olympus. I mean, these are the great tales of the Greeks. And it caused me to wonder about our world today. And it caused me to wonder specifically, if we could make new constellations today, what would those look like? What would those be? If we could make new pictures in the sky, what would we draw? What are the great stories of today? And those are the questions that inspired my new project, which is debuting here today at TED. Nobody's seen this yet, publicly. It's called Universe: Revealing Our Modern Mythology. And it uses this metaphor of an interactive night sky. So, it's my great pleasure now to show this to you. So, Universe will open here. And you'll see that it leads with a shifting star field, and there's an Aurora Borealis in the background, kind of morphing with color. The color of the Aurora Borealis can be controlled using this single bar of color at the bottom, and we'll put it down here to red. So you see this kind of -- these stars moving along. Now, these aren't just little points of light, little pixels. Each of those stars actually represents a specific event in the real world -- a quote that was stated by somebody, an image, a news story, a person, a company. You know, some kind of heroic personality. And you might notice that as the cursor begins to touch some of these stars, that shapes begin to emerge. We see here there's a little man walking along, or maybe a woman. And we see here a photograph with a head. You can start to see words emerging here. And those are the constellations of today. And I can turn them all on, and you can see them moving across the sky now. This is the universe of 2007, the last two months. The data from this is global news coverage from thousands of news sources around the world. It's using the API of a really great company that I work with in New York, actually, called Daylife. And it's kind of the zeitgeist view at this level of the world's current mythology over the last couple of months. So we can see where it's emerging here, like President Ford, Iraq, Bush. And we can actually isolate just the words -- I call them secrets -- and we can cause them to form an alphabetical list. And we see Anna Nicole Smith playing a big role recently. President Ford -- this is Gerald Ford's funeral. We can actually click anything in Universe and have it become the center of the universe, and everything else will enter its orbit. So, we'll click Ford, and now that becomes the center. And the things that relate to Ford enter its orbit and swirl around it. We can isolate just the photographs, and we now see those. We can click on one of those and have the photograph be the center of the universe. Now the things that relate to it are swirling around. We can click on this and we see this iconic image of Betty Ford kissing her husband's coffin. In Universe, there's kind of no end. It just goes infinitely, and you can just kind of click on stuff. This is a photographic representation, called Snapshots. But we can actually be more specific in defining our universe. So, if we want to, let's check out what Bill Clinton's universe looks like. And let's see, in the past week, what he's been up to. So now, we have a new universe, which is just constrained to all things Bill Clinton. We can have his constellations emerge here. We can pull out his secrets, and we see that it has a lot to do with candidates, Hillary, presidential, Barack Obama. We can see the stories that Bill Clinton is taking part in right now. Any of those can be opened up. So we see Obama and the Clintons meet in Alabama. You can see that this is an important story; there are a lot of things in its orbit. If we open this up, we get different perspectives on this story. You can click any of those to go out and read the article at the source. This one's from Al Jazeera. We can also see the superstars. These would be the people that are kind of the looming heroes and heroines in the universe of Bill Clinton. So there's Bill Clinton, Hillary, Iraq, George Bush, Barack Obama, Scooter Libby -- these are kind of the people of Bill Clinton. We can also see a world map, so this shows us the geographic reach of Bill Clinton in the last week or so. We can see he's been focused in America because he's been campaigning, probably, but a little bit of action over here in the Middle East. And then we can also see a timeline. So we see that he was a bit quiet on Saturday, but he was back to work on Sunday morning, and actually been tapering off since then this week. And it's not limited to just people or dates, but we can actually put in concepts also. So if I put in climate change for all of 2006, we'll see what that universe looks like. Here we have our star field. Here we have our shapes. Here we have our secrets. So we see again, climate change is large: Nairobi, global conference, environmental. And there are also quotes that you can see, if you're interested in reading about quotes on climate change. You know, this is really an infinite thing. The superstars of climate change in 2006: United States, Britain, China. You know, these are the towering countries that kind of define this concept. So this is a piece that demands exploration. This will be online in several days, probably next Tuesday. And you'll all be able to use it and kind of explore what your own personal mythology might be. You'll notice that in Daylife -- rather, in Universe -- it supports both the notion of a global mythology, which is represented by something as broad as, say, 2007, and also a personal mythology. As you search for the things that are important to you in your world, and then see what the constellations of those might look like. So it's been a pleasure. Thank you very much. (Applause)