The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Sarah Bergbreiter: Why I make robots the size of a grain of rice
TEDYouth 2014-Filmed Nov 2014
By studying the movement and bodies of insects such as ants, Sarah Bergbreiter and her team build incredibly robust, super teeny, mechanical versions of creepy crawlies … and then they add rockets. See their jaw-dropping developments in micro-robotics, and hear about three ways we might use these little helpers in the future.
Transcript:
My students and I work on very tiny robots. Now, you can think of these as robotic versions of something that you're all very familiar with: an ant. We all know that ants and other insects at this size scale can do some pretty incredible things. We've all seen a group of ants, or some version of that, carting off your potato chip at a picnic, for example.
But what are the real challenges of engineering these ants? Well, first of all, how do we get the capabilities of an ant in a robot at the same size scale? Well, first we need to figure out how to make them move when they're so small. We need mechanisms like legs and efficient motors in order to support that locomotion, and we need the sensors, power and control in order to pull everything together in a semi-intelligent ant robot. And finally, to make these things really functional, we want a lot of them working together in order to do bigger things.
So I'll start with mobility. Insects move around amazingly well. This video is from UC Berkeley. It shows a cockroach moving over incredibly rough terrain without tipping over, and it's able to do this because its legs are a combination of rigid materials, which is what we traditionally use to make robots, and soft materials. Jumping is another really interesting way to get around when you're very small. So these insects store energy in a spring and release that really quickly to get the high power they need to jump out of water, for example.
So one of the big contributions from my lab has been to combine rigid and soft materials in very, very small mechanisms. So this jumping mechanism is about four millimeters on a side, so really tiny. The hard material here is silicon, and the soft material is silicone rubber. And the basic idea is that we're going to compress this, store energy in the springs, and then release it to jump. So there's no motors on board this right now, no power. This is actuated with a method that we call in my lab "graduate student with tweezers." (Laughter) So what you'll see in the next video is this guy doing amazingly well for its jumps. So this is Aaron, the graduate student in question, with the tweezers, and what you see is this four-millimeter-sized mechanism jumping almost 40 centimeters high. That's almost 100 times its own length. And it survives, bounces on the table, it's incredibly robust, and of course survives quite well until we lose it because it's very tiny.
Ultimately, though, we want to add motors to this too, and we have students in the lab working on millimeter-sized motors to eventually integrate onto small, autonomous robots. But in order to look at mobility and locomotion at this size scale to start, we're cheating and using magnets. So this shows what would eventually be part of a micro-robot leg, and you can see the silicone rubber joints and there's an embedded magnet that's being moved around by an external magnetic field.
So this leads to the robot that I showed you earlier. The really interesting thing that this robot can help us figure out is how insects move at this scale. We have a really good model for how everything from a cockroach up to an elephant moves. We all move in this kind of bouncy way when we run. But when I'm really small, the forces between my feet and the ground are going to affect my locomotion a lot more than my mass, which is what causes that bouncy motion. So this guy doesn't work quite yet, but we do have slightly larger versions that do run around. So this is about a centimeter cubed, a centimeter on a side, so very tiny, and we've gotten this to run about 10 body lengths per second, so 10 centimeters per second. It's pretty quick for a little, small guy, and that's really only limited by our test setup. But this gives you some idea of how it works right now. We can also make 3D-printed versions of this that can climb over obstacles, a lot like the cockroach that you saw earlier.
But ultimately we want to add everything onboard the robot. We want sensing, power, control, actuation all together, and not everything needs to be bio-inspired. So this robot's about the size of a Tic Tac. And in this case, instead of magnets or muscles to move this around, we use rockets. So this is a micro-fabricated energetic material, and we can create tiny pixels of this, and we can put one of these pixels on the belly of this robot, and this robot, then, is going to jump when it senses an increase in light.
So the next video is one of my favorites. So you have this 300-milligram robot jumping about eight centimeters in the air. It's only four by four by seven millimeters in size. And you'll see a big flash at the beginning when the energetic is set off, and the robot tumbling through the air. So there was that big flash, and you can see the robot jumping up through the air. So there's no tethers on this, no wires connecting to this. Everything is onboard, and it jumped in response to the student just flicking on a desk lamp next to it.
So I think you can imagine all the cool things that we could do with robots that can run and crawl and jump and roll at this size scale. Imagine the rubble that you get after a natural disaster like an earthquake. Imagine these small robots running through that rubble to look for survivors. Or imagine a lot of small robots running around a bridge in order to inspect it and make sure it's safe so you don't get collapses like this, which happened outside of Minneapolis in 2007. Or just imagine what you could do if you had robots that could swim through your blood. Right? "Fantastic Voyage," Isaac Asimov. Or they could operate without having to cut you open in the first place. Or we could radically change the way we build things if we have our tiny robots work the same way that termites do, and they build these incredible eight-meter-high mounds, effectively well ventilated apartment buildings for other termites in Africa and Australia.
So I think I've given you some of the possibilities of what we can do with these small robots. And we've made some advances so far, but there's still a long way to go, and hopefully some of you can contribute to that destination.
Thanks very much.
(Applause)
In this blog, teachers, students and all those who have some kind of interest in the English language will find useful, interesting, curious and funny things to be used in their classes or for their personal enjoyment.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
SOC/GralInt-TED Talks-Matthieu Ricard: How to let altruism be your guide
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Matthieu Ricard: How to let altruism be your guide
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
What is altruism? Put simply, it's the wish that other people may be happy. And, says Matthieu Ricard, a happiness researcher and a Buddhist monk, altruism is also a great lens for making decisions, both for the short and long term, in work and in life.
Transcript:
So we humans have an extraordinary potential for goodness, but also an immense power to do harm. Any tool can be used to build or to destroy. That all depends on our motivation. Therefore, it is all the more important to foster an altruistic motivation rather than a selfish one.
So now we indeed are facing many challenges in our times. Those could be personal challenges. Our own mind can be our best friend or our worst enemy. There's also societal challenges: poverty in the midst of plenty, inequalities, conflict, injustice. And then there are the new challenges, which we don't expect. Ten thousand years ago, there were about five million human beings on Earth. Whatever they could do, the Earth's resilience would soon heal human activities. After the Industrial and Technological Revolutions, that's not the same anymore. We are now the major agent of impact on our Earth. We enter the Anthropocene, the era of human beings. So in a way, if we were to say we need to continue this endless growth, endless use of material resources, it's like if this man was saying -- and I heard a former head of state, I won't mention who, saying -- "Five years ago, we were at the edge of the precipice. Today we made a big step forward." So this edge is the same that has been defined by scientists as the planetary boundaries. And within those boundaries, they can carry a number of factors. We can still prosper, humanity can still prosper for 150,000 years if we keep the same stability of climate as in the Holocene for the last 10,000 years. But this depends on choosing a voluntary simplicity, growing qualitatively, not quantitatively.
So in 1900, as you can see, we were well within the limits of safety. Now, in 1950 came the great acceleration. Now hold your breath, not too long, to imagine what comes next. Now we have vastly overrun some of the planetary boundaries. Just to take biodiversity, at the current rate, by 2050, 30 percent of all species on Earth will have disappeared. Even if we keep their DNA in some fridge, that's not going to be reversible. So here I am sitting in front of a 7,000-meter-high, 21,000-foot glacier in Bhutan. At the Third Pole, 2,000 glaciers are melting fast, faster than the Arctic.
So what can we do in that situation? Well, however complex politically, economically, scientifically the question of the environment is, it simply boils down to a question of altruism versus selfishness. I'm a Marxist of the Groucho tendency. (Laughter) Groucho Marx said, "Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?" (Laughter) Unfortunately, I heard the billionaire Steve Forbes, on Fox News, saying exactly the same thing, but seriously. He was told about the rise of the ocean, and he said, "I find it absurd to change my behavior today for something that will happen in a hundred years." So if you don't care for future generations, just go for it.
So one of the main challenges of our times is to reconcile three time scales: the short term of the economy, the ups and downs of the stock market, the end-of-the-year accounts; the midterm of the quality of life -- what is the quality every moment of our life, over 10 years and 20 years? -- and the long term of the environment. When the environmentalists speak with economists, it's like a schizophrenic dialogue, completely incoherent. They don't speak the same language. Now, for the last 10 years, I went around the world meeting economists, scientists, neuroscientists, environmentalists, philosophers, thinkers in the Himalayas, all over the place. It seems to me, there's only one concept that can reconcile those three time scales. It is simply having more consideration for others. If you have more consideration for others, you will have a caring economics, where finance is at the service of society and not society at the service of finance. You will not play at the casino with the resources that people have entrusted you with. If you have more consideration for others, you will make sure that you remedy inequality, that you bring some kind of well-being within society, in education, at the workplace. Otherwise, a nation that is the most powerful and the richest but everyone is miserable, what's the point? And if you have more consideration for others, you are not going to ransack that planet that we have and at the current rate, we don't have three planets to continue that way.
So the question is, okay, altruism is the answer, it's not just a novel ideal, but can it be a real, pragmatic solution? And first of all, does it exist, true altruism, or are we so selfish? So some philosophers thought we were irredeemably selfish. But are we really all just like rascals? That's good news, isn't it? Many philosophers, like Hobbes, have said so. But not everyone looks like a rascal. Or is man a wolf for man? But this guy doesn't seem too bad. He's one of my friends in Tibet. He's very kind. So now, we love cooperation. There's no better joy than working together, is there? And then not only humans. Then, of course, there's the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, social Darwinism. But in evolution, cooperation -- though competition exists, of course -- cooperation has to be much more creative to go to increased levels of complexity. We are super-cooperators and we should even go further.
So now, on top of that, the quality of human relationships. The OECD did a survey among 10 factors, including income, everything. The first one that people said, that's the main thing for my happiness, is quality of social relationships. Not only in humans. And look at those great-grandmothers. So now, this idea that if we go deep within, we are irredeemably selfish, this is armchair science. There is not a single sociological study, psychological study, that's ever shown that. Rather, the opposite. My friend, Daniel Batson, spent a whole life putting people in the lab in very complex situations. And of course we are sometimes selfish, and some people more than others. But he found that systematically, no matter what, there's a significant number of people who do behave altruistically, no matter what. If you see someone deeply wounded, great suffering, you might just help out of empathic distress -- you can't stand it, so it's better to help than to keep on looking at that person. So we tested all that, and in the end, he said, clearly people can be altruistic. So that's good news. And even further, we should look at the banality of goodness. Now look at here. When we come out, we aren't going to say, "That's so nice. There was no fistfight while this mob was thinking about altruism." No, that's expected, isn't it? If there was a fistfight, we would speak of that for months. So the banality of goodness is something that doesn't attract your attention, but it exists.
Now, look at this. So some psychologists said, when I tell them I run 140 humanitarian projects in the Himalayas that give me so much joy, they said, "Oh, I see, you work for the warm glow. That is not altruistic. You just feel good." You think this guy, when he jumped in front of the train, he thought, "I'm going to feel so good when this is over?" (Laughter) But that's not the end of it. They say, well, but when you interviewed him, he said, "I had no choice. I had to jump, of course." He has no choice. Automatic behavior. It's neither selfish nor altruistic. No choice? Well of course, this guy's not going to think for half an hour, "Should I give my hand? Not give my hand?" He does it. There is a choice, but it's obvious, it's immediate. And then, also, there he had a choice. (Laughter)
There are people who had choice, like Pastor André Trocmé and his wife, and the whole village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon in France. For the whole Second World War, they saved 3,500 Jews, gave them shelter, brought them to Switzerland, against all odds, at the risk of their lives and those of their family. So altruism does exist.
So what is altruism? It is the wish: May others be happy and find the cause of happiness. Now, empathy is the affective resonance or cognitive resonance that tells you, this person is joyful, this person suffers. But empathy alone is not sufficient. If you keep on being confronted with suffering, you might have empathic distress, burnout, so you need the greater sphere of loving-kindness. With Tania Singer at the Max Planck Institute of Leipzig, we showed that the brain networks for empathy and loving-kindness are different. Now, that's all well done, so we got that from evolution, from maternal care, parental love, but we need to extend that. It can be extended even to other species.
Now, if we want a more altruistic society, we need two things: individual change and societal change. So is individual change possible? Two thousand years of contemplative study said yes, it is. Now, 15 years of collaboration with neuroscience and epigenetics said yes, our brains change when you train in altruism. So I spent 120 hours in an MRI machine. This is the first time I went after two and a half hours. And then the result has been published in many scientific papers. It shows without ambiguity that there is structural change and functional change in the brain when you train the altruistic love. Just to give you an idea: this is the meditator at rest on the left, meditator in compassion meditation, you see all the activity, and then the control group at rest, nothing happened, in meditation, nothing happened. They have not been trained.
So do you need 50,000 hours of meditation? No, you don't. Four weeks, 20 minutes a day, of caring, mindfulness meditation already brings a structural change in the brain compared to a control group. That's only 20 minutes a day for four weeks.
Even with preschoolers -- Richard Davidson did that in Madison. An eight-week program: gratitude, loving- kindness, cooperation, mindful breathing. You would say, "Oh, they're just preschoolers." Look after eight weeks, the pro-social behavior, that's the blue line. And then comes the ultimate scientific test, the stickers test. Before, you determine for each child who is their best friend in the class, their least favorite child, an unknown child, and the sick child, and they have to give stickers away. So before the intervention, they give most of it to their best friend. Four, five years old, 20 minutes three times a week. After the intervention, no more discrimination: the same amount of stickers to their best friend and the least favorite child. That's something we should do in all the schools in the world.
Now where do we go from there?
(Applause)
When the Dalai Lama heard that, he told Richard Davidson, "You go to 10 schools, 100 schools, the U.N., the whole world."
So now where do we go from there? Individual change is possible. Now do we have to wait for an altruistic gene to be in the human race? That will take 50,000 years, too much for the environment. Fortunately, there is the evolution of culture. Cultures, as specialists have shown, change faster than genes. That's the good news. Look, attitude towards war has dramatically changed over the years. So now individual change and cultural change mutually fashion each other, and yes, we can achieve a more altruistic society.
So where do we go from there? Myself, I will go back to the East. Now we treat 100,000 patients a year in our projects. We have 25,000 kids in school, four percent overhead. Some people say, "Well, your stuff works in practice, but does it work in theory?" There's always positive deviance. So I will also go back to my hermitage to find the inner resources to better serve others.
But on the more global level, what can we do? We need three things. Enhancing cooperation: Cooperative learning in the school instead of competitive learning, Unconditional cooperation within corporations -- there can be some competition between corporations, but not within. We need sustainable harmony. I love this term. Not sustainable growth anymore. Sustainable harmony means now we will reduce inequality. In the future, we do more with less, and we continue to grow qualitatively, not quantitatively. We need caring economics. The Homo economicus cannot deal with poverty in the midst of plenty, cannot deal with the problem of the common goods of the atmosphere, of the oceans. We need a caring economics. If you say economics should be compassionate, they say, "That's not our job." But if you say they don't care, that looks bad. We need local commitment, global responsibility. We need to extend altruism to the other 1.6 million species. Sentient beings are co-citizens in this world. and we need to dare altruism.
So, long live the altruistic revolution. Viva la revolución de altruismo.
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Applause)
Matthieu Ricard: How to let altruism be your guide
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
What is altruism? Put simply, it's the wish that other people may be happy. And, says Matthieu Ricard, a happiness researcher and a Buddhist monk, altruism is also a great lens for making decisions, both for the short and long term, in work and in life.
Transcript:
So we humans have an extraordinary potential for goodness, but also an immense power to do harm. Any tool can be used to build or to destroy. That all depends on our motivation. Therefore, it is all the more important to foster an altruistic motivation rather than a selfish one.
So now we indeed are facing many challenges in our times. Those could be personal challenges. Our own mind can be our best friend or our worst enemy. There's also societal challenges: poverty in the midst of plenty, inequalities, conflict, injustice. And then there are the new challenges, which we don't expect. Ten thousand years ago, there were about five million human beings on Earth. Whatever they could do, the Earth's resilience would soon heal human activities. After the Industrial and Technological Revolutions, that's not the same anymore. We are now the major agent of impact on our Earth. We enter the Anthropocene, the era of human beings. So in a way, if we were to say we need to continue this endless growth, endless use of material resources, it's like if this man was saying -- and I heard a former head of state, I won't mention who, saying -- "Five years ago, we were at the edge of the precipice. Today we made a big step forward." So this edge is the same that has been defined by scientists as the planetary boundaries. And within those boundaries, they can carry a number of factors. We can still prosper, humanity can still prosper for 150,000 years if we keep the same stability of climate as in the Holocene for the last 10,000 years. But this depends on choosing a voluntary simplicity, growing qualitatively, not quantitatively.
So in 1900, as you can see, we were well within the limits of safety. Now, in 1950 came the great acceleration. Now hold your breath, not too long, to imagine what comes next. Now we have vastly overrun some of the planetary boundaries. Just to take biodiversity, at the current rate, by 2050, 30 percent of all species on Earth will have disappeared. Even if we keep their DNA in some fridge, that's not going to be reversible. So here I am sitting in front of a 7,000-meter-high, 21,000-foot glacier in Bhutan. At the Third Pole, 2,000 glaciers are melting fast, faster than the Arctic.
So what can we do in that situation? Well, however complex politically, economically, scientifically the question of the environment is, it simply boils down to a question of altruism versus selfishness. I'm a Marxist of the Groucho tendency. (Laughter) Groucho Marx said, "Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?" (Laughter) Unfortunately, I heard the billionaire Steve Forbes, on Fox News, saying exactly the same thing, but seriously. He was told about the rise of the ocean, and he said, "I find it absurd to change my behavior today for something that will happen in a hundred years." So if you don't care for future generations, just go for it.
So one of the main challenges of our times is to reconcile three time scales: the short term of the economy, the ups and downs of the stock market, the end-of-the-year accounts; the midterm of the quality of life -- what is the quality every moment of our life, over 10 years and 20 years? -- and the long term of the environment. When the environmentalists speak with economists, it's like a schizophrenic dialogue, completely incoherent. They don't speak the same language. Now, for the last 10 years, I went around the world meeting economists, scientists, neuroscientists, environmentalists, philosophers, thinkers in the Himalayas, all over the place. It seems to me, there's only one concept that can reconcile those three time scales. It is simply having more consideration for others. If you have more consideration for others, you will have a caring economics, where finance is at the service of society and not society at the service of finance. You will not play at the casino with the resources that people have entrusted you with. If you have more consideration for others, you will make sure that you remedy inequality, that you bring some kind of well-being within society, in education, at the workplace. Otherwise, a nation that is the most powerful and the richest but everyone is miserable, what's the point? And if you have more consideration for others, you are not going to ransack that planet that we have and at the current rate, we don't have three planets to continue that way.
So the question is, okay, altruism is the answer, it's not just a novel ideal, but can it be a real, pragmatic solution? And first of all, does it exist, true altruism, or are we so selfish? So some philosophers thought we were irredeemably selfish. But are we really all just like rascals? That's good news, isn't it? Many philosophers, like Hobbes, have said so. But not everyone looks like a rascal. Or is man a wolf for man? But this guy doesn't seem too bad. He's one of my friends in Tibet. He's very kind. So now, we love cooperation. There's no better joy than working together, is there? And then not only humans. Then, of course, there's the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, social Darwinism. But in evolution, cooperation -- though competition exists, of course -- cooperation has to be much more creative to go to increased levels of complexity. We are super-cooperators and we should even go further.
So now, on top of that, the quality of human relationships. The OECD did a survey among 10 factors, including income, everything. The first one that people said, that's the main thing for my happiness, is quality of social relationships. Not only in humans. And look at those great-grandmothers. So now, this idea that if we go deep within, we are irredeemably selfish, this is armchair science. There is not a single sociological study, psychological study, that's ever shown that. Rather, the opposite. My friend, Daniel Batson, spent a whole life putting people in the lab in very complex situations. And of course we are sometimes selfish, and some people more than others. But he found that systematically, no matter what, there's a significant number of people who do behave altruistically, no matter what. If you see someone deeply wounded, great suffering, you might just help out of empathic distress -- you can't stand it, so it's better to help than to keep on looking at that person. So we tested all that, and in the end, he said, clearly people can be altruistic. So that's good news. And even further, we should look at the banality of goodness. Now look at here. When we come out, we aren't going to say, "That's so nice. There was no fistfight while this mob was thinking about altruism." No, that's expected, isn't it? If there was a fistfight, we would speak of that for months. So the banality of goodness is something that doesn't attract your attention, but it exists.
Now, look at this. So some psychologists said, when I tell them I run 140 humanitarian projects in the Himalayas that give me so much joy, they said, "Oh, I see, you work for the warm glow. That is not altruistic. You just feel good." You think this guy, when he jumped in front of the train, he thought, "I'm going to feel so good when this is over?" (Laughter) But that's not the end of it. They say, well, but when you interviewed him, he said, "I had no choice. I had to jump, of course." He has no choice. Automatic behavior. It's neither selfish nor altruistic. No choice? Well of course, this guy's not going to think for half an hour, "Should I give my hand? Not give my hand?" He does it. There is a choice, but it's obvious, it's immediate. And then, also, there he had a choice. (Laughter)
There are people who had choice, like Pastor André Trocmé and his wife, and the whole village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon in France. For the whole Second World War, they saved 3,500 Jews, gave them shelter, brought them to Switzerland, against all odds, at the risk of their lives and those of their family. So altruism does exist.
So what is altruism? It is the wish: May others be happy and find the cause of happiness. Now, empathy is the affective resonance or cognitive resonance that tells you, this person is joyful, this person suffers. But empathy alone is not sufficient. If you keep on being confronted with suffering, you might have empathic distress, burnout, so you need the greater sphere of loving-kindness. With Tania Singer at the Max Planck Institute of Leipzig, we showed that the brain networks for empathy and loving-kindness are different. Now, that's all well done, so we got that from evolution, from maternal care, parental love, but we need to extend that. It can be extended even to other species.
Now, if we want a more altruistic society, we need two things: individual change and societal change. So is individual change possible? Two thousand years of contemplative study said yes, it is. Now, 15 years of collaboration with neuroscience and epigenetics said yes, our brains change when you train in altruism. So I spent 120 hours in an MRI machine. This is the first time I went after two and a half hours. And then the result has been published in many scientific papers. It shows without ambiguity that there is structural change and functional change in the brain when you train the altruistic love. Just to give you an idea: this is the meditator at rest on the left, meditator in compassion meditation, you see all the activity, and then the control group at rest, nothing happened, in meditation, nothing happened. They have not been trained.
So do you need 50,000 hours of meditation? No, you don't. Four weeks, 20 minutes a day, of caring, mindfulness meditation already brings a structural change in the brain compared to a control group. That's only 20 minutes a day for four weeks.
Even with preschoolers -- Richard Davidson did that in Madison. An eight-week program: gratitude, loving- kindness, cooperation, mindful breathing. You would say, "Oh, they're just preschoolers." Look after eight weeks, the pro-social behavior, that's the blue line. And then comes the ultimate scientific test, the stickers test. Before, you determine for each child who is their best friend in the class, their least favorite child, an unknown child, and the sick child, and they have to give stickers away. So before the intervention, they give most of it to their best friend. Four, five years old, 20 minutes three times a week. After the intervention, no more discrimination: the same amount of stickers to their best friend and the least favorite child. That's something we should do in all the schools in the world.
Now where do we go from there?
(Applause)
When the Dalai Lama heard that, he told Richard Davidson, "You go to 10 schools, 100 schools, the U.N., the whole world."
So now where do we go from there? Individual change is possible. Now do we have to wait for an altruistic gene to be in the human race? That will take 50,000 years, too much for the environment. Fortunately, there is the evolution of culture. Cultures, as specialists have shown, change faster than genes. That's the good news. Look, attitude towards war has dramatically changed over the years. So now individual change and cultural change mutually fashion each other, and yes, we can achieve a more altruistic society.
So where do we go from there? Myself, I will go back to the East. Now we treat 100,000 patients a year in our projects. We have 25,000 kids in school, four percent overhead. Some people say, "Well, your stuff works in practice, but does it work in theory?" There's always positive deviance. So I will also go back to my hermitage to find the inner resources to better serve others.
But on the more global level, what can we do? We need three things. Enhancing cooperation: Cooperative learning in the school instead of competitive learning, Unconditional cooperation within corporations -- there can be some competition between corporations, but not within. We need sustainable harmony. I love this term. Not sustainable growth anymore. Sustainable harmony means now we will reduce inequality. In the future, we do more with less, and we continue to grow qualitatively, not quantitatively. We need caring economics. The Homo economicus cannot deal with poverty in the midst of plenty, cannot deal with the problem of the common goods of the atmosphere, of the oceans. We need a caring economics. If you say economics should be compassionate, they say, "That's not our job." But if you say they don't care, that looks bad. We need local commitment, global responsibility. We need to extend altruism to the other 1.6 million species. Sentient beings are co-citizens in this world. and we need to dare altruism.
So, long live the altruistic revolution. Viva la revolución de altruismo.
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Applause)
SOC/GralInt-TED Talks-Joe Madiath: Better toilets, better life
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Joe Madiath: Better toilets, better life
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
In rural India, the lack of toilets creates a big, stinking problem. It leads to poor quality water, one of the leading causes of disease in India, and has a disproportionately negative effect on women. Joe Madiath introduces a program to help villagers help themselves, by building clean, protected water and sanitation systems and requiring everyone in the village to collaborate — with significant benefits that ripple across health, education and even government.
Transcript:
It is very fashionable and proper to speak about food in all its forms, all its colors, aromas and tastes. But after the food goes through the digestive system, when it is thrown out as crap, it is no longer fashionable to speak about it. It is rather revolting.
I'm a guy who has graduated from bullshit to full-shit. (Laughter) My organization, Gram Vikas, which means "village development organization," was working in the area of renewable energy. On the most part, we were producing biogas, biogas for rural kitchens. We produce biogas in India by using animal manure, which usually, in India, is called cow dung. But as the gender-sensitive person that I am, I would like to call it bullshit. But realizing later on how important were sanitation and the disposal of crap in a proper way, we went into the arena of sanitation. Eighty percent of all diseases in India and most developing countries are because of poor quality water. And when we look at the reason for poor quality water, you find that it is our abysmal attitude to the disposal of human waste.
Human waste, in its rawest form, finds its way back to drinking water, bathing water, washing water, irrigation water, whatever water you see. And this is the cause for 80 percent of the diseases in rural areas. In India, it is unfortunately only the women who carry water. So for all domestic needs, women have to carry water. So that is a pitiable state of affairs.
Open defecation is rampant. Seventy percent of India defecates in the open. They sit there out in the open, with the wind on their sails, hiding their faces, exposing their bases, and sitting there in pristine glory -- 70 percent of India. And if you look at the world total, 60 percent of all the crap that is thrown into the open is by Indians. A fantastic distinction. I don't know if we Indians can be proud of such a distinction. (Laughter)
So we, together with a lot of villages, we began to talk about how to really address this situation of sanitation. And we came together and formed a project called MANTRA. MANTRA stands for Movement and Action Network for Transformation of Rural Areas. So we are speaking about transformation, transformation in rural areas. Villages that agree to implement this project, they organize a legal society where the general body consists of all members who elect a group of men and women who implement the project and, later on, who look after the operation and maintenance. They decide to build a toilet and a shower room. And from a protected water source, water will be brought to an elevated water reservoir and piped to all households through three taps: one in the toilet, one in the shower, one in the kitchen, 24 hours a day. The pity is that our cities, like New Delhi and Bombay, do not have a 24-hour water supply. But in these villages, we want to have it.
There is a distinct difference in the quality. Well in India, we have a theory, which is very much accepted by the government bureaucracy and all those who matter, that poor people deserve poor solutions and absolutely poor people deserve pathetic solutions. This, combined with a Nobel Prize-worthy theory that the cheapest is the most economic, is the heady cocktail that the poor are forced to drink. We are fighting against this. We feel that the poor have been humiliated for centuries. And even in sanitation, they should not be humiliated. Sanitation is more about dignity than about human disposal of waste. And so you build these toilets and very often, we have to hear that the toilets are better than their houses. And you can see that in front are the attached houses and the others are the toilets.
So these people, without a single exception of a family in a village, decide to build a toilet, a bathing room. And for that, they come together, collect all the local materials -- local materials like rubble, sand, aggregates, usually a government subsidy is available to meet at least part of the cost of external materials like cement, steel, toilet commode. And they build a toilet and a bathing room. Also, all the unskilled laborers, that is daily wage earners, mostly landless, are given an opportunity to be trained as masons and plumbers. So while these people are being trained, others are collecting the materials. And when both are ready, they build a toilet, a shower room, and of course also a water tower, an elevated water reservoir. We use a system of two leach pits to treat the waste. From the toilet, the muck comes into the first leach pit. And when it is full, it is blocked and it can go to the next. But we discovered that if you plant banana trees, papaya trees on the periphery of these leach pits, they grow very well because they suck up all the nutrients and you get very tasty bananas, papayas. If any of you come to my place, I would be happy to share these bananas and papayas with you. So there you can see the completed toilets, the water towers.
This is in a village where most of the people are even illiterate. It is always a 24-hour water supply because water gets polluted very often when you store it -- a child dips his or her hand into it, something falls into it. So no water is stored. It's always on tap. This is how an elevated water reservoir is constructed. And that is the end product. Because it has to go high, and there is some space available, two or three rooms are made under the water tower, which are used by the village for different committee meetings.
We have had clear evidence of the great impact of this program. Before we started, there were, as usual, more than 80 percent of people suffering from waterborne diseases. But after this, we have empirical evidence that 82 percent, on average, among all these villages -- 1,200 villages have completed it -- waterborne diseases have come down 82 percent. (Applause) Women usually used to spend, especially in the summer months, about six to seven hours a day carrying water. And when they went to carry water, because, as I said earlier, it's only women who carry water, they used to take their little children, girl children, also to carry water, or else to be back at home to look after the siblings. So there were less than nine percent of girl children attending school, even if there was a school. And boys, about 30 percent. But girls, it has gone to about 90 percent and boys, almost to 100 percent. (Applause) The most vulnerable section in a village are the landless laborers who are the daily wage-earners. Because they have gone through this training to be masons and plumbers and bar benders, now their ability to earn has increased 300 to 400 percent.
So this is a democracy in action because there is a general body, a governing board, the committee. People are questioning, people are governing themselves, people are learning to manage their own affairs, they are taking their own futures into their hands. And that is democracy at the grassroots level in action. More than 1,200 villages have so far done this. It benefits over 400,000 people and it's still going on. And I hope it continues to move ahead.
For India and such developing countries, armies and armaments, software companies and spaceships may not be as important as taps and toilets.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Applause) Thank you.
Joe Madiath: Better toilets, better life
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
In rural India, the lack of toilets creates a big, stinking problem. It leads to poor quality water, one of the leading causes of disease in India, and has a disproportionately negative effect on women. Joe Madiath introduces a program to help villagers help themselves, by building clean, protected water and sanitation systems and requiring everyone in the village to collaborate — with significant benefits that ripple across health, education and even government.
Transcript:
It is very fashionable and proper to speak about food in all its forms, all its colors, aromas and tastes. But after the food goes through the digestive system, when it is thrown out as crap, it is no longer fashionable to speak about it. It is rather revolting.
I'm a guy who has graduated from bullshit to full-shit. (Laughter) My organization, Gram Vikas, which means "village development organization," was working in the area of renewable energy. On the most part, we were producing biogas, biogas for rural kitchens. We produce biogas in India by using animal manure, which usually, in India, is called cow dung. But as the gender-sensitive person that I am, I would like to call it bullshit. But realizing later on how important were sanitation and the disposal of crap in a proper way, we went into the arena of sanitation. Eighty percent of all diseases in India and most developing countries are because of poor quality water. And when we look at the reason for poor quality water, you find that it is our abysmal attitude to the disposal of human waste.
Human waste, in its rawest form, finds its way back to drinking water, bathing water, washing water, irrigation water, whatever water you see. And this is the cause for 80 percent of the diseases in rural areas. In India, it is unfortunately only the women who carry water. So for all domestic needs, women have to carry water. So that is a pitiable state of affairs.
Open defecation is rampant. Seventy percent of India defecates in the open. They sit there out in the open, with the wind on their sails, hiding their faces, exposing their bases, and sitting there in pristine glory -- 70 percent of India. And if you look at the world total, 60 percent of all the crap that is thrown into the open is by Indians. A fantastic distinction. I don't know if we Indians can be proud of such a distinction. (Laughter)
So we, together with a lot of villages, we began to talk about how to really address this situation of sanitation. And we came together and formed a project called MANTRA. MANTRA stands for Movement and Action Network for Transformation of Rural Areas. So we are speaking about transformation, transformation in rural areas. Villages that agree to implement this project, they organize a legal society where the general body consists of all members who elect a group of men and women who implement the project and, later on, who look after the operation and maintenance. They decide to build a toilet and a shower room. And from a protected water source, water will be brought to an elevated water reservoir and piped to all households through three taps: one in the toilet, one in the shower, one in the kitchen, 24 hours a day. The pity is that our cities, like New Delhi and Bombay, do not have a 24-hour water supply. But in these villages, we want to have it.
There is a distinct difference in the quality. Well in India, we have a theory, which is very much accepted by the government bureaucracy and all those who matter, that poor people deserve poor solutions and absolutely poor people deserve pathetic solutions. This, combined with a Nobel Prize-worthy theory that the cheapest is the most economic, is the heady cocktail that the poor are forced to drink. We are fighting against this. We feel that the poor have been humiliated for centuries. And even in sanitation, they should not be humiliated. Sanitation is more about dignity than about human disposal of waste. And so you build these toilets and very often, we have to hear that the toilets are better than their houses. And you can see that in front are the attached houses and the others are the toilets.
So these people, without a single exception of a family in a village, decide to build a toilet, a bathing room. And for that, they come together, collect all the local materials -- local materials like rubble, sand, aggregates, usually a government subsidy is available to meet at least part of the cost of external materials like cement, steel, toilet commode. And they build a toilet and a bathing room. Also, all the unskilled laborers, that is daily wage earners, mostly landless, are given an opportunity to be trained as masons and plumbers. So while these people are being trained, others are collecting the materials. And when both are ready, they build a toilet, a shower room, and of course also a water tower, an elevated water reservoir. We use a system of two leach pits to treat the waste. From the toilet, the muck comes into the first leach pit. And when it is full, it is blocked and it can go to the next. But we discovered that if you plant banana trees, papaya trees on the periphery of these leach pits, they grow very well because they suck up all the nutrients and you get very tasty bananas, papayas. If any of you come to my place, I would be happy to share these bananas and papayas with you. So there you can see the completed toilets, the water towers.
This is in a village where most of the people are even illiterate. It is always a 24-hour water supply because water gets polluted very often when you store it -- a child dips his or her hand into it, something falls into it. So no water is stored. It's always on tap. This is how an elevated water reservoir is constructed. And that is the end product. Because it has to go high, and there is some space available, two or three rooms are made under the water tower, which are used by the village for different committee meetings.
We have had clear evidence of the great impact of this program. Before we started, there were, as usual, more than 80 percent of people suffering from waterborne diseases. But after this, we have empirical evidence that 82 percent, on average, among all these villages -- 1,200 villages have completed it -- waterborne diseases have come down 82 percent. (Applause) Women usually used to spend, especially in the summer months, about six to seven hours a day carrying water. And when they went to carry water, because, as I said earlier, it's only women who carry water, they used to take their little children, girl children, also to carry water, or else to be back at home to look after the siblings. So there were less than nine percent of girl children attending school, even if there was a school. And boys, about 30 percent. But girls, it has gone to about 90 percent and boys, almost to 100 percent. (Applause) The most vulnerable section in a village are the landless laborers who are the daily wage-earners. Because they have gone through this training to be masons and plumbers and bar benders, now their ability to earn has increased 300 to 400 percent.
So this is a democracy in action because there is a general body, a governing board, the committee. People are questioning, people are governing themselves, people are learning to manage their own affairs, they are taking their own futures into their hands. And that is democracy at the grassroots level in action. More than 1,200 villages have so far done this. It benefits over 400,000 people and it's still going on. And I hope it continues to move ahead.
For India and such developing countries, armies and armaments, software companies and spaceships may not be as important as taps and toilets.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Applause) Thank you.
SOC/GralInt-TED Talks-Morgana Bailey: The danger of hiding who you are
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Morgana Bailey: The danger of hiding who you are
TED@State Street London-Filmed Nov 2014
Morgana Bailey has been hiding her true self for 16 years. In a brave talk, she utters four words that might not seem like a big deal to some, but to her have been paralyzing. Why speak up? Because she’s realized that her silence has personal, professional and societal consequences. In front of an audience of her co-workers, she reflects on what it means to fear the judgment of others, and how it makes us judge ourselves.
Transcript:
When I was young, I prided myself as a nonconformist in the conservative U.S. state I live in, Kansas. I didn't follow along with the crowd. I wasn't afraid to try weird clothing trends or hairstyles. I was outspoken and extremely social. Even these pictures and postcards of my London semester abroad 16 years ago show that I obviously didn't care if I was perceived as weird or different. (Laughter)
But that same year I was in London, 16 years ago, I realized something about myself that actually was somewhat unique, and that changed everything. I became the opposite of who I thought I once was. I stayed in my room instead of socializing. I stopped engaging in clubs and leadership activities. I didn't want to stand out in the crowd anymore. I told myself it was because I was growing up and maturing, not that I was suddenly looking for acceptance. I had always assumed I was immune to needing acceptance. After all, I was a bit unconventional. But I realize now that the moment I realized something was different about me was the exact same moment that I began conforming and hiding.
Hiding is a progressive habit, and once you start hiding, it becomes harder and harder to step forward and speak out. In fact, even now, when I was talking to people about what this talk was about, I made up a cover story and I even hid the truth about my TED Talk. So it is fitting and scary that I have returned to this city 16 years later and I have chosen this stage to finally stop hiding. What have I been hiding for 16 years? I am a lesbian.
(Applause)
Thank you.
I've struggled to say those words, because I didn't want to be defined by them. Every time I would think about coming out in the past, I would think to myself, but I just want to be known as Morgana, uniquely Morgana, but not "my lesbian friend Morgana," or "my gay coworker Morgana." Just Morgana.
For those of you from large metropolitan areas, this may not seem like a big deal to you. It may seem strange that I have suppressed the truth and hidden this for so long. But I was paralyzed by my fear of not being accepted. And I'm not alone, of course. A 2013 Deloitte study found that a surprisingly large number of people hide aspects of their identity. Of all the employees they surveyed, 61 percent reported changing an aspect of their behavior or their appearance in order to fit in at work. Of all the gay, lesbian and bisexual employees, 83 percent admitted to changing some aspects of themselves so they would not appear at work "too gay." The study found that even in companies with diversity policies and inclusion programs, employees struggle to be themselves at work because they believe conformity is critical to their long-term career advancement. And while I was surprised that so many people just like me waste so much energy trying to hide themselves, I was scared when I discovered that my silence has life-or-death consequences and long-term social repercussions.
Twelve years: the length by which life expectancy is shortened for gay, lesbian and bisexual people in highly anti-gay communities compared to accepting communities. Twelve years reduced life expectancy. When I read that in The Advocate magazine this year, I realized I could no longer afford to keep silent. The effects of personal stress and social stigmas are a deadly combination. The study found that gays in anti-gay communities had higher rates of heart disease, violence and suicide. What I once thought was simply a personal matter I realized had a ripple effect that went into the workplace and out into the community for every story just like mine. My choice to hide and not share who I really am may have inadvertently contributed to this exact same environment and atmosphere of discrimination.
I'd always told myself there's no reason to share that I was gay, but the idea that my silence has social consequences was really driven home this year when I missed an opportunity to change the atmosphere of discrimination in my own home state of Kansas.
In February, the Kansas House of Representatives brought up a bill for vote that would have essentially allowed businesses to use religious freedom as a reason to deny gays services. A former coworker and friend of mine has a father who serves in the Kansas House of Representatives. He voted in favor of the bill, in favor of a law that would allow businesses to not serve me.
How does my friend feel about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning people? How does her father feel? I don't know, because I was never honest with them about who I am. And that shakes me to the core. What if I had told her my story years ago? Could she have told her father my experience? Could I have ultimately helped change his vote? I will never know, and that made me realize I had done nothing to try to make a difference
How ironic that I work in human resources, a profession that works to welcome, connect and encourage the development of employees, a profession that advocates that the diversity of society should be reflected in the workplace, and yet I have done nothing to advocate for diversity. When I came to this company one year ago, I thought to myself, this company has anti-discrimination policies that protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Their commitment to diversity is evident through their global inclusion programs. When I walk through the doors of this company, I will finally come out. But I didn't. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity, I did nothing.
(Applause)
When I was looking through my London journal and scrapbook from my London semester abroad 16 years ago, I came across this modified quote from Toni Morrison's book, "Paradise." "There are more scary things inside than outside." And then I wrote a note to myself at the bottom: "Remember this." I'm sure I was trying to encourage myself to get out and explore London, but the message I missed was the need to start exploring and embracing myself. What I didn't realize until all these years later is that the biggest obstacles I will ever have to overcome are my own fears and insecurities. I believe that by facing my fears inside, I will be able to change reality outside. I made a choice today to reveal a part of myself that I have hidden for too long. I hope that this means I will never hide again, and I hope that by coming out today, I can do something to change the data and also to help others who feel different be more themselves and more fulfilled in both their professional and personal lives. Thank you. (Applause)
Morgana Bailey: The danger of hiding who you are
TED@State Street London-Filmed Nov 2014
Morgana Bailey has been hiding her true self for 16 years. In a brave talk, she utters four words that might not seem like a big deal to some, but to her have been paralyzing. Why speak up? Because she’s realized that her silence has personal, professional and societal consequences. In front of an audience of her co-workers, she reflects on what it means to fear the judgment of others, and how it makes us judge ourselves.
Transcript:
When I was young, I prided myself as a nonconformist in the conservative U.S. state I live in, Kansas. I didn't follow along with the crowd. I wasn't afraid to try weird clothing trends or hairstyles. I was outspoken and extremely social. Even these pictures and postcards of my London semester abroad 16 years ago show that I obviously didn't care if I was perceived as weird or different. (Laughter)
But that same year I was in London, 16 years ago, I realized something about myself that actually was somewhat unique, and that changed everything. I became the opposite of who I thought I once was. I stayed in my room instead of socializing. I stopped engaging in clubs and leadership activities. I didn't want to stand out in the crowd anymore. I told myself it was because I was growing up and maturing, not that I was suddenly looking for acceptance. I had always assumed I was immune to needing acceptance. After all, I was a bit unconventional. But I realize now that the moment I realized something was different about me was the exact same moment that I began conforming and hiding.
Hiding is a progressive habit, and once you start hiding, it becomes harder and harder to step forward and speak out. In fact, even now, when I was talking to people about what this talk was about, I made up a cover story and I even hid the truth about my TED Talk. So it is fitting and scary that I have returned to this city 16 years later and I have chosen this stage to finally stop hiding. What have I been hiding for 16 years? I am a lesbian.
(Applause)
Thank you.
I've struggled to say those words, because I didn't want to be defined by them. Every time I would think about coming out in the past, I would think to myself, but I just want to be known as Morgana, uniquely Morgana, but not "my lesbian friend Morgana," or "my gay coworker Morgana." Just Morgana.
For those of you from large metropolitan areas, this may not seem like a big deal to you. It may seem strange that I have suppressed the truth and hidden this for so long. But I was paralyzed by my fear of not being accepted. And I'm not alone, of course. A 2013 Deloitte study found that a surprisingly large number of people hide aspects of their identity. Of all the employees they surveyed, 61 percent reported changing an aspect of their behavior or their appearance in order to fit in at work. Of all the gay, lesbian and bisexual employees, 83 percent admitted to changing some aspects of themselves so they would not appear at work "too gay." The study found that even in companies with diversity policies and inclusion programs, employees struggle to be themselves at work because they believe conformity is critical to their long-term career advancement. And while I was surprised that so many people just like me waste so much energy trying to hide themselves, I was scared when I discovered that my silence has life-or-death consequences and long-term social repercussions.
Twelve years: the length by which life expectancy is shortened for gay, lesbian and bisexual people in highly anti-gay communities compared to accepting communities. Twelve years reduced life expectancy. When I read that in The Advocate magazine this year, I realized I could no longer afford to keep silent. The effects of personal stress and social stigmas are a deadly combination. The study found that gays in anti-gay communities had higher rates of heart disease, violence and suicide. What I once thought was simply a personal matter I realized had a ripple effect that went into the workplace and out into the community for every story just like mine. My choice to hide and not share who I really am may have inadvertently contributed to this exact same environment and atmosphere of discrimination.
I'd always told myself there's no reason to share that I was gay, but the idea that my silence has social consequences was really driven home this year when I missed an opportunity to change the atmosphere of discrimination in my own home state of Kansas.
In February, the Kansas House of Representatives brought up a bill for vote that would have essentially allowed businesses to use religious freedom as a reason to deny gays services. A former coworker and friend of mine has a father who serves in the Kansas House of Representatives. He voted in favor of the bill, in favor of a law that would allow businesses to not serve me.
How does my friend feel about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning people? How does her father feel? I don't know, because I was never honest with them about who I am. And that shakes me to the core. What if I had told her my story years ago? Could she have told her father my experience? Could I have ultimately helped change his vote? I will never know, and that made me realize I had done nothing to try to make a difference
How ironic that I work in human resources, a profession that works to welcome, connect and encourage the development of employees, a profession that advocates that the diversity of society should be reflected in the workplace, and yet I have done nothing to advocate for diversity. When I came to this company one year ago, I thought to myself, this company has anti-discrimination policies that protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Their commitment to diversity is evident through their global inclusion programs. When I walk through the doors of this company, I will finally come out. But I didn't. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity, I did nothing.
(Applause)
When I was looking through my London journal and scrapbook from my London semester abroad 16 years ago, I came across this modified quote from Toni Morrison's book, "Paradise." "There are more scary things inside than outside." And then I wrote a note to myself at the bottom: "Remember this." I'm sure I was trying to encourage myself to get out and explore London, but the message I missed was the need to start exploring and embracing myself. What I didn't realize until all these years later is that the biggest obstacles I will ever have to overcome are my own fears and insecurities. I believe that by facing my fears inside, I will be able to change reality outside. I made a choice today to reveal a part of myself that I have hidden for too long. I hope that this means I will never hide again, and I hope that by coming out today, I can do something to change the data and also to help others who feel different be more themselves and more fulfilled in both their professional and personal lives. Thank you. (Applause)
SOC/GralInt-TED Talks-Navi Radjou: Creative problem-solving in the face of extreme limits
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Navi Radjou: Creative problem-solving in the face of extreme limits
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
Navi Radjou has spent years studying "jugaad," also known as frugal innovation. Pioneered by entrepreneurs in emerging markets who figured out how to get spectacular value from limited resources, the practice has now caught on globally. Peppering his talk with a wealth of examples of human ingenuity at work, Radjou also shares three principles for how we can all do more with less.
Transcript:
When you grow up in a developing country like India, as I did, you instantly learn to get more value from limited resources and find creative ways to reuse what you already have. Take Mansukh Prajapati, a potter in India. He has created a fridge made entirely of clay that consumes no electricity. He can keep fruits and vegetables fresh for many days. That's a cool invention, literally. In Africa, if you run out of your cell phone battery, don't panic. You will find some resourceful entrepreneurs who can recharge your cell phone using bicycles. And since we are in South America, let's go to Lima in Peru, a region with high humidity that receives only one inch of rainfall each year. An engineering college in Lima designed a giant advertising billboard that absorbs air humidity and converts it into purified water, generating over 90 liters of water every day. The Peruvians are amazing. They can literally create water out of thin air.
For the past seven years, I have met and studied hundreds of entrepreneurs in India, China, Africa and South America, and they keep amazing me. Many of them did not go to school. They don't invent stuff in big R&D labs. The street is the lab. Why do they do that? Because they don't have the kind of basic resources we take for granted, like capital and energy, and basic services like healthcare and education are also scarce in those regions. When external resources are scarce, you have to go within yourself to tap the most abundant resource, human ingenuity, and use that ingenuity to find clever ways to solve problems with limited resources.
In India, we call it Jugaad. Jugaad is a Hindi word that means an improvised fix, a clever solution born in adversity. Jugaad solutions are not sophisticated or perfect, but they create more value at lower cost. For me, the entrepreneurs who will create Jugaad solutions are like alchemists. They can magically transform adversity into opportunity, and turn something of less value into something of high value. In other words, they mastered the art of doing more with less, which is the essence of frugal innovation.
Frugal innovation is the ability to create more economic and social value using fewer resources. Frugal innovation is not about making do; it's about making things better. Now I want to show you how, across emerging markets, entrepreneurs and companies are adopting frugal innovation on a larger scale to cost-effectively deliver healthcare and energy to billions of people who may have little income but very high aspirations.
Let's first go to China, where the country's largest I.T. service provider, Neusoft, has developed a telemedicine solution to help doctors in cities remotely treat old and poor patients in Chinese villages. This solution is based on simple-to-use medical devices that less qualified health workers like nurses can use in rural clinics. China desperately needs these frugal medical solutions because by 2050 it will be home to over half a billion senior citizens.
Now let's go to Kenya, a country where half the population uses M-Pesa, a mobile payment solution. This is a great solution for the African continent because 80 percent of Africans don't have a bank account, but what is exciting is that M-Pesa is now becoming the source of other disruptive business models in sectors like energy. Take M-KOPA, the home solar solution that comes literally in a box that has a solar rooftop panel, three LED lights, a solar radio, and a cell phone charger. The whole kit, though, costs 200 dollars, which is too expensive for most Kenyans, and this is where mobile telephony can make the solution more affordable. Today, you can buy this kit by making an initial deposit of just 35 dollars, and then pay off the rest by making a daily micro-payment of 45 cents using your mobile phone. Once you've made 365 micro-payments, the system is unlocked, and you own the product and you start receiving clean, free electricity. This is an amazing solution for Kenya, where 70 percent of people live off the grid. This shows that with frugal innovation what matters is that you take what is most abundant, mobile connectivity, to deal with what is scarce, which is energy.
With frugal innovation, the global South is actually catching up and in some cases even leap-frogging the North. Instead of building expensive hospitals, China is using telemedicine to cost-effectively treat millions of patients, and Africa, instead of building banks and electricity grids, is going straight to mobile payments and distributed clean energy.
Frugal innovation is diametrically opposed to the way we innovate in the North. I live in Silicon Valley, where we keep chasing the next big technology thing. Think of the iPhone 5, 6, then 7, 8. Companies in the West spend billions of dollars investing in R&D, and use tons of natural resources to create ever more complex products, to differentiate their brands from competition, and they charge customers more money for new features. So the conventional business model in the West is more for more. But sadly, this more for more model is running out of gas, for three reasons: First, a big portion of customers in the West because of the diminishing purchasing power, can no longer afford these expensive products. Second, we are running out of natural water and oil. In California, where I live, water scarcity is becoming a big problem. And third, most importantly, because of the growing income disparity between the rich and the middle class in the West, there is a big disconnect between existing products and services and basic needs of customers. Do you know that today, there are over 70 million Americans today who are underbanked, because existing banking services are not designed to address their basic needs.
The prolonged economic crisis in the West is making people think that they are about to lose the high standard of living and face deprivation. I believe that the only way we can sustain growth and prosperity in the West is if we learn to do more with less.
The good news is, that's starting to happen. Several Western companies are now adopting frugal innovation to create affordable products for Western consumers. Let me give you two examples.
When I first saw this building, I told myself it's some kind of postmodern house. Actually, it's a small manufacturing plant set up by Grameen Danone, a joint venture between Grameen Bank of Muhammad Yunus and the food multinational Danone to make high-quality yogurt in Bangladesh. This factory is 10 percent the size of existing Danone factories and cost much less to build. I guess you can call it a low-fat factory. Now this factory, unlike Western factories that are highly automated, relies a lot on manual processes in order to generate jobs for local communities. Danone was so inspired by this model that combines economic efficiency and social sustainability, they are planning to roll it out in other parts of the world as well.
Now, when you see this example, you might be thinking, "Well, frugal innovation is low tech." Actually, no. Frugal innovation is also about making high tech more affordable and more accessible to more people. Let me give you an example.
In China, the R&D engineers of Siemens Healthcare have designed a C.T. scanner that is easy enough to be used by less qualified health workers, like nurses and technicians. This device can scan more patients on a daily basis, and yet consumes less energy, which is great for hospitals, but it's also great for patients because it reduces the cost of treatment by 30 percent and radiation dosage by up to 60 percent. This solution was initially designed for the Chinese market, but now it's selling like hotcakes in the U.S. and Europe, where hospitals are pressured to deliver quality care at lower cost.
But the frugal innovation revolution in the West is actually led by creative entrepreneurs who are coming up with amazing solutions to address basic needs in the U.S. and Europe. Let me quickly give you three examples of startups that personally inspire me. The first one happens to be launched by my neighbor in Silicon Valley. It's called gThrive. They make these wireless sensors designed like plastic rulers that farmers can stick in different parts of the field and start collecting detailed information like soil conditions. This dynamic data allows farmers to optimize use of water energy while improving quality of the products and the yields, which is a great solution for California, which faces major water shortage. It pays for itself within one year.
Second example is Be-Bound, also in Silicon Valley, that enables you to connect to the Internet even in no-bandwidth areas where there's no wi-fi or 3G or 4G. How do they do that? They simply use SMS, a basic technology, but that happens to be the most reliable and most widely available around the world. Three billion people today with cell phones can't access the Internet. This solution can connect them to the Internet in a frugal way.
And in France, there is a startup calle Compte Nickel, which is revolutionizing the banking sector. It allows thousands of people to walk into a Mom and Pop store and in just five minutes activate the service that gives them two products: an international bank account number and an international debit card. They charge a flat annual maintenance fee of just 20 Euros. That means you can do all banking transactions -- send and receive money, pay with your debit card -- all with no additional charge. This is what I call low-cost banking without the bank. Amazingly, 75 percent of the customers using this service are the middle-class French who can't afford high banking fees.
Now, I talked about frugal innovation, initially pioneered in the South, now being adopted in the North. Ultimately, we would like to see developed countries and developing countries come together and co-create frugal solutions that benefit the entire humanity. The exciting news is that's starting to happen. Let's go to Nairobi to find that out.
Nairobi has horrendous traffic jams. When I first saw them, I thought, "Holy cow." Literally, because you have to dodge cows as well when you drive in Nairobi. To ease the situation, the engineers at the IBM lab in Kenya are piloting a solution called Megaffic, which initially was designed by the Japanese engineers. Unlike in the West, Megaffic doesn't rely on roadside sensors, which are very expensive to install in Nairobi. Instead they process images, traffic data, collected from a small number of low-resolution webcams in Nairobi streets, and then they use analytic software to predict congestion points, and they can SMS drivers alternate routes to take. Granted, Megaffic is not as sexy as self-driving cars, but it promises to take Nairobi drivers from point A to point B at least 20 percent faster. And earlier this year, UCLA Health launched its Global Lab for Innovation, which seeks to identify frugal healthcare solutions anywhere in the world that will be at least 20 percent cheaper than existing solutions in the U.S. and yet more effective. It also tries to bring together innovators from North and South to cocreate affordable healthcare solutions for all of humanity.
I gave tons of examples of frugal innovators from around the world, but the question is, how do you go about adopting frugal innovation? Well, I gleaned out three principles from frugal innovators around the world that I want to share with you that you can apply in your own organization to do more with less.
The first principle is: Keep it simple. Don't create solutions to impress customers. Make them easy enough to use and widely accessible, like the C.T. scanner we saw in China.
Second principle: Do not reinvent the wheel. Try to leverage existing resources and assets that are widely available, like using mobile telephony to offer clean energy or Mom and Pop stores to offer banking services.
Third principle is: Think and act horizontally. Companies tend to scale up vertically by centralizing operations in big factories and warehouses, but if you want to be agile and deal with immense customer diversity, you need to scale out horizontally using a distributed supply chain with smaller manufacturing and distribution units, like Grameen Bank has shown.
The South pioneered frugal innovation out of sheer necessity. The North is now learning to do more and better with less as it faces resource constraints. As an Indian-born French national who lives in the United States, my hope is that we transcend this artificial North-South divide so that we can harness the collective ingenuity of innovators from around the world to cocreate frugal solutions that will improve the quality of life of everyone in the world, while preserving our precious planet.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Navi Radjou: Creative problem-solving in the face of extreme limits
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
Navi Radjou has spent years studying "jugaad," also known as frugal innovation. Pioneered by entrepreneurs in emerging markets who figured out how to get spectacular value from limited resources, the practice has now caught on globally. Peppering his talk with a wealth of examples of human ingenuity at work, Radjou also shares three principles for how we can all do more with less.
Transcript:
When you grow up in a developing country like India, as I did, you instantly learn to get more value from limited resources and find creative ways to reuse what you already have. Take Mansukh Prajapati, a potter in India. He has created a fridge made entirely of clay that consumes no electricity. He can keep fruits and vegetables fresh for many days. That's a cool invention, literally. In Africa, if you run out of your cell phone battery, don't panic. You will find some resourceful entrepreneurs who can recharge your cell phone using bicycles. And since we are in South America, let's go to Lima in Peru, a region with high humidity that receives only one inch of rainfall each year. An engineering college in Lima designed a giant advertising billboard that absorbs air humidity and converts it into purified water, generating over 90 liters of water every day. The Peruvians are amazing. They can literally create water out of thin air.
For the past seven years, I have met and studied hundreds of entrepreneurs in India, China, Africa and South America, and they keep amazing me. Many of them did not go to school. They don't invent stuff in big R&D labs. The street is the lab. Why do they do that? Because they don't have the kind of basic resources we take for granted, like capital and energy, and basic services like healthcare and education are also scarce in those regions. When external resources are scarce, you have to go within yourself to tap the most abundant resource, human ingenuity, and use that ingenuity to find clever ways to solve problems with limited resources.
In India, we call it Jugaad. Jugaad is a Hindi word that means an improvised fix, a clever solution born in adversity. Jugaad solutions are not sophisticated or perfect, but they create more value at lower cost. For me, the entrepreneurs who will create Jugaad solutions are like alchemists. They can magically transform adversity into opportunity, and turn something of less value into something of high value. In other words, they mastered the art of doing more with less, which is the essence of frugal innovation.
Frugal innovation is the ability to create more economic and social value using fewer resources. Frugal innovation is not about making do; it's about making things better. Now I want to show you how, across emerging markets, entrepreneurs and companies are adopting frugal innovation on a larger scale to cost-effectively deliver healthcare and energy to billions of people who may have little income but very high aspirations.
Let's first go to China, where the country's largest I.T. service provider, Neusoft, has developed a telemedicine solution to help doctors in cities remotely treat old and poor patients in Chinese villages. This solution is based on simple-to-use medical devices that less qualified health workers like nurses can use in rural clinics. China desperately needs these frugal medical solutions because by 2050 it will be home to over half a billion senior citizens.
Now let's go to Kenya, a country where half the population uses M-Pesa, a mobile payment solution. This is a great solution for the African continent because 80 percent of Africans don't have a bank account, but what is exciting is that M-Pesa is now becoming the source of other disruptive business models in sectors like energy. Take M-KOPA, the home solar solution that comes literally in a box that has a solar rooftop panel, three LED lights, a solar radio, and a cell phone charger. The whole kit, though, costs 200 dollars, which is too expensive for most Kenyans, and this is where mobile telephony can make the solution more affordable. Today, you can buy this kit by making an initial deposit of just 35 dollars, and then pay off the rest by making a daily micro-payment of 45 cents using your mobile phone. Once you've made 365 micro-payments, the system is unlocked, and you own the product and you start receiving clean, free electricity. This is an amazing solution for Kenya, where 70 percent of people live off the grid. This shows that with frugal innovation what matters is that you take what is most abundant, mobile connectivity, to deal with what is scarce, which is energy.
With frugal innovation, the global South is actually catching up and in some cases even leap-frogging the North. Instead of building expensive hospitals, China is using telemedicine to cost-effectively treat millions of patients, and Africa, instead of building banks and electricity grids, is going straight to mobile payments and distributed clean energy.
Frugal innovation is diametrically opposed to the way we innovate in the North. I live in Silicon Valley, where we keep chasing the next big technology thing. Think of the iPhone 5, 6, then 7, 8. Companies in the West spend billions of dollars investing in R&D, and use tons of natural resources to create ever more complex products, to differentiate their brands from competition, and they charge customers more money for new features. So the conventional business model in the West is more for more. But sadly, this more for more model is running out of gas, for three reasons: First, a big portion of customers in the West because of the diminishing purchasing power, can no longer afford these expensive products. Second, we are running out of natural water and oil. In California, where I live, water scarcity is becoming a big problem. And third, most importantly, because of the growing income disparity between the rich and the middle class in the West, there is a big disconnect between existing products and services and basic needs of customers. Do you know that today, there are over 70 million Americans today who are underbanked, because existing banking services are not designed to address their basic needs.
The prolonged economic crisis in the West is making people think that they are about to lose the high standard of living and face deprivation. I believe that the only way we can sustain growth and prosperity in the West is if we learn to do more with less.
The good news is, that's starting to happen. Several Western companies are now adopting frugal innovation to create affordable products for Western consumers. Let me give you two examples.
When I first saw this building, I told myself it's some kind of postmodern house. Actually, it's a small manufacturing plant set up by Grameen Danone, a joint venture between Grameen Bank of Muhammad Yunus and the food multinational Danone to make high-quality yogurt in Bangladesh. This factory is 10 percent the size of existing Danone factories and cost much less to build. I guess you can call it a low-fat factory. Now this factory, unlike Western factories that are highly automated, relies a lot on manual processes in order to generate jobs for local communities. Danone was so inspired by this model that combines economic efficiency and social sustainability, they are planning to roll it out in other parts of the world as well.
Now, when you see this example, you might be thinking, "Well, frugal innovation is low tech." Actually, no. Frugal innovation is also about making high tech more affordable and more accessible to more people. Let me give you an example.
In China, the R&D engineers of Siemens Healthcare have designed a C.T. scanner that is easy enough to be used by less qualified health workers, like nurses and technicians. This device can scan more patients on a daily basis, and yet consumes less energy, which is great for hospitals, but it's also great for patients because it reduces the cost of treatment by 30 percent and radiation dosage by up to 60 percent. This solution was initially designed for the Chinese market, but now it's selling like hotcakes in the U.S. and Europe, where hospitals are pressured to deliver quality care at lower cost.
But the frugal innovation revolution in the West is actually led by creative entrepreneurs who are coming up with amazing solutions to address basic needs in the U.S. and Europe. Let me quickly give you three examples of startups that personally inspire me. The first one happens to be launched by my neighbor in Silicon Valley. It's called gThrive. They make these wireless sensors designed like plastic rulers that farmers can stick in different parts of the field and start collecting detailed information like soil conditions. This dynamic data allows farmers to optimize use of water energy while improving quality of the products and the yields, which is a great solution for California, which faces major water shortage. It pays for itself within one year.
Second example is Be-Bound, also in Silicon Valley, that enables you to connect to the Internet even in no-bandwidth areas where there's no wi-fi or 3G or 4G. How do they do that? They simply use SMS, a basic technology, but that happens to be the most reliable and most widely available around the world. Three billion people today with cell phones can't access the Internet. This solution can connect them to the Internet in a frugal way.
And in France, there is a startup calle Compte Nickel, which is revolutionizing the banking sector. It allows thousands of people to walk into a Mom and Pop store and in just five minutes activate the service that gives them two products: an international bank account number and an international debit card. They charge a flat annual maintenance fee of just 20 Euros. That means you can do all banking transactions -- send and receive money, pay with your debit card -- all with no additional charge. This is what I call low-cost banking without the bank. Amazingly, 75 percent of the customers using this service are the middle-class French who can't afford high banking fees.
Now, I talked about frugal innovation, initially pioneered in the South, now being adopted in the North. Ultimately, we would like to see developed countries and developing countries come together and co-create frugal solutions that benefit the entire humanity. The exciting news is that's starting to happen. Let's go to Nairobi to find that out.
Nairobi has horrendous traffic jams. When I first saw them, I thought, "Holy cow." Literally, because you have to dodge cows as well when you drive in Nairobi. To ease the situation, the engineers at the IBM lab in Kenya are piloting a solution called Megaffic, which initially was designed by the Japanese engineers. Unlike in the West, Megaffic doesn't rely on roadside sensors, which are very expensive to install in Nairobi. Instead they process images, traffic data, collected from a small number of low-resolution webcams in Nairobi streets, and then they use analytic software to predict congestion points, and they can SMS drivers alternate routes to take. Granted, Megaffic is not as sexy as self-driving cars, but it promises to take Nairobi drivers from point A to point B at least 20 percent faster. And earlier this year, UCLA Health launched its Global Lab for Innovation, which seeks to identify frugal healthcare solutions anywhere in the world that will be at least 20 percent cheaper than existing solutions in the U.S. and yet more effective. It also tries to bring together innovators from North and South to cocreate affordable healthcare solutions for all of humanity.
I gave tons of examples of frugal innovators from around the world, but the question is, how do you go about adopting frugal innovation? Well, I gleaned out three principles from frugal innovators around the world that I want to share with you that you can apply in your own organization to do more with less.
The first principle is: Keep it simple. Don't create solutions to impress customers. Make them easy enough to use and widely accessible, like the C.T. scanner we saw in China.
Second principle: Do not reinvent the wheel. Try to leverage existing resources and assets that are widely available, like using mobile telephony to offer clean energy or Mom and Pop stores to offer banking services.
Third principle is: Think and act horizontally. Companies tend to scale up vertically by centralizing operations in big factories and warehouses, but if you want to be agile and deal with immense customer diversity, you need to scale out horizontally using a distributed supply chain with smaller manufacturing and distribution units, like Grameen Bank has shown.
The South pioneered frugal innovation out of sheer necessity. The North is now learning to do more and better with less as it faces resource constraints. As an Indian-born French national who lives in the United States, my hope is that we transcend this artificial North-South divide so that we can harness the collective ingenuity of innovators from around the world to cocreate frugal solutions that will improve the quality of life of everyone in the world, while preserving our precious planet.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
SOC/POL/VIOL/GralInt-TED Talks-Robert Muggah: How to protect fast-growing cities from failing
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Robert Muggah: How to protect fast-growing cities from failing
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
Worldwide, violence is on the decline, but in the crowded cities of the global south — cities like Aleppo, Bamako and Caracas — violence is actually accelerating, fueled by the drug trade, mass unemployment and civil unrest. Security researcher Robert Muggah turns our attention toward these “fragile cities,” super-fast-growing places where infrastructure is weak and government often ineffective. He shows us the four big risks we face, and offers a way to change course.
Transcript:
We can cut violent deaths around the world by 50 percent in the next three decades. All we have to do is drop killing by 2.3 percent a year, and we'll hit that target.
You don't believe me? Well, the leading epidemiologists and criminologists around the world seem to think we can, and so do I, but only if we focus on our cities, especially the most fragile ones.
You see, I've been thinking about this a lot. For the last 20 years, I've been working in countries and cities ripped apart by conflict, violence, terrorism, or some insidious combination of all. I've tracked gun smugglers from Russia to Somalia, I've worked with warlords in Afghanistan and the Congo, I've counted cadavers in Colombia, in Haiti, in Sri Lanka, in Papua New Guinea. You don't need to be on the front line, though, to get a sense that our planet is spinning out of control, right? There's this feeling that international instability is the new normal. But I want you to take a closer look, and I think you'll see that the geography of violence is changing, because it's not so much our nation states that are gripped by conflict and crime as our cities: Aleppo, Bamako, Caracas, Erbil, Mosul, Tripoli, Salvador. Violence is migrating to the metropole.
And maybe this is to be expected, right? After all, most people today, they live in cities, not the countryside. Just 600 cities, including 30 megacities, account for two thirds of global GDP. But when it comes to cities, the conversation is dominated by the North, that is, North America, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, where violence is actually at historic lows. As a result, city enthusiasts, they talk about the triumph of the city, of the creative classes, and the mayors that will rule the world. Now, I hope that mayors do one day rule the world, but, you know, the fact is, we don't hear any conversation, really, about what is happening in the South. And by South, I mean Latin America, Africa, Asia, where violence in some cases is accelerating, where infrastructure is overstretched, and where governance is sometimes an aspiration and not a reality.
Now, some diplomats and development experts and specialists, they talk about 40 to 50 fragile states that will shape security in the 21st century. I think it's fragile cities which will define the future of order and disorder. That's because warfare and humanitarian action are going to be concentrated in our cities, and the fight for development, whether you define that as eradicating poverty, universal healthcare, beating back climate change, will be won or lost in the shantytowns, slums and favelas of our cities. I want to talk to you about four megarisks that I think will define fragility in our time, and if we can get to grips with these, I think we can do something with that lethal violence problem.
So let me start with some good news. Fact is, we're living in the most peaceful moment in human history. Steven Pinker and others have shown how the intensity and frequency of conflict is actually at an all-time low. Now, Gaza, Syria, Sudan, Ukraine, as ghastly as these conflicts are, and they are horrific, they represent a relatively small blip upwards in a 50-year-long secular decline. What's more, we're seeing a dramatic reduction in homicide. Manuel Eisner and others have shown that for centuries, we've seen this incredible drop in murder, especially in the West. Most Northern cities today are 100 times safer than they were just 100 years ago.
These two facts -- the decline in armed conflict and the decline in murder -- are amongst the most extraordinary, if unheralded, accomplishments of human history, and we should be really excited, right? Well, yeah, we should. There's just one problem: These two scourges are still with us. You see, 525,000 people -- men, women, boys and girls -- die violently every single year. Research I've been doing with Keith Krause and others has shown that between 50,000 and 60,000 people are dying in war zones violently. The rest, almost 500,000 people, are dying outside of conflict zones. In other words, 10 times more people are dying outside of war than inside war. What's more, violence is moving south, to Latin America and the Caribbean, to parts of Central and Southern Africa, and to bits of the Middle East and Central Asia. Forty of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world are right here in Latin America, 13 in Brazil, and the most dangerous of all, it's San Pedro Sula, Honduras' second city, with a staggering homicide rate of 187 murders per 100,000 people. That's 23 times the global average.
Now, if violence is re-concentrating geographically, it's also being reconfigured to the world's new topography, because when it comes to cities, the world ain't flat, like Thomas Friedman likes to say. It's spiky. The dominance of the city as the primary mode of urban living is one of the most extraordinary demographic reversals in history, and it all happened so fast. You all know the figures, right? There's 7.3 billion people in the world today; there will be 9.6 billion by 2050. But consider this one fact: In the 1800s, one in 30 people lived in cities, today it's one in two, and tomorrow virtually everyone is going to be there. And this expansion in urbanization is going to be neither even nor equitable. The vast majority, 90 percent, will be happening in the South, in cities of the South.
So urban geographers and demographers, they tell us that it's not necessarily the size or even the density of cities that predicts violence, no. Tokyo, with 35 million people, is one of the largest, and some might say safest, urban metropolises in the world. No, it's the speed of urbanization that matters. I call this turbo-urbanization, and it's one of the key drivers of fragility.
When you think about the incredible expansion of these cities, and you think about turbo-urbanization, think about Karachi. Karachi was about 500,000 people in 1947, a hustling, bustling city. Today, it's 21 million people, and apart from accounting for three quarters of Pakistan's GDP, it's also one of the most violent cities in South Asia. Dhaka, Lagos, Kinshasa, these cities are now 40 times larger than they were in the 1950s.
Now take a look at New York. The Big Apple, it took 150 years to get to eight million people. São Paulo, Mexico City, took 15 to reach that same interval.
Now, what do these medium, large, mega-, and hypercities look like? What is their profile? Well, for one thing, they're young. What we're seeing in many of them is the rise of the youth bulge. Now, this is actually a good news story. It's a function of reductions in child mortality rates. But the youth bulge is something we've got to watch. What it basically means is the proportion of young people living in our fragile cities is much larger than those living in our healthier and wealthier ones. In some fragile cities, 75 percent of the population is under the age of 30. Think about that: Three in four people are under 30. It's like Palo Alto on steroids. Now, if you look at Mogadishu for example, in Mogadishu the mean age is 16 years old. Ditto for Dhaka, Dili and Kabul. And Tokyo? It's 46. Same for most Western European cities. Now, it's not just youth that necessarily predicts violence. That's one factor among many, but youthfulness combined with unemployment, lack of education, and -- this is the kicker -- being male, is a deadly proposition. They're statistically correlated, all those risk factors, with youth, and they tend to relate to increases in violence.
Now, for those of you who are parents of teenage sons, you know what I'm talking about, right? Just imagine your boy without any structure with those unruly friends of his, out there cavorting about. Now, take away the parents, take away the education, limit the education possibilities, sprinkle in a little bit of drugs, alcohol and guns, and sit back and watch the fireworks. The implications are disconcerting. Right here in Brazil, the life expectancy is 73.6 years. If you live in Rio, I'm sorry, shave off two right there. But if you're young, you're uneducated, you lack employment, you're black, and you're male, your life expectancy drops to less than 60 years old. There's a reason why youthfulness and violence are the number one killers in this country.
Okay, so it's not all doom and gloom in our cities. After all, cities are hubs of innovation, dynamism, prosperity, excitement, connectivity. They're where the smart people gather. And those young people I just mentioned, they're more digitally savvy and tech-aware than ever before. And this explosion, the Internet, and mobile technology, means that the digital divide separating the North and the South between countries and within them, is shrinking. But as we've heard so many times, these new technologies are dual-edged, right? Take the case of law enforcement. Police around the world are starting to use remote sensing and big data to anticipate crime. Some cops are able to predict criminal violence before it even happens. The future crime scenario, it's here today, and we've got to be careful. We have to manage the issues of the public safety against rights to individual privacy.
But it's not just the cops who are innovating. We've heard extraordinary activities of civil society groups who are engaging in local and global collective action, and this is leading to digital protest and real revolution. But most worrying of all are criminal gangs who are going online and starting to colonize cyberspace. In Ciudad Juárez in Mexico, where I've been working, groups like the Zetas and the Sinaloa cartel are hijacking social media. They're using it to recruit, to sell their products, to coerce, to intimidate and to kill. Violence is going virtual.
So this is just a partial sketch of a fast-moving and dynamic and complex situation. I mean, there are many other megarisks that are going to define fragility in our time, not least income inequality, poverty, climate change, impunity. But we're facing a stark dilemma where some cities are going to thrive and drive global growth and others are going to stumble and pull it backwards. If we're going to change course, we need to start a conversation. We can't only focus on those cities that work, the Singapores, the Kuala Lumpurs, the Dubais, the Shanghais. We've got to bring those fragile cities into the conversation.
One way to do this might be to start twinning our fragile cities with our healthier and wealthier ones, kickstarting a process of learning and collaboration and sharing of practices, of what works and what doesn't. A wonderful example of this is coming from El Salvador and Los Angeles, where the mayors in San Salvador and Los Angeles are collaborating on getting ex-gang members to work with current gang members, offering tutoring, education, and in the process are helping incubate cease-fires and truces, and we've seen homicide rates go down in San Salvador, once the world's most violent city, by 50 percent. We can also focus on hot cities, but also hot spots. Place and location matter fundamentally in shaping violence in our cities. Did you know that between one and two percent of street addresses in any fragile city can predict up to 99 percent of violent crime? Take the case of São Paulo, where I've been working. It's gone from being Brazil's most dangerous city to one of its safest, and it did this by doubling down on information collection, hot spot mapping, and police reform, and in the process, it dropped homicide by 70 percent in just over 10 years. We also got to focus on those hot people. It's tragic, but being young, unemployed, uneducated, male, increases the risks of being killed and killing. We have to break this cycle of violence and get in there early with our children, our youngest children, and valorize them, not stigmatize them. There's wonderful work that's happening that I've been involved with in Kingston, Jamaica and right here in Rio, which is putting education, employment, recreation up front for these high-risk groups, and as a result, we're seeing violence going down in their communities.
We've also got to make our cities safer, more inclusive, and livable for all. The fact is, social cohesion matters. Mobility matters in our cities. We've got to get away from this model of segregation, exclusion, and cities with walls. My favorite example of how to do this comes from Medellín. When I lived in Colombia in the late 1990s, Medellín was the murder capital of the world, but it changed course, and it did this by deliberately investing in its low-income and most violent areas and integrating them with the middle-class ones through a network of cable cars, of public transport, and first-class infrastructure, and in the process, it dropped homicide by 79 percent in just under two decades.
And finally, there's technology. Technology has enormous promise but also peril. We've seen examples here of extraordinary innovation, and much of it coming from this room, The police are engaging in predictive analytics. Citizens are engaging in new crowdsourcing solutions. Even my own group is involved in developing applications to provide more accountability over police and increase safety among citizens. But we need to be careful.
If I have one single message for you, it's this: There is nothing inevitable about lethal violence, and we can make our cities safer. Folks, we have the opportunity of a lifetime to drop homicidal violence in half within our lifetime. So I have just one question: What are we waiting for?
Thank you.
(Applause)
Robert Muggah: How to protect fast-growing cities from failing
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
Worldwide, violence is on the decline, but in the crowded cities of the global south — cities like Aleppo, Bamako and Caracas — violence is actually accelerating, fueled by the drug trade, mass unemployment and civil unrest. Security researcher Robert Muggah turns our attention toward these “fragile cities,” super-fast-growing places where infrastructure is weak and government often ineffective. He shows us the four big risks we face, and offers a way to change course.
Transcript:
We can cut violent deaths around the world by 50 percent in the next three decades. All we have to do is drop killing by 2.3 percent a year, and we'll hit that target.
You don't believe me? Well, the leading epidemiologists and criminologists around the world seem to think we can, and so do I, but only if we focus on our cities, especially the most fragile ones.
You see, I've been thinking about this a lot. For the last 20 years, I've been working in countries and cities ripped apart by conflict, violence, terrorism, or some insidious combination of all. I've tracked gun smugglers from Russia to Somalia, I've worked with warlords in Afghanistan and the Congo, I've counted cadavers in Colombia, in Haiti, in Sri Lanka, in Papua New Guinea. You don't need to be on the front line, though, to get a sense that our planet is spinning out of control, right? There's this feeling that international instability is the new normal. But I want you to take a closer look, and I think you'll see that the geography of violence is changing, because it's not so much our nation states that are gripped by conflict and crime as our cities: Aleppo, Bamako, Caracas, Erbil, Mosul, Tripoli, Salvador. Violence is migrating to the metropole.
And maybe this is to be expected, right? After all, most people today, they live in cities, not the countryside. Just 600 cities, including 30 megacities, account for two thirds of global GDP. But when it comes to cities, the conversation is dominated by the North, that is, North America, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, where violence is actually at historic lows. As a result, city enthusiasts, they talk about the triumph of the city, of the creative classes, and the mayors that will rule the world. Now, I hope that mayors do one day rule the world, but, you know, the fact is, we don't hear any conversation, really, about what is happening in the South. And by South, I mean Latin America, Africa, Asia, where violence in some cases is accelerating, where infrastructure is overstretched, and where governance is sometimes an aspiration and not a reality.
Now, some diplomats and development experts and specialists, they talk about 40 to 50 fragile states that will shape security in the 21st century. I think it's fragile cities which will define the future of order and disorder. That's because warfare and humanitarian action are going to be concentrated in our cities, and the fight for development, whether you define that as eradicating poverty, universal healthcare, beating back climate change, will be won or lost in the shantytowns, slums and favelas of our cities. I want to talk to you about four megarisks that I think will define fragility in our time, and if we can get to grips with these, I think we can do something with that lethal violence problem.
So let me start with some good news. Fact is, we're living in the most peaceful moment in human history. Steven Pinker and others have shown how the intensity and frequency of conflict is actually at an all-time low. Now, Gaza, Syria, Sudan, Ukraine, as ghastly as these conflicts are, and they are horrific, they represent a relatively small blip upwards in a 50-year-long secular decline. What's more, we're seeing a dramatic reduction in homicide. Manuel Eisner and others have shown that for centuries, we've seen this incredible drop in murder, especially in the West. Most Northern cities today are 100 times safer than they were just 100 years ago.
These two facts -- the decline in armed conflict and the decline in murder -- are amongst the most extraordinary, if unheralded, accomplishments of human history, and we should be really excited, right? Well, yeah, we should. There's just one problem: These two scourges are still with us. You see, 525,000 people -- men, women, boys and girls -- die violently every single year. Research I've been doing with Keith Krause and others has shown that between 50,000 and 60,000 people are dying in war zones violently. The rest, almost 500,000 people, are dying outside of conflict zones. In other words, 10 times more people are dying outside of war than inside war. What's more, violence is moving south, to Latin America and the Caribbean, to parts of Central and Southern Africa, and to bits of the Middle East and Central Asia. Forty of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world are right here in Latin America, 13 in Brazil, and the most dangerous of all, it's San Pedro Sula, Honduras' second city, with a staggering homicide rate of 187 murders per 100,000 people. That's 23 times the global average.
Now, if violence is re-concentrating geographically, it's also being reconfigured to the world's new topography, because when it comes to cities, the world ain't flat, like Thomas Friedman likes to say. It's spiky. The dominance of the city as the primary mode of urban living is one of the most extraordinary demographic reversals in history, and it all happened so fast. You all know the figures, right? There's 7.3 billion people in the world today; there will be 9.6 billion by 2050. But consider this one fact: In the 1800s, one in 30 people lived in cities, today it's one in two, and tomorrow virtually everyone is going to be there. And this expansion in urbanization is going to be neither even nor equitable. The vast majority, 90 percent, will be happening in the South, in cities of the South.
So urban geographers and demographers, they tell us that it's not necessarily the size or even the density of cities that predicts violence, no. Tokyo, with 35 million people, is one of the largest, and some might say safest, urban metropolises in the world. No, it's the speed of urbanization that matters. I call this turbo-urbanization, and it's one of the key drivers of fragility.
When you think about the incredible expansion of these cities, and you think about turbo-urbanization, think about Karachi. Karachi was about 500,000 people in 1947, a hustling, bustling city. Today, it's 21 million people, and apart from accounting for three quarters of Pakistan's GDP, it's also one of the most violent cities in South Asia. Dhaka, Lagos, Kinshasa, these cities are now 40 times larger than they were in the 1950s.
Now take a look at New York. The Big Apple, it took 150 years to get to eight million people. São Paulo, Mexico City, took 15 to reach that same interval.
Now, what do these medium, large, mega-, and hypercities look like? What is their profile? Well, for one thing, they're young. What we're seeing in many of them is the rise of the youth bulge. Now, this is actually a good news story. It's a function of reductions in child mortality rates. But the youth bulge is something we've got to watch. What it basically means is the proportion of young people living in our fragile cities is much larger than those living in our healthier and wealthier ones. In some fragile cities, 75 percent of the population is under the age of 30. Think about that: Three in four people are under 30. It's like Palo Alto on steroids. Now, if you look at Mogadishu for example, in Mogadishu the mean age is 16 years old. Ditto for Dhaka, Dili and Kabul. And Tokyo? It's 46. Same for most Western European cities. Now, it's not just youth that necessarily predicts violence. That's one factor among many, but youthfulness combined with unemployment, lack of education, and -- this is the kicker -- being male, is a deadly proposition. They're statistically correlated, all those risk factors, with youth, and they tend to relate to increases in violence.
Now, for those of you who are parents of teenage sons, you know what I'm talking about, right? Just imagine your boy without any structure with those unruly friends of his, out there cavorting about. Now, take away the parents, take away the education, limit the education possibilities, sprinkle in a little bit of drugs, alcohol and guns, and sit back and watch the fireworks. The implications are disconcerting. Right here in Brazil, the life expectancy is 73.6 years. If you live in Rio, I'm sorry, shave off two right there. But if you're young, you're uneducated, you lack employment, you're black, and you're male, your life expectancy drops to less than 60 years old. There's a reason why youthfulness and violence are the number one killers in this country.
Okay, so it's not all doom and gloom in our cities. After all, cities are hubs of innovation, dynamism, prosperity, excitement, connectivity. They're where the smart people gather. And those young people I just mentioned, they're more digitally savvy and tech-aware than ever before. And this explosion, the Internet, and mobile technology, means that the digital divide separating the North and the South between countries and within them, is shrinking. But as we've heard so many times, these new technologies are dual-edged, right? Take the case of law enforcement. Police around the world are starting to use remote sensing and big data to anticipate crime. Some cops are able to predict criminal violence before it even happens. The future crime scenario, it's here today, and we've got to be careful. We have to manage the issues of the public safety against rights to individual privacy.
But it's not just the cops who are innovating. We've heard extraordinary activities of civil society groups who are engaging in local and global collective action, and this is leading to digital protest and real revolution. But most worrying of all are criminal gangs who are going online and starting to colonize cyberspace. In Ciudad Juárez in Mexico, where I've been working, groups like the Zetas and the Sinaloa cartel are hijacking social media. They're using it to recruit, to sell their products, to coerce, to intimidate and to kill. Violence is going virtual.
So this is just a partial sketch of a fast-moving and dynamic and complex situation. I mean, there are many other megarisks that are going to define fragility in our time, not least income inequality, poverty, climate change, impunity. But we're facing a stark dilemma where some cities are going to thrive and drive global growth and others are going to stumble and pull it backwards. If we're going to change course, we need to start a conversation. We can't only focus on those cities that work, the Singapores, the Kuala Lumpurs, the Dubais, the Shanghais. We've got to bring those fragile cities into the conversation.
One way to do this might be to start twinning our fragile cities with our healthier and wealthier ones, kickstarting a process of learning and collaboration and sharing of practices, of what works and what doesn't. A wonderful example of this is coming from El Salvador and Los Angeles, where the mayors in San Salvador and Los Angeles are collaborating on getting ex-gang members to work with current gang members, offering tutoring, education, and in the process are helping incubate cease-fires and truces, and we've seen homicide rates go down in San Salvador, once the world's most violent city, by 50 percent. We can also focus on hot cities, but also hot spots. Place and location matter fundamentally in shaping violence in our cities. Did you know that between one and two percent of street addresses in any fragile city can predict up to 99 percent of violent crime? Take the case of São Paulo, where I've been working. It's gone from being Brazil's most dangerous city to one of its safest, and it did this by doubling down on information collection, hot spot mapping, and police reform, and in the process, it dropped homicide by 70 percent in just over 10 years. We also got to focus on those hot people. It's tragic, but being young, unemployed, uneducated, male, increases the risks of being killed and killing. We have to break this cycle of violence and get in there early with our children, our youngest children, and valorize them, not stigmatize them. There's wonderful work that's happening that I've been involved with in Kingston, Jamaica and right here in Rio, which is putting education, employment, recreation up front for these high-risk groups, and as a result, we're seeing violence going down in their communities.
We've also got to make our cities safer, more inclusive, and livable for all. The fact is, social cohesion matters. Mobility matters in our cities. We've got to get away from this model of segregation, exclusion, and cities with walls. My favorite example of how to do this comes from Medellín. When I lived in Colombia in the late 1990s, Medellín was the murder capital of the world, but it changed course, and it did this by deliberately investing in its low-income and most violent areas and integrating them with the middle-class ones through a network of cable cars, of public transport, and first-class infrastructure, and in the process, it dropped homicide by 79 percent in just under two decades.
And finally, there's technology. Technology has enormous promise but also peril. We've seen examples here of extraordinary innovation, and much of it coming from this room, The police are engaging in predictive analytics. Citizens are engaging in new crowdsourcing solutions. Even my own group is involved in developing applications to provide more accountability over police and increase safety among citizens. But we need to be careful.
If I have one single message for you, it's this: There is nothing inevitable about lethal violence, and we can make our cities safer. Folks, we have the opportunity of a lifetime to drop homicidal violence in half within our lifetime. So I have just one question: What are we waiting for?
Thank you.
(Applause)
ENV/SOC/GralInt-TED Talks-Robert Swan: Let´s save the last pristine continent
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Robert Swan: Let´s save the last pristine continent
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
2041 will be a pivotal year for our planet. That year will mark the end of a 50-year agreement to keep Antarctica, the Earth’s last pristine continent, free of exploitation. Explorer Robert Swan — the first person to walk both the North and South Poles — is on a mission to ensure that we extend that treaty. With passion and vigor, he pleads with us to choose the preservation of the Antarctic for our own survival.
Transcript:
Let's go south. All of you are actually going south. This is the direction of south, this way, and if you go 8,000 kilometers out of the back of this room, you will come to as far south as you can go anywhere on Earth, the Pole itself.
Now, I am not an explorer. I'm not an environmentalist. I'm actually just a survivor, and these photographs that I'm showing you here are dangerous. They are the ice melt of the South and North Poles. And ladies and gentlemen, we need to listen to what these places are telling us, and if we don't, we will end up with our own survival situation here on planet Earth.
I have faced head-on these places, and to walk across a melting ocean of ice is without doubt the most frightening thing that's ever happened to me.
Antarctica is such a hopeful place. It is protected by the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959. In 1991, a 50-year agreement was entered into that stops any exploitation in Antarctica, and this agreement could be altered, changed, modified, or even abandoned starting in the year 2041. Ladies and gentlemen, people already far up north from here in the Arctic are already taking advantage of this ice melt, taking out resources from areas already that have been covered in ice for the last 10, 20, 30,000, 100,000 years. Can they not join the dots and think, "Why is the ice actually melting?"
This is such an amazing place, the Antarctic, and I have worked hard for the last 23 years on this mission to make sure that what's happening up here in the North does never happen, cannot happen in the South.
Where did this all begin? It began for me at the age of 11. Check out that haircut. It's a bit odd. (Laughter) And at the age of 11, I was inspired by the real explorers to want to try to be the first to walk to both Poles. I found it incredibly inspiring that the idea of becoming a polar traveler went down pretty well with girls at parties when I was at university. That was a bit more inspiring. And after years, seven years of fundraising, seven years of being told no, seven years of being told by my family to seek counseling and psychiatric help, eventually three of us found ourselves marching to the South Geographic Pole on the longest unassisted march ever made anywhere on Earth in history. In this photograph, we are standing in an area the size of the United States of America, and we're on our own. We have no radio communications, no backup. Beneath our feet, 90 percent of all the world's ice, 70 percent of all the world's fresh water. We're standing on it. This is the power of Antarctica.
On this journey, we faced the danger of crevasses, intense cold, so cold that sweat turns to ice inside your clothing, your teeth can crack, water can freeze in your eyes. Let's just say it's a bit chilly. (Laughter) And after 70 desperate days, we arrive at the South Pole. We had done it. But something happened to me on that 70-day journey in 1986 that brought me here, and it hurt. My eyes changed color in 70 days through damage. Our faces blistered out. The skin ripped off and we wondered why. And when we got home, we were told by NASA that a hole in the ozone had been discovered above the South Pole, and we'd walked underneath it the same year it had been discovered. Ultraviolet rays down, hit the ice, bounced back, fried out the eyes, ripped off our faces. It was a bit of a shock -- (Laughter) -- and it started me thinking.
In 1989, we now head north. Sixty days, every step away from the safety of land across a frozen ocean. It was desperately cold again. Here's me coming in from washing naked at -60 Celsius. And if anybody ever says to you, "I am cold" -- (Laughter) -- if they look like this, they are cold, definitely. (Applause)
And 1,000 kilometers away from the safety of land, disaster strikes. The Arctic Ocean melts beneath our feet four months before it ever had in history, and we're 1,000 kilometers from safety. The ice is crashing around us, grinding, and I'm thinking, "Are we going to die?" But something clicked in my head on this day, as I realized we, as a world, are in a survival situation, and that feeling has never gone away for 25 long years. Back then, we had to march or die. And we're not some TV survivor program. When things go wrong for us, it's life or death, and our brave African-American Daryl, who would become the first American to walk to the North Pole, his heel dropped off from frostbite 200 klicks out. He must keep going, he does, and after 60 days on the ice, we stood at the North Pole. We had done it. Yes, I became the first person in history stupid enough to walk to both Poles, but it was our success.
And sadly, on return home, it was not all fun. I became very low. To succeed at something is often harder than actually making it happen. I was empty, lonely, financially destroyed. I was without hope, but hope came in the form of the great Jacques Cousteau, and he inspired me to take on the 2041 mission. Being Jacques, he gave me clear instructions: Engage the world leaders, talk to industry and business, and above all, Rob, inspire young people, because they will choose the future of the preservation of Antarctica.
For the world leaders, we've been to every world Earth Summit, all three of them, with our brave yacht, 2041, twice to Rio, once in '92, once in 2012, and for the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, we made the longest overland voyage ever made with a yacht, 13,000 kilometers around the whole of Southern Africa doing our best to inspire over a million young people in person about 2041 and about their environment.
For the last 11 years, we have taken over 1,000 people, people from industry and business, women and men from companies, students from all over the world, down to Antarctica, and during those missions, we've managed to pull out over 1,500 tons of twisted metal left in Antarctica. That took eight years, and I'm so proud of it because we recycled all of it back here in South America. I have been inspired ever since I could walk to recycle by my mum. Here she is, and my mum -- (Applause) -- my mum is still recycling, and as she is in her 100th year, isn't that fantastic? (Applause) And when -- I love my mum. (Laughter) But when Mum was born, the population of our planet was only 1.8 billion people, and talking in terms of billions, we have taken young people from industry and business from India, from China. These are game-changing nations, and will be hugely important in the decision about the preservation of the Antarctic. Unbelievably, we've engaged and inspired women to come from the Middle East, often for the first time they've represented their nations in Antarctica. Fantastic people, so inspired. To look after Antarctica, you've got to first engage people with this extraordinary place, form a relationship, form a bond, form some love. It is such a privilege to go to Antarctica, I can't tell you. I feel so lucky, and I've been 35 times in my life, and all those people who come with us return home as great champions, not only for Antarctica, but for local issues back in their own nations.
Let's go back to where we began: the ice melt of the North and South Poles. And it's not good news. NASA informed us six months ago that the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf is now disintegrating. Huge areas of ice -- look how big Antarctica is even compared to here -- Huge areas of ice are breaking off from Antarctica, the size of small nations. And NASA have calculated that the sea level will rise, it is definite, by one meter in the next 100 years, the same time that my mum has been on planet Earth. It's going to happen, and I've realized that the preservation of Antarctica and our survival here on Earth are linked. And there is a very simple solution. If we are using more renewable energy in the real world, if we are being more efficient with the energy here, running our energy mix in a cleaner way, there will be no financial reason to go and exploit Antarctica. It won't make financial sense, and if we manage our energy better, we also may be able to slow down, maybe even stop, this great ice melt that threatens us.
It's a big challenge, and what is our response to it? We've got to go back one last time, and at the end of next year, we will go back to the South Geographic Pole, where we arrived 30 years ago on foot, and retrace our steps of 1,600 kilometers, but this time only using renewable energy to survive. We will walk across those icecaps, which far down below are melting, hopefully inspiring some solutions on that issue.
This is my son, Barney. He is coming with me. He is committed to walking side by side with his father, and what he will do is to translate these messages and inspire these messages to the minds of future young leaders. I'm extremely proud of him. Good on him, Barney.
Ladies and gentlemen, a survivor -- and I'm good -- a survivor sees a problem and doesn't go, "Whatever." A survivor sees a problem and deals with that problem before it becomes a threat. We have 27 years to preserve the Antarctic. We all own it. We all have responsibility. The fact that nobody owns it maybe means that we can succeed. Antarctica is a moral line in the snow, and on one side of that line we should fight, fight hard for this one beautiful, pristine place left alone on Earth. I know it's possible. We are going to do it. And I'll leave you with these words from Goethe. I've tried to live by them.
"If you can do, or dream you can, begin it now, for boldness has genius, power and magic in it."
Good luck to you all.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Robert Swan: Let´s save the last pristine continent
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
2041 will be a pivotal year for our planet. That year will mark the end of a 50-year agreement to keep Antarctica, the Earth’s last pristine continent, free of exploitation. Explorer Robert Swan — the first person to walk both the North and South Poles — is on a mission to ensure that we extend that treaty. With passion and vigor, he pleads with us to choose the preservation of the Antarctic for our own survival.
Transcript:
Let's go south. All of you are actually going south. This is the direction of south, this way, and if you go 8,000 kilometers out of the back of this room, you will come to as far south as you can go anywhere on Earth, the Pole itself.
Now, I am not an explorer. I'm not an environmentalist. I'm actually just a survivor, and these photographs that I'm showing you here are dangerous. They are the ice melt of the South and North Poles. And ladies and gentlemen, we need to listen to what these places are telling us, and if we don't, we will end up with our own survival situation here on planet Earth.
I have faced head-on these places, and to walk across a melting ocean of ice is without doubt the most frightening thing that's ever happened to me.
Antarctica is such a hopeful place. It is protected by the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959. In 1991, a 50-year agreement was entered into that stops any exploitation in Antarctica, and this agreement could be altered, changed, modified, or even abandoned starting in the year 2041. Ladies and gentlemen, people already far up north from here in the Arctic are already taking advantage of this ice melt, taking out resources from areas already that have been covered in ice for the last 10, 20, 30,000, 100,000 years. Can they not join the dots and think, "Why is the ice actually melting?"
This is such an amazing place, the Antarctic, and I have worked hard for the last 23 years on this mission to make sure that what's happening up here in the North does never happen, cannot happen in the South.
Where did this all begin? It began for me at the age of 11. Check out that haircut. It's a bit odd. (Laughter) And at the age of 11, I was inspired by the real explorers to want to try to be the first to walk to both Poles. I found it incredibly inspiring that the idea of becoming a polar traveler went down pretty well with girls at parties when I was at university. That was a bit more inspiring. And after years, seven years of fundraising, seven years of being told no, seven years of being told by my family to seek counseling and psychiatric help, eventually three of us found ourselves marching to the South Geographic Pole on the longest unassisted march ever made anywhere on Earth in history. In this photograph, we are standing in an area the size of the United States of America, and we're on our own. We have no radio communications, no backup. Beneath our feet, 90 percent of all the world's ice, 70 percent of all the world's fresh water. We're standing on it. This is the power of Antarctica.
On this journey, we faced the danger of crevasses, intense cold, so cold that sweat turns to ice inside your clothing, your teeth can crack, water can freeze in your eyes. Let's just say it's a bit chilly. (Laughter) And after 70 desperate days, we arrive at the South Pole. We had done it. But something happened to me on that 70-day journey in 1986 that brought me here, and it hurt. My eyes changed color in 70 days through damage. Our faces blistered out. The skin ripped off and we wondered why. And when we got home, we were told by NASA that a hole in the ozone had been discovered above the South Pole, and we'd walked underneath it the same year it had been discovered. Ultraviolet rays down, hit the ice, bounced back, fried out the eyes, ripped off our faces. It was a bit of a shock -- (Laughter) -- and it started me thinking.
In 1989, we now head north. Sixty days, every step away from the safety of land across a frozen ocean. It was desperately cold again. Here's me coming in from washing naked at -60 Celsius. And if anybody ever says to you, "I am cold" -- (Laughter) -- if they look like this, they are cold, definitely. (Applause)
And 1,000 kilometers away from the safety of land, disaster strikes. The Arctic Ocean melts beneath our feet four months before it ever had in history, and we're 1,000 kilometers from safety. The ice is crashing around us, grinding, and I'm thinking, "Are we going to die?" But something clicked in my head on this day, as I realized we, as a world, are in a survival situation, and that feeling has never gone away for 25 long years. Back then, we had to march or die. And we're not some TV survivor program. When things go wrong for us, it's life or death, and our brave African-American Daryl, who would become the first American to walk to the North Pole, his heel dropped off from frostbite 200 klicks out. He must keep going, he does, and after 60 days on the ice, we stood at the North Pole. We had done it. Yes, I became the first person in history stupid enough to walk to both Poles, but it was our success.
And sadly, on return home, it was not all fun. I became very low. To succeed at something is often harder than actually making it happen. I was empty, lonely, financially destroyed. I was without hope, but hope came in the form of the great Jacques Cousteau, and he inspired me to take on the 2041 mission. Being Jacques, he gave me clear instructions: Engage the world leaders, talk to industry and business, and above all, Rob, inspire young people, because they will choose the future of the preservation of Antarctica.
For the world leaders, we've been to every world Earth Summit, all three of them, with our brave yacht, 2041, twice to Rio, once in '92, once in 2012, and for the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, we made the longest overland voyage ever made with a yacht, 13,000 kilometers around the whole of Southern Africa doing our best to inspire over a million young people in person about 2041 and about their environment.
For the last 11 years, we have taken over 1,000 people, people from industry and business, women and men from companies, students from all over the world, down to Antarctica, and during those missions, we've managed to pull out over 1,500 tons of twisted metal left in Antarctica. That took eight years, and I'm so proud of it because we recycled all of it back here in South America. I have been inspired ever since I could walk to recycle by my mum. Here she is, and my mum -- (Applause) -- my mum is still recycling, and as she is in her 100th year, isn't that fantastic? (Applause) And when -- I love my mum. (Laughter) But when Mum was born, the population of our planet was only 1.8 billion people, and talking in terms of billions, we have taken young people from industry and business from India, from China. These are game-changing nations, and will be hugely important in the decision about the preservation of the Antarctic. Unbelievably, we've engaged and inspired women to come from the Middle East, often for the first time they've represented their nations in Antarctica. Fantastic people, so inspired. To look after Antarctica, you've got to first engage people with this extraordinary place, form a relationship, form a bond, form some love. It is such a privilege to go to Antarctica, I can't tell you. I feel so lucky, and I've been 35 times in my life, and all those people who come with us return home as great champions, not only for Antarctica, but for local issues back in their own nations.
Let's go back to where we began: the ice melt of the North and South Poles. And it's not good news. NASA informed us six months ago that the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf is now disintegrating. Huge areas of ice -- look how big Antarctica is even compared to here -- Huge areas of ice are breaking off from Antarctica, the size of small nations. And NASA have calculated that the sea level will rise, it is definite, by one meter in the next 100 years, the same time that my mum has been on planet Earth. It's going to happen, and I've realized that the preservation of Antarctica and our survival here on Earth are linked. And there is a very simple solution. If we are using more renewable energy in the real world, if we are being more efficient with the energy here, running our energy mix in a cleaner way, there will be no financial reason to go and exploit Antarctica. It won't make financial sense, and if we manage our energy better, we also may be able to slow down, maybe even stop, this great ice melt that threatens us.
It's a big challenge, and what is our response to it? We've got to go back one last time, and at the end of next year, we will go back to the South Geographic Pole, where we arrived 30 years ago on foot, and retrace our steps of 1,600 kilometers, but this time only using renewable energy to survive. We will walk across those icecaps, which far down below are melting, hopefully inspiring some solutions on that issue.
This is my son, Barney. He is coming with me. He is committed to walking side by side with his father, and what he will do is to translate these messages and inspire these messages to the minds of future young leaders. I'm extremely proud of him. Good on him, Barney.
Ladies and gentlemen, a survivor -- and I'm good -- a survivor sees a problem and doesn't go, "Whatever." A survivor sees a problem and deals with that problem before it becomes a threat. We have 27 years to preserve the Antarctic. We all own it. We all have responsibility. The fact that nobody owns it maybe means that we can succeed. Antarctica is a moral line in the snow, and on one side of that line we should fight, fight hard for this one beautiful, pristine place left alone on Earth. I know it's possible. We are going to do it. And I'll leave you with these words from Goethe. I've tried to live by them.
"If you can do, or dream you can, begin it now, for boldness has genius, power and magic in it."
Good luck to you all.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
SOC/GralInt-"BE BRAVE AND SHAVE" Campaign
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
On February 6th the Landon Hockey team will shave their heads as part of "Be Brave and Shave."
The event is intended to raise funds and awareness for the pediatric cancer research program at Children’s National Medical Center.
Over the next few weeks, you are invited to donate for the cause.
On Friday February 6th before their last regular season game versus Georgetown Prep,
The team players will shave the mullet that they have been growing since March.
The shaving both celebrates your generosity and enables them to symbolically join the brave kids that suffer hair loss and worse when they are battling cancer.
You can donate to the cause online by clicking the link or copying it to your browser.
http://childrensnational.donordrive.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.participant&participantID=12139
Your donations will benefit the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders to create the Lexi Speight Chair in Pediatric Oncology,
an endowed professorship created in memory of 8 year old Lexi Speight.
Thank you for your support and Go Bears!
N.K.
On February 6th the Landon Hockey team will shave their heads as part of "Be Brave and Shave."
The event is intended to raise funds and awareness for the pediatric cancer research program at Children’s National Medical Center.
Over the next few weeks, you are invited to donate for the cause.
On Friday February 6th before their last regular season game versus Georgetown Prep,
The team players will shave the mullet that they have been growing since March.
The shaving both celebrates your generosity and enables them to symbolically join the brave kids that suffer hair loss and worse when they are battling cancer.
You can donate to the cause online by clicking the link or copying it to your browser.
http://childrensnational.donordrive.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.participant&participantID=12139
Your donations will benefit the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders to create the Lexi Speight Chair in Pediatric Oncology,
an endowed professorship created in memory of 8 year old Lexi Speight.
Thank you for your support and Go Bears!
N.K.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
POL/SC/GralInt-TED Talks-Fredy Peccerelli: A forensic anthropologist who brings closure for the "disappeared"
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Fredy Peccerelli:
A forensic anthropologist who brings closure for the "disappeared"
TEDYouth 2014-Filmed Nov 2014
In Guatemala’s 36-year conflict, 200,000 civilians were killed — and more than 40,000 were never identified. Pioneering forensic anthropologist Fredy Peccerelli and his team use DNA, archeology and storytelling to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. It’s a sobering task, but it can bring peace of mind — and sometimes, justice. (Contains medical imagery.)
Transcript:
Guatemala is recovering from a 36-year armed conflict. A conflict that was fought during the Cold War. It was really just a small leftist insurgency and a devastating response by the state. What we have as a result is 200,000 civilian victims, 160,000 of those killed in the communities: small children, men, women, the elderly even. And then we have about 40,000 others, the missing, the ones we're still looking for today. We call them the Desaparecidos.
Now, 83 percent of the victims are Mayan victims, victims that are the descendants of the original inhabitants of Central America. And only about 17 percent are of European descent. But the most important thing here is that the very people who are supposed to defend us, the police, the military, are the ones that committed most of the crimes.
Now the families, they want information. They want to know what happened. They want the bodies of their loved ones. But most of all, what they want is they want you, they want everyone to know that their loved ones did nothing wrong.
Now, my case was that my father received death threats in 1980. And we left. We left Guatemala and we came here. So I grew up in New York, I grew up in Brooklyn as a matter of fact, and I went to New Utrecht High School and I graduated from Brooklyn College. The only thing was that I really didn't know what was happening in Guatemala. I didn't care for it; it was too painful. But it wasn't till 1995 that I decided to do something about it. So I went back. I went back to Guatemala, to look for the bodies, to understand what happened and to look for part of myself as well.
The way we work is that we give people information. We talk to the family members and we let them choose. We let them decide to tell us the stories, to tell us what they saw, to tell us about their loved ones. And even more important, we let them choose to give us a piece of themselves. A piece, an essence, of who they are. And that DNA is what we're going to compare to the DNA that comes from the skeletons.
While we're doing that, though, we're looking for the bodies. And these are skeletons by now, most of these crimes happened 32 years ago. When we find the grave, we take out the dirt and eventually clean the body, document it, and exhume it. We literally bring the skeleton out of the ground.
Once we have those bodies, though, we take them back to the city, to our lab, and we begin a process of trying to understand mainly two things: One is how people died. So here you see a gunshot wound to the back of the head or a machete wound, for example. The other thing we want to understand is who they are. Whether it's a baby, or an adult. Whether it's a woman or a man. But when we're done with that analysis what we'll do is we'll take a small fragment of the bone and we'll extract DNA from it. We'll take that DNA and then we'll compare it with the DNA of the families, of course.
The best way to explain this to you is by showing you two cases. The first is the case of the military diary. Now this is a document that was smuggled out of somewhere in 1999. And what you see there is the state following individuals, people that, like you, wanted to change their country, and they jotted everything down. And one of the things that they wrote down is when they executed them. Inside that yellow rectangle, you see a code, it's a secret code: 300. And then you see a date. The 300 means "executed" and the date means when they were executed. Now that's going to come into play in a second. What we did is we conducted an exhumation in 2003, where we exhumed 220 bodies from 53 graves in a military base. Grave 9, though, matched the family of Sergio Saul Linares. Now Sergio was a professor at the university. He graduted from Iowa State University and went back to Guatemala to change his country. And he was captured on February 23, 1984. And if you can see there, he was executed on March 29, 1984, which was incredible. We had the body, we had the family's information and their DNA, and now we have documents that told us exactly what happened.
But most important is about two weeks later, we go another hit, another match from the same grave to Amancio Villatoro. The DNA of that body also matched the DNA of that family. And then we noticed that he was also in the diary. But it was amazing to see that he was also executed on March 29, 1984. So that led us to think, hmm, how many bodies were in the grave? Six. So then we said, how many people were executed on March 29, 1984? That's right, six as well. So we have Juan de Dios, Hugo, Moises and Zoilo. All of them executed on the same date, all captured at different locations and at different moments. All put in that grave. The only thing we needed now was the DNA of those four families So we went and we looked for them and we found them. And we identified those six bodies and gave them back to the families.
The other case I want to tell you about is that of a military base called CREOMPAZ. It actually means, "to believe in peace," but the acronym really means Regional Command Center for Peacekeeping Operations. And this is where the Guatemalan military trains peacekeepers from other countries, the ones that serve with the U.N. and go to countries like Haiti and the Congo. Well, we have testimony that said that within this military base, there were bodies, there were graves. So we went in there with a search warrant and about two hours after we went in, we found the first of 84 graves, a total of 533 bodies. Now, if you think about that, peacekeepers being trained on top of bodies. It's very ironic.
But the bodies -- face down, most of them, hands tied behind their backs, blindfolded, all types of trauma -- these were people who were defenseless who were being executed. People that 533 families are looking for. So we're going to focus on Grave 15. Grave 15, what we noticed, was a grave full of women and children, 63 of them. And that immediately made us think, my goodness, where is there a case like this? When I got to Guatemala in 1995, I heard of a case of a massacre that happened on May 14, 1982, where the army came in, killed the men, and took the women and children in helicopters to an unknown location. Well, guess what? The clothing from this grave matched the clothing from the region where these people were taken from, where these women and children were taken from.
So we conducted some DNA analysis, and guess what? We identified Martina Rojas and Manuel Chen. Both of them disappeared in that case, and now we could prove it. We have physical evidence that proves that this happened and that those people were taken to this base. Now, Manuel Chen was three years old. His mother went to the river to wash clothes, and she left him with a neighbor. That's when the army came and that's when he was taken away in a helicopter and never seen again until we found him in Grave 15.
So now with science, with archaeology, with anthropology, with genetics, what we're doing is, we're giving a voice to the voiceless. But we're doing more than that. We're actually providing evidence for trials, like the genocide trial that happened last year in Guatemala where General Ríos Montt was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to 80 years.
So I came here to tell you today that this is happening everywhere -- it's happening in Mexico right in front of us today -- and we can't let it go on anymore. We have to now come together and decide that we're not going to have any more missing. So no more missing, guys. Okay? No more missing.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Fredy Peccerelli:
A forensic anthropologist who brings closure for the "disappeared"
TEDYouth 2014-Filmed Nov 2014
In Guatemala’s 36-year conflict, 200,000 civilians were killed — and more than 40,000 were never identified. Pioneering forensic anthropologist Fredy Peccerelli and his team use DNA, archeology and storytelling to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. It’s a sobering task, but it can bring peace of mind — and sometimes, justice. (Contains medical imagery.)
Transcript:
Guatemala is recovering from a 36-year armed conflict. A conflict that was fought during the Cold War. It was really just a small leftist insurgency and a devastating response by the state. What we have as a result is 200,000 civilian victims, 160,000 of those killed in the communities: small children, men, women, the elderly even. And then we have about 40,000 others, the missing, the ones we're still looking for today. We call them the Desaparecidos.
Now, 83 percent of the victims are Mayan victims, victims that are the descendants of the original inhabitants of Central America. And only about 17 percent are of European descent. But the most important thing here is that the very people who are supposed to defend us, the police, the military, are the ones that committed most of the crimes.
Now the families, they want information. They want to know what happened. They want the bodies of their loved ones. But most of all, what they want is they want you, they want everyone to know that their loved ones did nothing wrong.
Now, my case was that my father received death threats in 1980. And we left. We left Guatemala and we came here. So I grew up in New York, I grew up in Brooklyn as a matter of fact, and I went to New Utrecht High School and I graduated from Brooklyn College. The only thing was that I really didn't know what was happening in Guatemala. I didn't care for it; it was too painful. But it wasn't till 1995 that I decided to do something about it. So I went back. I went back to Guatemala, to look for the bodies, to understand what happened and to look for part of myself as well.
The way we work is that we give people information. We talk to the family members and we let them choose. We let them decide to tell us the stories, to tell us what they saw, to tell us about their loved ones. And even more important, we let them choose to give us a piece of themselves. A piece, an essence, of who they are. And that DNA is what we're going to compare to the DNA that comes from the skeletons.
While we're doing that, though, we're looking for the bodies. And these are skeletons by now, most of these crimes happened 32 years ago. When we find the grave, we take out the dirt and eventually clean the body, document it, and exhume it. We literally bring the skeleton out of the ground.
Once we have those bodies, though, we take them back to the city, to our lab, and we begin a process of trying to understand mainly two things: One is how people died. So here you see a gunshot wound to the back of the head or a machete wound, for example. The other thing we want to understand is who they are. Whether it's a baby, or an adult. Whether it's a woman or a man. But when we're done with that analysis what we'll do is we'll take a small fragment of the bone and we'll extract DNA from it. We'll take that DNA and then we'll compare it with the DNA of the families, of course.
The best way to explain this to you is by showing you two cases. The first is the case of the military diary. Now this is a document that was smuggled out of somewhere in 1999. And what you see there is the state following individuals, people that, like you, wanted to change their country, and they jotted everything down. And one of the things that they wrote down is when they executed them. Inside that yellow rectangle, you see a code, it's a secret code: 300. And then you see a date. The 300 means "executed" and the date means when they were executed. Now that's going to come into play in a second. What we did is we conducted an exhumation in 2003, where we exhumed 220 bodies from 53 graves in a military base. Grave 9, though, matched the family of Sergio Saul Linares. Now Sergio was a professor at the university. He graduted from Iowa State University and went back to Guatemala to change his country. And he was captured on February 23, 1984. And if you can see there, he was executed on March 29, 1984, which was incredible. We had the body, we had the family's information and their DNA, and now we have documents that told us exactly what happened.
But most important is about two weeks later, we go another hit, another match from the same grave to Amancio Villatoro. The DNA of that body also matched the DNA of that family. And then we noticed that he was also in the diary. But it was amazing to see that he was also executed on March 29, 1984. So that led us to think, hmm, how many bodies were in the grave? Six. So then we said, how many people were executed on March 29, 1984? That's right, six as well. So we have Juan de Dios, Hugo, Moises and Zoilo. All of them executed on the same date, all captured at different locations and at different moments. All put in that grave. The only thing we needed now was the DNA of those four families So we went and we looked for them and we found them. And we identified those six bodies and gave them back to the families.
The other case I want to tell you about is that of a military base called CREOMPAZ. It actually means, "to believe in peace," but the acronym really means Regional Command Center for Peacekeeping Operations. And this is where the Guatemalan military trains peacekeepers from other countries, the ones that serve with the U.N. and go to countries like Haiti and the Congo. Well, we have testimony that said that within this military base, there were bodies, there were graves. So we went in there with a search warrant and about two hours after we went in, we found the first of 84 graves, a total of 533 bodies. Now, if you think about that, peacekeepers being trained on top of bodies. It's very ironic.
But the bodies -- face down, most of them, hands tied behind their backs, blindfolded, all types of trauma -- these were people who were defenseless who were being executed. People that 533 families are looking for. So we're going to focus on Grave 15. Grave 15, what we noticed, was a grave full of women and children, 63 of them. And that immediately made us think, my goodness, where is there a case like this? When I got to Guatemala in 1995, I heard of a case of a massacre that happened on May 14, 1982, where the army came in, killed the men, and took the women and children in helicopters to an unknown location. Well, guess what? The clothing from this grave matched the clothing from the region where these people were taken from, where these women and children were taken from.
So we conducted some DNA analysis, and guess what? We identified Martina Rojas and Manuel Chen. Both of them disappeared in that case, and now we could prove it. We have physical evidence that proves that this happened and that those people were taken to this base. Now, Manuel Chen was three years old. His mother went to the river to wash clothes, and she left him with a neighbor. That's when the army came and that's when he was taken away in a helicopter and never seen again until we found him in Grave 15.
So now with science, with archaeology, with anthropology, with genetics, what we're doing is, we're giving a voice to the voiceless. But we're doing more than that. We're actually providing evidence for trials, like the genocide trial that happened last year in Guatemala where General Ríos Montt was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to 80 years.
So I came here to tell you today that this is happening everywhere -- it's happening in Mexico right in front of us today -- and we can't let it go on anymore. We have to now come together and decide that we're not going to have any more missing. So no more missing, guys. Okay? No more missing.
Thank you.
(Applause)
ENV/GralInt-TED Talks-Tasso Acevedo: Hopeful lesson from the battle to save rainforests
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Tasso Azevedo:
Hopeful lessons from the battle to save rainforests
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
"Save the rainforest” is an environmental slogan as old as time — but Tasso Azevedo catches us up on how the fight is actually going these days. Spurred by the jaw-dropping losses of the 1990s, new laws (and transparent data) are helping slow the rate of deforestation in Brazil. Is it enough? Not yet. He has five ideas about what we should do next. And he asks if the lessons learned in Brazil could be applied to an even bigger problem: global climate change.
Transcript:
When the Portuguese arrived in Latin America about 500 years ago, they obviously found this amazing tropical forest. And among all this biodiversity that they had never seen before, they found one species that caught their attention very quickly. This species, when you cut the bark, you find a very dark red resin that was very good to paint and dye fabric to make clothes. The indigenous people called this species pau brasil, and that's the reason why this land became "land of Brasil," and later on, Brazil. That's the only country in the world that has the name of a tree. So you can imagine that it's very cool to be a forester in Brazil, among other reasons.
Forest products are all around us. Apart from all those products, the forest is very important for climate regulation. In Brazil, almost 70 percent of the evaporation that makes rain actually comes from the forest. Just the Amazon pumps to the atmosphere 20 billion tons of water every day. This is more than what the Amazon River, which is the largest river in the world, puts in the sea per day, which is 17 billion tons. If we had to boil water to get the same effect as evapotranspiration, we would need six months of the entire power generation capacity of the world. So it's a hell of a service for all of us.
We have in the world about four billion hectares of forests. This is more or less China, U.S., Canada and Brazil all together, in terms of size, to have an idea. Three quarters of that is in the temperate zone, and just one quarter is in the tropics, but this one quarter, one billion hectares, holds most of the biodiversity, and very importantly, 50 percent of the living biomass, the carbon. Now, we used to have six billion hectares of forest -- 50 percent more than what we have -- 2,000 years ago. We've actually lost two billion hectares in the last 2,000 years. But in the last 100 years, we lost half of that. That was when we shifted from deforestation of temperate forests to deforestation of tropical forests.
So think of this: In 100 years, we lost the same amount of forest in the tropics that we lost in 2,000 years in temperate forests. That's the speed of the destruction that we are having.
Now, Brazil is an important piece of this puzzle. We have the second largest forest in the world, just after Russia. It means 12 percent of all the world's forests are in Brazil, most of that in the Amazon. It's the largest piece of forest we have. It's a very big, large area. You can see that you could fit many of the European countries there. We still have 80 percent of the forest cover. That's the good news. But we lost 15 percent in just 30 years. So if you go with that speed, very soon, we will loose this powerful pump that we have in the Amazon that regulates our climate.
Deforestation was growing fast and accelerating at the end of the '90s and the beginning of the 2000s. (Chainsaw sound) (Sound of falling tree) Twenty-seven thousand square kilometers in one year. This is 2.7 million hectares. It's almost like half of Costa Rica every year.
So at this moment -- this is 2003, 2004 -- I happened to be coming to work in the government. And together with other teammates in the National Forest Department, we were assigned a task to join a team and find out the causes of deforestation, and make a plan to combat that at a national level, involving the local governments, the civil society, business, local communities, in an effort that could tackle those causes.
So we came up with this plan with 144 actions in different areas. Now I will go through all of them one by one -- no, just giving some examples of what we had done in the next few years. So the first thing, we set up a system with the national space agency that could actually see where deforestation is happening, almost in real time. So now in Brazil, we have this system where every month, or every two months, we get information on where deforestation is happening so we can actually act when it's happening. And all the information is fully transparent so others can replicate that in independent systems. This allows us, among other things, to apprehend 1.4 million cubic meters of logs that were illegally taken. Part of that we saw and sell, and all the revenue becomes a fund that now funds conservation projects of local communities as an endowment fund. This also allows us to make a big operation to seize corruption and illegal activities that ended up having 700 people in prison, including a lot of public servants. Then we made the connection that areas that have been doing illegal deforestation should not get any kind of credit or finance. So we cut this through the bank system and then linked this to the end users. So supermarkets, the slaughterhouses, and so on that buy products from illegal clear-cut areas, they also can be liable for the deforestation. So making all these connections to help to push the problem down. And also we work a lot on land tenure issues. It's very important for conflicts. Fifty million hectares of protected areas were created, which is an area the size of Spain. And of those, eight million were indigenous lands.
Now we start to see results. So in the last 10 years, deforestation came down in Brazil 75 percent.
(Applause)
So if we compare it with the average deforestation that we had in the last decade, we saved 8.7 million hectares, which is the size of Austria. But more importantly, it avoided the emission of three billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is by far the largest contribution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until today, as a positive action. One may think that when you do these kinds of actions to decrease, to push down deforestation, you will have an economic impact because you will not have economic activity or something like that. But it's interesting to know that it's quite the opposite. In fact, in the period when we have the deepest decline of deforestation, the economy grew, on average, double from the previous decade, when deforestation was actually going up. So it's a good lesson for us. Maybe this is completely disconnected, as we just learned by having deforestation come down.
Now this is all good news, and it's quite an achievement, and we obviously should be very proud about that. But it's not even close to sufficient. In fact, if you think about the deforestation in the Amazon in 2013, that was over half a million hectares, which means that every minute, an area the size of two soccer fields is being cut in the Amazon last year, just last year. If we sum up the deforestation we have in the other biomes in Brazil, we are talking about still the largest deforestation rate in the world. It's more or less like we are forest heroes, but still deforestation champions. So we can't be satisfied, not even close to satisfied. So the next step, I think, is to fight to have zero loss of forest cover in Brazil and to have that as a goal for 2020. That's our next step.
Now I've always been interested in the relationship between climate change and forests. First, because 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation, so it's a big part of the problem. But also, forests can be a big part of the solution since that's the best way we know to sink, capture and store carbon. Now, there is another relationship of climate and forests that really stuck me in 2008 and made me change my career from forests to working with climate change. I went to visit Canada, in British Columbia, together with the chiefs of the forest services of other countries that we have a kind of alliance of them, like Canada, Russia, India, China, U.S. And when we were there we learned about this pine beetle we learned about this pine beetle that is literally eating the forests in Canada. What we see here, those brown trees, these are really dead trees. They are standing dead trees because of the larvae of the beetle. What happens is that this beetle is controlled by the cold weather in the winter. For many years now, they don't have the sufficient cold weather to actually control the population of this beetle. And it became a disease that is really killing billions of trees. So I came back with this notion that the forest is actually one of the earliest and most affected victims of climate change.
So I was thinking, if I succeed in working with all my colleagues to actually help to stop deforestation, maybe we will lose the battle later on for climate change by floods, heat, fires and so on. So I decided to leave the forest service and start to work directly on climate change, find a way to think and understand the challenge, and go from there.
Now, the challenge of climate change is pretty straightforward. The goal is very clear. We want to limit the increase of the average temperature of the planet to two degrees. There are several reasons for that. I will not get into that now. But in order to get to this limit of two degrees, which is possible for us to survive, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, defines that we have a budget of emissions of 1,000 billion tons of CO2 from now until the end of the century. So if we divide this by the number of years, what we have is an average budget of 11 billion tons of CO2 per year. Now what is one ton of CO2? It's more or less what one small car, running 20 kilometers a day, will emit in one year. Or it's one flight, one way, from São Paulo to Johannesburg or to London, one way. Two ways, two tons. So 11 billion tons is twice that.
Now the emissions today are 50 billion tons, and it's growing. It's growing and maybe it will be 61 by 2020. Now we need to go down to 10 by 2050. And while this happens, the population will grow from seven to nine billion people, the economy will grow from 60 trillion dollars in 2010 to 200 trillion dollars. And so what we need to do is to be much more efficient in a way that we can go from seven tons of carbon per capita per person, per year, into something like one. You have to choose. You take the airplane or you have a car.
So the question is, can we make it? And that's the exactly the same question I got when I was developing a plan to combat deforestation. It's such a big problem, so complex. Can we really do it? I think so. Think of this: Deforestation means 60 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil in the last decade. Now it's a little bit less than 30 percent. In the world, 60 percent is energy. So if we can tackle directly the energy, the same way we could tackle deforestation, maybe we can have a chance.
So there are five things that I think we should do. First, we need to disconnect development from carbon emissions. We don't need to clear-cut all the forests to actually get more jobs and agriculture and have more economy. That's what we proved when we decreased deforestation. The economy continues to grow. Same thing could happen in the energy sector. Second, we have to move the incentives to the right place. Today, 500 billion dollars a year goes into subsidies for fossil fuels. Why don't we put a price on carbon and transfer this to the renewable energy? Third, we need to measure and make it transparent where, when and who is emitting greenhouse gases so we can have actions specifically for each one of those opportunities. Fourth, we need to leapfrog the routes of development, which means, you don't need to go to the landline telephone before you get to the mobile phones. Same way we don't need to go to fossil fuels to the one billion people who don't have access to energy before we get to the clean energy. And fifth and last, we need to share responsibility between governments, business and civil society. There is work to do for everybody, and we need to have everybody on board.
So to finalize, I think the future is not like a fate that you have to just go as business as usual goes. We need to have the courage to actually change the route, invest in something new, think that we can actually change the route. I think we are doing this with deforestation in Brazil, and I hope we can do it also with climate change in the world.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Tasso Azevedo:
Hopeful lessons from the battle to save rainforests
TEDGlobal 2014-Filmed Oct 2014
"Save the rainforest” is an environmental slogan as old as time — but Tasso Azevedo catches us up on how the fight is actually going these days. Spurred by the jaw-dropping losses of the 1990s, new laws (and transparent data) are helping slow the rate of deforestation in Brazil. Is it enough? Not yet. He has five ideas about what we should do next. And he asks if the lessons learned in Brazil could be applied to an even bigger problem: global climate change.
Transcript:
When the Portuguese arrived in Latin America about 500 years ago, they obviously found this amazing tropical forest. And among all this biodiversity that they had never seen before, they found one species that caught their attention very quickly. This species, when you cut the bark, you find a very dark red resin that was very good to paint and dye fabric to make clothes. The indigenous people called this species pau brasil, and that's the reason why this land became "land of Brasil," and later on, Brazil. That's the only country in the world that has the name of a tree. So you can imagine that it's very cool to be a forester in Brazil, among other reasons.
Forest products are all around us. Apart from all those products, the forest is very important for climate regulation. In Brazil, almost 70 percent of the evaporation that makes rain actually comes from the forest. Just the Amazon pumps to the atmosphere 20 billion tons of water every day. This is more than what the Amazon River, which is the largest river in the world, puts in the sea per day, which is 17 billion tons. If we had to boil water to get the same effect as evapotranspiration, we would need six months of the entire power generation capacity of the world. So it's a hell of a service for all of us.
We have in the world about four billion hectares of forests. This is more or less China, U.S., Canada and Brazil all together, in terms of size, to have an idea. Three quarters of that is in the temperate zone, and just one quarter is in the tropics, but this one quarter, one billion hectares, holds most of the biodiversity, and very importantly, 50 percent of the living biomass, the carbon. Now, we used to have six billion hectares of forest -- 50 percent more than what we have -- 2,000 years ago. We've actually lost two billion hectares in the last 2,000 years. But in the last 100 years, we lost half of that. That was when we shifted from deforestation of temperate forests to deforestation of tropical forests.
So think of this: In 100 years, we lost the same amount of forest in the tropics that we lost in 2,000 years in temperate forests. That's the speed of the destruction that we are having.
Now, Brazil is an important piece of this puzzle. We have the second largest forest in the world, just after Russia. It means 12 percent of all the world's forests are in Brazil, most of that in the Amazon. It's the largest piece of forest we have. It's a very big, large area. You can see that you could fit many of the European countries there. We still have 80 percent of the forest cover. That's the good news. But we lost 15 percent in just 30 years. So if you go with that speed, very soon, we will loose this powerful pump that we have in the Amazon that regulates our climate.
Deforestation was growing fast and accelerating at the end of the '90s and the beginning of the 2000s. (Chainsaw sound) (Sound of falling tree) Twenty-seven thousand square kilometers in one year. This is 2.7 million hectares. It's almost like half of Costa Rica every year.
So at this moment -- this is 2003, 2004 -- I happened to be coming to work in the government. And together with other teammates in the National Forest Department, we were assigned a task to join a team and find out the causes of deforestation, and make a plan to combat that at a national level, involving the local governments, the civil society, business, local communities, in an effort that could tackle those causes.
So we came up with this plan with 144 actions in different areas. Now I will go through all of them one by one -- no, just giving some examples of what we had done in the next few years. So the first thing, we set up a system with the national space agency that could actually see where deforestation is happening, almost in real time. So now in Brazil, we have this system where every month, or every two months, we get information on where deforestation is happening so we can actually act when it's happening. And all the information is fully transparent so others can replicate that in independent systems. This allows us, among other things, to apprehend 1.4 million cubic meters of logs that were illegally taken. Part of that we saw and sell, and all the revenue becomes a fund that now funds conservation projects of local communities as an endowment fund. This also allows us to make a big operation to seize corruption and illegal activities that ended up having 700 people in prison, including a lot of public servants. Then we made the connection that areas that have been doing illegal deforestation should not get any kind of credit or finance. So we cut this through the bank system and then linked this to the end users. So supermarkets, the slaughterhouses, and so on that buy products from illegal clear-cut areas, they also can be liable for the deforestation. So making all these connections to help to push the problem down. And also we work a lot on land tenure issues. It's very important for conflicts. Fifty million hectares of protected areas were created, which is an area the size of Spain. And of those, eight million were indigenous lands.
Now we start to see results. So in the last 10 years, deforestation came down in Brazil 75 percent.
(Applause)
So if we compare it with the average deforestation that we had in the last decade, we saved 8.7 million hectares, which is the size of Austria. But more importantly, it avoided the emission of three billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is by far the largest contribution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until today, as a positive action. One may think that when you do these kinds of actions to decrease, to push down deforestation, you will have an economic impact because you will not have economic activity or something like that. But it's interesting to know that it's quite the opposite. In fact, in the period when we have the deepest decline of deforestation, the economy grew, on average, double from the previous decade, when deforestation was actually going up. So it's a good lesson for us. Maybe this is completely disconnected, as we just learned by having deforestation come down.
Now this is all good news, and it's quite an achievement, and we obviously should be very proud about that. But it's not even close to sufficient. In fact, if you think about the deforestation in the Amazon in 2013, that was over half a million hectares, which means that every minute, an area the size of two soccer fields is being cut in the Amazon last year, just last year. If we sum up the deforestation we have in the other biomes in Brazil, we are talking about still the largest deforestation rate in the world. It's more or less like we are forest heroes, but still deforestation champions. So we can't be satisfied, not even close to satisfied. So the next step, I think, is to fight to have zero loss of forest cover in Brazil and to have that as a goal for 2020. That's our next step.
Now I've always been interested in the relationship between climate change and forests. First, because 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation, so it's a big part of the problem. But also, forests can be a big part of the solution since that's the best way we know to sink, capture and store carbon. Now, there is another relationship of climate and forests that really stuck me in 2008 and made me change my career from forests to working with climate change. I went to visit Canada, in British Columbia, together with the chiefs of the forest services of other countries that we have a kind of alliance of them, like Canada, Russia, India, China, U.S. And when we were there we learned about this pine beetle we learned about this pine beetle that is literally eating the forests in Canada. What we see here, those brown trees, these are really dead trees. They are standing dead trees because of the larvae of the beetle. What happens is that this beetle is controlled by the cold weather in the winter. For many years now, they don't have the sufficient cold weather to actually control the population of this beetle. And it became a disease that is really killing billions of trees. So I came back with this notion that the forest is actually one of the earliest and most affected victims of climate change.
So I was thinking, if I succeed in working with all my colleagues to actually help to stop deforestation, maybe we will lose the battle later on for climate change by floods, heat, fires and so on. So I decided to leave the forest service and start to work directly on climate change, find a way to think and understand the challenge, and go from there.
Now, the challenge of climate change is pretty straightforward. The goal is very clear. We want to limit the increase of the average temperature of the planet to two degrees. There are several reasons for that. I will not get into that now. But in order to get to this limit of two degrees, which is possible for us to survive, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, defines that we have a budget of emissions of 1,000 billion tons of CO2 from now until the end of the century. So if we divide this by the number of years, what we have is an average budget of 11 billion tons of CO2 per year. Now what is one ton of CO2? It's more or less what one small car, running 20 kilometers a day, will emit in one year. Or it's one flight, one way, from São Paulo to Johannesburg or to London, one way. Two ways, two tons. So 11 billion tons is twice that.
Now the emissions today are 50 billion tons, and it's growing. It's growing and maybe it will be 61 by 2020. Now we need to go down to 10 by 2050. And while this happens, the population will grow from seven to nine billion people, the economy will grow from 60 trillion dollars in 2010 to 200 trillion dollars. And so what we need to do is to be much more efficient in a way that we can go from seven tons of carbon per capita per person, per year, into something like one. You have to choose. You take the airplane or you have a car.
So the question is, can we make it? And that's the exactly the same question I got when I was developing a plan to combat deforestation. It's such a big problem, so complex. Can we really do it? I think so. Think of this: Deforestation means 60 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil in the last decade. Now it's a little bit less than 30 percent. In the world, 60 percent is energy. So if we can tackle directly the energy, the same way we could tackle deforestation, maybe we can have a chance.
So there are five things that I think we should do. First, we need to disconnect development from carbon emissions. We don't need to clear-cut all the forests to actually get more jobs and agriculture and have more economy. That's what we proved when we decreased deforestation. The economy continues to grow. Same thing could happen in the energy sector. Second, we have to move the incentives to the right place. Today, 500 billion dollars a year goes into subsidies for fossil fuels. Why don't we put a price on carbon and transfer this to the renewable energy? Third, we need to measure and make it transparent where, when and who is emitting greenhouse gases so we can have actions specifically for each one of those opportunities. Fourth, we need to leapfrog the routes of development, which means, you don't need to go to the landline telephone before you get to the mobile phones. Same way we don't need to go to fossil fuels to the one billion people who don't have access to energy before we get to the clean energy. And fifth and last, we need to share responsibility between governments, business and civil society. There is work to do for everybody, and we need to have everybody on board.
So to finalize, I think the future is not like a fate that you have to just go as business as usual goes. We need to have the courage to actually change the route, invest in something new, think that we can actually change the route. I think we are doing this with deforestation in Brazil, and I hope we can do it also with climate change in the world.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ChatGPT, una introducción realista, por Ariel Torres
The following information is used for educational purposes only. ChatGPT, una introducción realista ChatGPT parece haber alcanz...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. Transcript: ...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. TED Talks Education | April 2013 Angela Lee Duckworth-Grit.The power ...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. ChatGPT, una introducción realista ChatGPT parece haber alcanz...