A few years ago, here at TED, Peter skiman put a design competition called the Marshmallow challenge.
The idea is pretty simple. Four team have to make the gray structure free, 20 spaghetti sauce, about one meter tape, about one meter and a marshmallow.
The marshmallow must be up.
And, though it really seems easy, it's actually hard, because it's people to work very quickly.
And so I thought this is an interesting idea, and I turned it into a design-scale design.
It was a huge success.
Since then, I've been doing about 70 workshops around the world, with students, with developers and architects, even with CTO's Fortune-50 company, and there's something about what makes a profoundness in nature to share with you.
Usually most people start to orient themselves to the task.
They talk about what it looks like, it's a big deal of power.
And then you invest a little bit of time in planning and organization. They go and put spaghetti sauce.
They invest a lot of their time in the collapse of growing structures all the time.
And finally, just before they have no time, somebody takes the marshmallow and they sat down the top, they step back and they admire their work.
But then, almost always, that's what's happened is that the "ta-da" becomes a "uh-oh-oh" because the weight of the Marshmaization is putting up and a sthrew down.
There are a number of people who have much more "uh-o-sh-mo" than others, and among the worst, fresh BWL students.
They lie, they suck, they're confused, they really make a needy picture.
And of course, there are teams who have much more "ta-da" picture, and the best is fresh-reviewed of kindergarten.
And that's pretty amazing.
As Peter told us, they didn't just produce the highest door, they also the most interesting structures of all.
What you might ask is, how is that? Why? What about those?
And Peter told me, "Don't be the children's bosses head of spaghetti Tyy."
They don't invest in power.
But there's another reason.
And that's that BWL students were trained to find a right plan, OK!
And then realizing it.
What happens when they put the marshmallow on the top, they don't have time and what happens?
It's a crisis.
It's familiar, what?
What kindergarten kids do is they start with the marshmallow and build prototypes, successful prototypes, always with the marshmallow, so that they have more time to fix the opportunity of the prototype.
Remember, this kind of collaboration as a core of an Italian process.
And with each attempt, kids get immediate feedback, which works and what doesn't work.
So the performance of working with prototypes is a lot -- but let's see how different teams are putting together.
The average for most is about 50 feet, BWL students create half of them, lawyers are doing something more, but not much, kindergarten children are better than adults.
Who is the most successful?
architect and engineers, happiness.
One is the one that I saw.
And why? Because they understand triangles and self-organizing geometrical patterns are the key to build stable structures.
CEOs are something about average. But here it is interesting.
You're going to have an exaggeration of an exaggeration on the team, and they're going to be significant.
It's incredible. You see, "The team will win."
You can predict that. Why is that?
Because they have special skills of process.
They're putting the process, they understand it.
And this team that's going to be able to control and look at work is a way to improve the performance of teams.
Especially skills and processes and combination of success.
If you have 10 teams that are typical, you'll get about six of the stable structures.
I tried something really exciting.
I thought we're going to get the poker skills to the same.
So I offered a 6,000 dollars to the software for the winner.
What do you think happened to these design students?
What was the result?
This is what happened. Not a team had a stable structure.
If any one was a two-foot construction company, he would have gotten the price home.
So isn't it interesting that high-resolution approaches have a strong effect?
We brought those exercise back to the same student.
Now, what do you think happened?
Now, you understood the advantage of the word "Prototyping."
This is how the same, bad team of one under the best.
They produced the highest construction in the earliest period.
So there are deep lessons for us, about nature's drive and success.
You might ask, why would someone actually invest a marshmallow based on a marshmallow?
The reason is I'm bringing digital tools and processes to help teams create cars, video games and a tidolescence.
And what the marshmallow slam does is it helps them identify assumptions.
Because openly, every project has its own marshmallow.
The challenge is a common experience, a common language or a basic way of building the right prototype.
And this is the value of this experience, this simple practice.
And those of you who are interested in this can go to marshmallowchallenes.com.
It's a blog where you see how you build the marshmallow.
There's a step-by-step thing there.
They find crazy examples from all over the world, like people to optimize and refine.
There's also world record.
And the based lesson, I think, is actually a creative sport.
It requires that we all make our sense of the task and that we use our thinking more optimal, like our feelings and our tuna, in the challenge that we are in front of us.
And sometimes a small prototype of this experience is all it takes to get us from a "uh-oh-a-da-mo."
And this can make a big difference.
Thank you very much.
Let's do this as a machine.
A big machine, a cool, TED machine, and that's a time machine.
And everybody in this room has to be in.
And you can go to the past, you can go to the future; you can't stay in the here and now.
And I wonder what you would choose, because I've asked my friends in the last time, and they all wanted to go into the past.
I don't know. They wanted to go back to the time before there was cars or Twitter or "Amer Americans."
I don't know.
I believe that you're sort of a no-resolution thinking.
And I understand that.
I'm not part of this group, I have to say.
I don't want to go into the past, and not because I'm a more expensive one.
It's because opportunities don't go back on this planet, they go forward.
So I want to go into this machine, and I want to go to the future.
This is the greatest time that ever gave up on this planet, no matter what scale you're thinking: health, wealth, mobility, opportunity, sinking diseases.
There was never a time before.
My great-grandgrandtes died when they were 60.
My grandparents drew this number at 70.
My parents are the 80 on the Fers.
So there should be a nine-minute number of death at the beginning of my death.
But it's not even about people like us, because this is a bigger thing than that.
A child who is born today in New Delhi can expect to live as long as the richest man on Earth 100 years ago.
Think about it. This is an incredible fact.
And why is that?
The smallpox. Poeps have killed billion people on this planet.
They've re-re-educated the demographics of the Earth in a way that no war has ever been able to do.
They're gone. They're gone.
We forced them.
In rich world diseases exist in the rich world that millions of us have just threatened one generation, hardly.
Diph bacteria, X-rays, children...
Anyone else knows what that is?
vaccines, modern medicine, our ability to feed billion people, these are success of scientific method.
And from my view, the scientific method of trying to figure out if it works, it's not going to change it, one of the greatest legacy of humanity.
So that's the good news.
Unfortunately, that's the whole good news, because there are some other problems, and they've been mentioned often.
And one of them is that, despite all of our legacy, one billion people on this planet are going to bed every day.
This number is going up, and it's going very quickly, and it's very damaged.
And not only that, we've used our imagination to make this world a very green place.
drinking water, a nice country, rain water, oil, gas: they disappear, and soon, if we don't have that mess, we're going to be able to search out.
So the question is, can we do that? I think so.
I think it's clear that we can produce food that will feed billions of people without the country that they live on.
I think we can provide this world with energy that they don't destroy at the same time.
I really think that, and no, that's not a wish.
But this is what I think is a wake-up thing that I've been able to wake up after, and we have never needed scientific progress before, as much as we haven't had before.
And we've never been able to re-evolving it as we can today.
We're in the threshold of amazing events, amazing events on many areas, and yet I really think we have to go back to the amount of 300 years before the education to find a time when we've fought over these things, more frontalized than we are now.
People are a good thing in their faith, so close to the fact that you can't free them.
Not even the truth will free it.
And listen, everybody has a right to his opinion, even a right to progress.
But you know where you don't have a right?
They don't have a right to their own facts.' guilty, don't have it.
And I needed a while to find out.
About a decade ago, I wrote an article about vaccines for The New Yorker, a little article.
And I was amazed to break resistance to what was the most effective thing in health care in human history.
I didn't know what to do, so I just did whatever I wrote, and I went on to the article.
And soon I wrote an article about technically changing food.
The same thing, just bigger.
People were playing crazy.
So I also wrote an article about this, and I couldn't understand why people thought that was "Franked food," why they believed that molecules were a particular way of putting a random way around nature's field.
But you know what I do. I wrote the article, I kept doing.
I mean, I'm a journalist.
We type, we rich, we eat, that's okay.
But these articles made me worry, and I couldn't figure out why, and eventually I found it.
And that's because these fanists who were crazy at all.
These were careful people, educated people, obese people.
They were just like the people in this room.
And that led me to each other.
But then I thought, you know what, we're honest.
We've come to a point where we don't have the same ratio to progress as we used to.
We're talking about it a little bit like this.
We're talking ironic about this, with little performance signs, "Forget it."
Okay, so there are reasons, and I think we know which reasons are.
We have lost trust in institutions, authority, and sometimes in science, and there is no reason why it should not be that way.
You can just call some names and people will understand.
Well, researchers of theobyl, Bhopal, the Challenger, Vioxx, mass destruction, the U.S. president election, 2000.
I mean, you know, you can choose your own list.
There are questions and problems with people we thought they'd always be right. So, you know, skeptical.
Imagine questions, ask evidence, demand.
Don't take anything else than you did.
But now it's that if you have to get evidence, you have to take that evidence, and we're not good at it.
And I can say that for the reason we live in an epidemic now, as I've never seen it, and hopefully never see again.
About 12 years ago, a story was published, a terrible story that brought autism epidemic with the Maser, Mumps, and X-ray vaccine.
Very awful.
And if you look at the ways of doing research, what you see is that it was true.
And a lot of wise studies should be done; that's a serious issue.
The data came in.
The data came in from the United States, from England, from Sweden, from Canada, and they were all equal, no correlation, no connection, no connection.
It doesn't make any difference. It doesn't make any difference, because we believe in anecdotes, we believe what we see, what we think we're doing, what we're doing, what we feel real.
We don't believe in a re-conducting documents of a government that gives us data, and I understand that, I think we all do.
But you know what?
The result of this was catastrophic.
The catastrophic thing about this fact is, the United States is one of the only countries in the world where the vaccine is going to go down for Maser.
That's a sandaur, and we should be ashamed of that.
It's terrible.
What happened was we could do that.
Well, I understand that. I do.
Because here's someone Maser?
Did one in the audience ever see someone die of Maser?
Don't do very often.
But 40,000 times in this country is not at all, but over the last year, 40,000 times in the world.
That's a lot of death from Maserns, 20 miles an hour.
But because this is not happening, we can re-educate it, and people like Jenny McCarthys can walk around and message from fear and illiterateism from platforms like Oprah and Larry King Live prey.
And they can do that because they don't connect the cause and the correlation.
They don't understand that these things seem to be the same, but almost never the same.
And this is something we need to learn, and it's very fast.
This guy was a hero, Jonas Salk.
He freed us from one of the worst shits of humanity.
No fear, no Quran, children, tinker, disappeared.
The guy in the middle doesn't do that much.
He's called Paul Offit.
He's just developed a couple of other people with a redavirus vaccine.
It can save the lives of 400,000 children per year in the developing world.
Pretty good, right?
Well, that's good, except Paul talks about vaccines and says, how valuable they are, and that people should just stop eating.
And this is actually what he says.
So Paul is a terrorist.
When Paul talks in a public listener, he can't predict the armed dignity.
He gets calls at home because people like to tell him they know where his kids go to school.
And why? Because Paul did a vaccine.
I don't need to say that, but vaccines are incredibly vulnerable.
If you continue it, the diseases go back, terrible diseases, and this is happening.
We have Maser in this country now.
And that's going to be worse, and pretty soon kids will die again, because that's just a question of numbers.
And they're not just going to die of Maser.
What about children's paralyzed? Let's say that. Why not?
A communistin written me a couple weeks ago, and she said I'm a little too squeezing.
Nobody said that before.
She wouldn't snuck her child against children. There's no case.
enemy.
Why? Because we don't have children. And you know what?
We had no children in this country yesterday.
Today, I don't know, maybe somebody came in this morning in Lagos and flies for Los Angeles, right now he's over Ohio.
And he landed in a few hours, and he landed a car, and he comes to Long Beach, and he's going to go to one of those fantastic TED Talks tonight.
And he doesn't know that he's infected with a paralyzed disease, and we don't know that, because that's how the world works.
That's the planet we live on. Don't do that as if it's not.
We love to lie. We love that.
Did you all take your vitamins this morning?
Echinacea, a little antioxidantium that helps you to put on the squid.
I know you did that because half of Americans do this every day.
They take the stuff, and they take alternative cures, and it doesn't make any difference in how often we find out they're useless.
The data is constantly putting this data.
They are frightened of your origins. More of them never do.
That's okay, you'd like to pay 28 billion dollars for dark origins.
I'm going to agree with you completely.
Dunkler Urin. dark.
Why do we do that? Why do we do that?
Well, I think I understand -- we hate the pharmaceutical industry.
We hate a strong government. We don't have trust in the system.
And we shouldn't. We should have a new health system.
It's cruel to millions of people.
It's absolutely cold and slammed ourselves to afford it.
So we're going away before we walk, and where do we go?
We walk into the arms of Placebo industry.
That's great. I love Placebo industry.
But you know, this is really a serious issue, because the stuff is crap, and we spend billions of dollars on it.
And I have all kinds of little tequins here.
No one of them -- Gingko, Bechinacea, Beh, Acai, I don't even know what it is, but we're giving billion dollars to it.
And you know what? When I say that, people will save me and say, "What do you care? Let people do what they want.
That's how they feel good."
And you know what? You're wrong.
Because it doesn't matter whether it's the Minister of health that says, "Hmm, I'm not going to take the re-engineering of my experts," or any cancer-like cancer that wants to treat its patient with a weapon.
If you go to that path where belief and magic and science replace you, you get to a place where you don't want to be.
They get to Thabo Mbeki in South Africa.
He brought 40,000 of his people because he was wearing red Bees, nodes, nodes and goats are much more effective than antiretroviral drugs that we know can slow down the AIDS.
Hundreds of thousands of unintended death in a country that is worse than any other one of these diseases is thrown out.
Don't tell me that these things don't have consequences.
They have them. They always have them.
Now, the brainless epidemic we're in right now is this absurd struggle between the more sophisticated food and bio-Eoscope.
This is an idiot debate. You have to stop.
It's a debate about words, about metaphor.
This is ideology, not science.
All we eat, every rice record, every two Peter Brazilian, every rosekohl, was changed by the people.
You know, there was no Mandarin in the paralysis.
There was no Cantaloupeel, there was no Christmas trees. We did all this.
We've done it in the last 1,000 years.
And some of them worked and some of them didn't work.
We're going to get rid of what didn't work.
Now we can do it more accurate, and of course, there's risks, but we can do something like vitamin A in rice, and that stuff can help millions of people to forget about their lives.
You don't want to do that?
I don't have to say that.
We eat technically a change of food.
Why do we do that?
Now, what I hear is that, many chemicals, pesticides, hormones, monocultures, we don't want to have a huge field with one thing, that's wrong.
We don't want companies to patent.
We don't want companies to own.
And you know what my answer to all this is?
Yes, you're right. Let's put that up.
It's true, we have a huge food problem, but that's not science.
That has nothing to do with science.
It's right, moral, patent.
You know that science is not a company.
It's not a country.
It's not even an idea; it's a process.
She's a process, and sometimes he doesn't work, and sometimes it doesn't work, but the idea that we shouldn't allow science to do their work because we're afraid to be a really re-eyed race, and it's millions of people from the drudges.
You know, over the next 50 years, we're going to have to build 70 percent more food than 70 percent right now. 70 percent.
This investment in Africa over the last 30 years.
Compassion. Sorry.
They need that, and we don't give them them.
And why? gene technically changed food.
We don't want to encourage people to eat this red stuff like Maniook.
Youiok is something that eat half a billion people.
It's about a potatoes.
It's just a sexy calories. It's a sawry.
It doesn't have nutrients, it doesn't have a protein, and scientists are building all of that in it.
And then people could eat that and wouldn't be blind.
You wouldn't be hungry, and you know what?
That would be beautiful. It wouldn't be chemist Panity, but it would be nice.
And all I can say about this is: Why do we fight this?
I mean, we ask ourselves, why do we fight this?
Because we don't want genes to move around?
It's not about bringing genes around. It's not about chemicals.
It's not about our ridiculous passion for hormones, our racial food, better food, unique food.
It's not about Rice Krispies, it's about getting people alive, and it's going to be the most important time to understand what that means.
Because you know what?
If we don't do that, if we continue doing something like this, I think we want to be guilty, high-tech colonialism.
There's no other description for what's going on here.
It's self-resolution, it's ugly, it's not ours, and we really need to stop that.
So after this incredible conversation, you might want to say, "What are you still going to go into this ridiculous time machine and go into the future?"
I'm not sure. I'm going to.
Right now, it's in the present, but we have an incredible opportunity.
We can put this time machine on everything we want.
We can move them where we want to move them, and we'll move them to where we want to go.
We need to lead these conversations, and we need to think about, but when we go up into the time machine and go to the future, we'll be happy to have that.
I know we can do it, and as far as it is, it's something that needs the world.
Thank you. Thank you.
When Steve Lopez, colonyists of Los Angeles Times, one day went to the streets of Los Angeles, he heard a wonderful music.
She came from a man, a African-American, sympathical, whether she was playing, who was still on a savanna.
Many of you will know the story, because from Steve's article, a book that was later thrown in, and Robert Downey junior as Steve Lopez and Jamie Foxx as Nathaniel Anthony Ayers, who was studied at the Juilliardservationatorium, and he was finished a lot of promise career through his paranoide schizophrenia early.
Nathaniel left Juiel Ju billion, he suffered a nerve and 30 years later, he lived as a homeless resemblance on the streets of skid Row in the center of Los Angeles.
I'm going to give you all the book, Steve's book, or watch the movie, so you can't just understand the wonderful verbs that have come between these two men, but also how music helped this connection and how it was that instrument if this word game is allowed to get Nathaniel away from the street.
I met Mr. Ayers in 2008, two years ago, in Walt Disney Concert Hall.
He had just heard a demonstration of Beethoven's first and four symphony, and he came behind the stage to imagine me.
He talked about a very euthanized and syo Ma and Hillary Clinton and how the Dodgerss would never create the baseball World Series, and all of that because of the first sentence in Beethoven's last four-sinfonie.
We came to talk to music, and a few days later, I got an email that Nathaniel was interested in the subject of the people who were interested in me.
I have to mention that Nathaniel has a medical treatment, because he had already been treated with electrosock and hand-sops and hand a trauma that has followed him all his life.
Now, when he's particularly a consequence of this schizophrenic phase, and the reason they're so bad is that sometimes they're shiting him and they're disappearing for days, and he's going around the streets of skid Row, always screaming this horror and the torture of his own mind.
And in exactly one of the things that Nathaniel was when we started in the Walt Disney Hall, and he had this irreducible in his eyes completely lost.
He talked about invisible dracial droughts and smoking and how someone wanted to poison it in sleep.
I was afraid not to be afraid, but I was scared that I could lose him in one of his states, and that I could destroy his relationship to the poem if I started talking about clay and Arggios and other exciting forms of the didaacency.
So I just started playing.
I played the first sentence of Beethoven's violin violin.
And while I was playing, I realized that Nathaniels was going in a completely change.
It was like he was standing under the impact of an invisible drugs, a chemical reaction whose Katalysator was my game.
Nathaniels were turning into understanding, into a quiet curiosity and anecdotal.
And as he took his violin and started playing some of the savages of livestock and asked me to play it at the end: Mendels drone, Tschikowski, Siberian.
We started talking about music, from Bach, by Beethoven, Brahms, Brs, and all the other Brahms, from Bartóks to the Ita-Phkken.
And I realized that he was not just sitting a cyringe knowledge of music, but he was able to bring him to a personal relationship with her.
He talked about her with a passion and an understanding that I only know from my colleagues in Los Angeles.
By playing music, he was talking about music, from this paranoid man who was still sat down by the streets of Los Angeles, a worth of trained, a more educated, more amazing, in Ju billion trained musicians.
Music is medicine. music changes us.
For Nathaniel means music is a health way.
Because the music allows him to shape his thoughts and decode with his imagination and creativity into something real.
And so he flies his tading states.
I understood that this is exactly the nature of art.
And that's why we make music: so that we can put something that goes into all of us, deep inside our feelings, through our artistic lens, through our creativity.
And the reality of this expression is that all of us are getting, and it's inspired and it's inspired.
What Nathaniel went, the music brought him back into a community of friends.
The he brought him back to a family of musicians who understood him, who realized his talent and saw him.
And I'm going to talk to Nathaniel over and over again whether in Walt Disney Hall or skid Row, because he reminds me why I became musicians.
Thank you very much.
Bruno Giussani: Thank you. Thank you.
Robert Gupta.
Robert Gupta: I want to play something that I've remained unintentional.
I hope you'll suck me.
I'm Jane McGonigal. I'm a computer games.
I've been developing online games for 10 years now, and my goal for the next decade is to make it easy to save the world in reality, how to save online games.
I have a plan for that. I want to convince more people, including all of you, spend more time with the game more and more great games.
We spend three billion hours a week with online games.
Some of you might think, "This is a lot of time for games."
Maybe a lot of time, if you think about how many problems we've been in the real world, maybe we've got a lot of problems.
But actually, I'm a research on the Institute of the future, which is exactly the opposite.
Three billion hours a week is not even enough to solve the most urgent problems in the world.
In fact, I believe that if we want to survive the next century on this planet, we have to increase the time.
I calculated that the time took 21 billion hours of play is a week.
So that may seem a little bit more resemblance, so I can do it, so that if we can do problems like hunger, poverty, global conflict, global conflict, I think we need to try to do games online for at least 21 billion hours a week.
Rather than playing the next decade. No, I really mean it.
Why? This picture is pretty much a matter of a matter of fact.
Why I believe games are so reliable for survival of human species in the future.
This is a photographer for photographer philanthropy.
He wanted to catch the feelings in play, so he built a camera in front of the players.
This is one of the classic backs of play.
If you're not a player, maybe some of the  Nuancesnahs in this picture are.
You probably see this sense of drug, something fear, but also extremely marrowing, very deeply in the lung of a real problem.
If you're playing, you can see some  Nuancens that were swam up here, and the mouth is a sign of optimism. The eyebras show surprise.
This is a player that's on the edge of what's called epileptic you.
Oh, you know that. OK. primate.
So we have a couple of players here.
A epit victory is a result that is so positive that you didn't know it was possible at all.
It was near imagination, and if you get it, you're shocked.
You're actually capable of doing this. This is a epit victory.
This player's just before a epic victory.
And this is what we need to see in millions of faces around the world if we take the hyenath century away from the next century, the faces of all the Widolescent a epilescence on the edge of a epileptic.
Well, unfortunately, we see this face in real life when we're putting difficult problems.
I call it "In Life" moment.
And it's actually my face, you see? Yes? OK.
That's me, how I am the life I'm bad.
This is a graffiti in my former home in Berkeley, California, where I've been studying why we're better at play than we're in real life.
This is a problem that many players have.
We think we're not as good as play.
And I don't mean just less successful, even though that's what it's heard.
We're going to reach more in play worlds.
I mean, I'm doing a good job with motivation, doing something a little bit more inspiring, inspired to collaboration.
If we're in a game world, I think many of us are turning into our best version, at any time and immediately help to solve the problem, the problem is to try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try and do it again.
And in reality, if we predict, if we rely on obstacles, we often feel different.
We feel overwhelmed. We feel threatened. We may feel depressed, frustrated or cynical.
We never have these feelings when we play games, just don't exist.
And that's what I wanted to study as a Ph.D.
Why is it impossible in games to think, could you just not get anything done?
How can we transmit these feelings from play into reality?
So I looked at games like World of Warcraft that provides the ideal environment to the collaborative problem.
And I've found some things that epide victory can do in online worlds.
So first, if you go into one of these online games, especially in World often Warcraft, there's a lot of different characters that are willing to trust you a world-class mission, and immediately.
But not just any mission, but a mission that fits perfect to your current level right?
So you can do that.
You never get a task you can't solve.
But anyway, you have to be at the edge of your skills, so you have to get involved.
But there's no unemployment in World of Warcraft, and you don't sit around and turn it around, and there's always a very important thing to do.
And there's a lot of staff.
Where you go, hundreds of thousands of people working with you to close your epilepsy mission.
We don't have that easy life, that feeling that if you're a fingern't, you're ready to have a fingern't.
And also, there's this epiphany story, this inspiring story, why we're there and what we're doing, and then we get this whole positive feedback.
They've heard aboutLevels and+1 strength, or "+1 intelligence."
This is not true feedback in real life.
When I leave this stage, I don't have: +1 speech and +1 crazy idea, +20 crazy idea.
I don't get the real life of this feedback.
So the problem of cooperation's plant world, as World of Warcraft, is that it's so peaceful at any given time, at the edge of a epic you'd rather spend all of our time in these play worlds.
They're just better than reality.
Until today, all the World of Warcraft games have spent five million years trying to solve virtual problems of azerothoth.
It's not necessarily something bad.
It might sound mad.
But to see it in context:  5,93 million years ago, our first primates started to go right.
So the first one on the right primates.
OK, so if we talk about how much time we spend at play now, it's just meaning when you think about the time in terms of the scale of human development, which is extraordinary.
But it turns out that by using these all the time to play, we actually change what we are able to do as humans.
We develop a community of thinking, in the past.
That's the truth. That's what I think.
So look at these interesting statistics that recently was published by a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University: the average young man of today, with a strong game culture, 10,000 hours of online games, from 21 years old.
So 10,000 hours, it's an interesting number, for two reasons.
First of all, for children in the United States, 10.080s are the exact same time they spend in school, from the fifth grade to high school -- if you never don't. So we have a completely full time here.
parallel education, on the young people, learn what it means to be a good player, how everything else they learn in school.
And maybe some of you have read the new book by Malcolm Gladwell, "The flies," so you've read his theory of success, the theory of success of 10,000 hours.
It's based on the great research of cognitive science that if we spend 10,000 hours with the efforts of a subject to 21.
We're going to do as well in what is going to do whatever the most important people in the world.
So what we have here is a complete generation of young people who are master players.
So the big question is, "What are the players doing well?"
Because if we could figure that out, we would never have been available before.
So many people in the world today, we have at least one hour per day with online games.
These are our master players, 500 million people who are extraordinary in "the meme."
And in the next decade, we have another billion players that are extraordinary in whatever.
If you haven't heard it yet.
the games industry developed developed, the energy-efficient and working on mobile nets instead of the Breit-Internet, so that player around the world, especially in India, China, Brazil, can play online.
You'd expect an extra billion players in the next decade.
We have 1.5 billion players in doing that.
So I started thinking about what it is, what are these games doing to me?
Here are the four things I found. First of all, Dring optimism.
OK, imagine how extreme self-esteem is.
Dring optimism is the desire to do something immediately, to a janial, to a belief that we have a re-engineering hope.
players always believe that an epilescence is possible, and that it always is worth trying to do it, and that's the same.
players don't sit around.
players are masters in spiders of social nets.
There are a lot of interesting studies that we're showing people more after we played with them, even when they've been able to beat us.
The reason for that is that it requires a lot of trust to play with someone.
We trust that somebody spend time with us is becoming aware that the rules that we have the same goal and the end of the game.
So the interaction allows for a re-educated re-educated re-eratedness, trust and each other.
As a result, we build stronger social relationships.
Fortunately productivity. Fantastic!
You know, there's a reason why the average of Warcraft games are playing 22 hours a week, as part-time job.
The reason is that if we play, we are actually happier at working hard than when we're a relax or nothing.
We know that as human beings, we work as human beings when we do hard work.
And players are always ready to work hard if they get the right task.
And finally, epilepsy meaning.
players love to become part of awe-like mission of planetary planetary scales.
Here's a background set to go back to the right light, and you've all heard Wikipedia, the largest Wiki in the world.
The second largest Wiki in the world, with almost 40,000 o'clock in the World of Warcraft Wiki.
Five million people use it every month.
They've gotten more information about World of Warcraft on the Internet than any other subject in any other Wiki in the world.
They create an epiloid story.
They create a epic source of knowledge about the World of Warcraft.
OK, so these are four superpowers that lead to one result. player's great, hope-based individuals.
They are people who believe that they can change the world as individuals.
And the only problem is they believe they can change virtual worlds, but not the real world.
That's the problem I try to solve.
Edward Castronova is a scientist.
His work is brilliant. He's looking at why he's doing it.
People spend so much time, energy and money in online worlds.
And he says, "We're going to be a stuff that's not less than a mass re-re-re-re-educated mass-reenlightenment of virtual worlds and online games."
And this is from an economist. So he's logical.
And he says -- not like me -- I design games, I'm a little bit over-mmmm.
So he says that actually makes sense, because players can achieve more online world than real life.
You can put more social savages in play than in real life; you get more feedback and reward in play than in real life.
So he says it's completely logical that players spend more time in the virtual world than in real time.
I'm just going to agree, that's logical.
But it's definitely not an optimist.
We need to start turning the real world into a game.
My inspiration comes from an event that 2,500 years back.
There's this ancient cube, sheep's smile. You know?
And before that fantastic gamecontrol, there were sheep's sheep's sheep.
And this was sort of the first of people developed play devices, and if you're familiar with the works of the old Greek historian, you might know this story, and the story about how and why games were invented.
So heroindotus became games, more sophisticated dignity, in the king of Lynes during famine.
And there was such a famine that the king of Lyns decided to be a crazy idea.
People were suffering. People were fighting.
It was an extreme situation. You needed an extreme solution.
So they found out loud, heroindotus, the cube game and pushed a national strategy, and a day you would eat. The next day you would play.
And they would be so deeply deeply deeply deeply in the cube, because games are so fascinating and so surrounded with peaceful productivity to forget that they were forgotten that there was nothing to eat.
And then the next day you would play, and the next day you would eat.
And heroindotus survived for 18 years for this famine by sitting on a day and playing the next day.
Likewise, I think we're using games today.
We use games to get the real world, we use games to design everything that doesn't work in the real world, everything that's in real life, and we're going to get us out of the game.
But that doesn't have to be the end.
That's the walker.
Herodotus was not better for 18 years, so the king decided to take a last cube.
They shared the queen in two and half.
They played a cube and the weight you had to break into a epic adventure.
They walked in and made a search for a new home, and they just left so many people back, as there were food to survive, and they were looking for the rest of the area where they could enslaved.
That sounds crazy, right?
But the most new DNA wises show that the rusrus, which later re-eyed the very large range, the same DNA as the old Lyd.
So scientists recently came to the idea that heroindotus was crazy.
And geologists found evidence of a global coolness that almost 20 years of doing what could explain famine.
So this crazy story could be right.
Maybe they've actually saved their people through play by putting themselves in games for 18 years, and then they've had this standard, and so much about the way they've learned about each other, that they've saved the entire civilization.
So, we can.
We've been playing for 1994 Warcraft.
That was the first strategy in real time.
The World of Warcraft series. This was 16 years ago.
It played for 18 years, and we've been playing Warcraft for 16 years.
I'm saying we're ready for our own epistic game.
So, they sent half their civilization to find a new world, so I'm going to take my 21 billion dollars a week.
We should get over that half of us spend an hour per day playing with games until we solved the real world's problems.
I know you'll ask, "How do we solve problems of real world?
And that's exactly what I've been working on in the Institute for the last few years.
We have this Banner in our office in Palo Alto, and we have to understand how we should understand the future.
We don't want to try and say the future before.
What we want is to create the future.
We want to imagine the best possible result, and then humans are able to make this idea of reality.
We imagine epilepsys and give people the possibilities to reach them.
I'm going to show you very briefly three games that I designed to try and make people epiphany in their own future.
This is "Because no oil."
The game is 2007.
It's an online game you have to overcome an oil spill.
The oilness is invented, but we have enough online act so that it's going to be real for you to live your life without oil, so if you go to play, say, where you live. And then you get news a lot of the time that costs you how much oil they don't have, what food supply is, how food supply.
As transportation is a re-eyed, whether it's closed, whether it's in states, and you have to figure out how to make your real life if it were true, and we ask you to blog about it, or photo photo.
We tested this game with 1,700 players in 2007, and we've been able to have it for the last three years.
And I can tell you, it was a change experience.
Nobody wants to change his life because it's good for the environment or because we should.
But if you're in a epic adventure, and you said, "And that's what oil is all about."
This is a fascinating adventure you're going to go.
Find out how you would survive, most of our players have been able to keep the habits in play.
So we've been able to do a larger game, higher goal than just oilness.
We've developed the game "Superstruct" on the Institute for the future.
And the point is, the computation of a supercomputer is that people have only 23 years on the planet.
This supercomputer is called "Globalese-out re-reseation-reseation-resolutionization system," of course.
The call to player, we've been able to take a call, we've designed almost like a "Jerry home" moment.
You know Jerry Brucker secrets, where there's the "Theream team" -- they have the astronauts, the scientists, the ex-eflings and they can save the world.
But in our game, instead of just five people, we say, every one in the Dream team, and it's our job, the future of energy, food, health, security and the future of social justice.
8,000 players played the game eight weeks.
They found 500 incredibly creative solutions that you can read when you google "Superstruct."
And the last game we're bringing out at March three. It's a game in collaboration with the World Bank.
If you close the game, you get the World Bank the term "Soziaer re-eeration" in 2010.
We're working with universities all over the place in Africa, and we're going to invite them to learn social change.
We have a comic on it. We have "dolescence" for local understanding, knowledge network, sustainability, vision and a re-esemblance.
I want to invite you all to share this game with young people all over the world, especially in development areas that benefit from putting their own social medias together to save the world.
I'm going to end now.
I want to ask you a little bit.
What do you think happens next?
We have all these fantastic players, we have games that show us what we can do, but we haven't saved the real world yet.
Well, I hope that you agree with me that players are human resources that we can use to work in real life, and that games have a huge meaning for change.
We have all these superpowers, a nice productivity, the ability to connect social networks, drug optimism and desire for epiphany.
I really hope that together we play major games to survive another century on this planet.
And I hope you will design with me like that and play with these kinds of play.
If I look in the next decade, I'm sure that we can make every future, and that we can play all sorts of games. So I say, the world's change.
Thank you.
I've been interested in the placebo effect, and it may seem weird to be a magic part of it, because, you know, it's like, "No deception that's going to be real enough when someone thinks it."
In other words, sugarpills have shown in some studies that have shown a measurable effect, which is the Place effect, and that's because the person thinks what happens to her, whether it's a pharmaceutical or a kind of... In pain management, for example, if the patient only believes enough, there's a measurable effect in the body called the placebo effect.
A deception is going to be a real thing because someone is so true.
So we're also going to understand each other, and I want to show you a basic, simple magic trick.
And I'm going to show you how it works. This is a trick that's been at least for the 1950s in every magic book for children.
I learned him from the Cub Scout Magic of the pathfinder in the 1970s.
I'm going to take it for you and then explain it.
And then I'll explain why I explain it.
So, look what happens.
The knife you can study; my hand you can study.
I'm just going to hold the knife in my ancestors.
I'll go back to my ema.
And to make sure that nothing goes away in my era or comes out of it, I'm just going to express my wrist right here.
And you can see that there's no way that you can't move at any time, and as long as I move here, nothing can go into my era or come out.
And the goal is very simple.
I'm going to open my hand, and hopefully when everything goes well, the knife is sat down through my physical magnetism.
It actually sits in the place that I can shake it without the knife.
Nothing goes into my ecstatic or comes out, no tricks. And you can study everything.
Ta-da!
Now, this is a trick that I often spend a lot of kids interested in, because you can learn a lot about deception when you look more closely, even though it's a very simple trick.
Now, many of you here know this trick.
It works like this.
I'm holding the knife in my hand.
I say that I'm putting my wrist around the fact that there's nothing going on in my era or comes out, and that's a lie.
The reason I'm a wrist is because the real secret of illusion is that it's actually a secret.
Because at the moment, where I turn my hand away so you see it from the back, this finger, my tentainger, just from where it was, in a position where it's so tinkering.
Great tricks?
There's somebody sitting in the back who had no childhood.
So, he's here. Right.
And when I turn around, the finger changes its position.
And now you could talk about why this is a deception, why you're not really looking at the bottom here, because the mind and the way it tells information, it's not a cellular one, two, three, but it's looking at them as a group.
But this is not really about it. And then I open my hand.
Of course, it's sat there, but not through the magnetism of my body, but through a trick, through my toesinger now.
And when I put my hand up, the same thing happens by turning back through this movement, the finger is re-eyed back.
I take this hand away. And here's the knife.
And you can do that trick and neighbors. Thank you.
Now, what does this have to do with the placebo effect?
A year ago, or so, I read a study that really sucks me right.
I'm not a doctor or a researcher, and that's why it was an amazing thing to me.
Because it turns out that if you offer a placebo in a white pill where you're a sapirin sphere, it's just a round, white pill that has a specific measurable effect.
But if you change the shape in which you turn the placebo, for example, in a smaller pill, and these blue frogs will die, and they actually re-evolving a letter, it's actually more effective.
And that, although none of them are pharmaceutical -- they're just sugar ills.
But a white pill is not as good as a blue pill.
What? That really made me go.
But it turned out that this is not all.
If you take captains, the more effective than any form of a tablet is.
A color captain that's on one end, and on the other red, is better than a white captain.
And the dove itself is a role.
A pill twice a day is not as good as three pills -- I can't remember the exact statistics. I'm sorry.
But the key thing is...
... also the doves play a role.
And the shape plays a role.
And if you want to have the ultimate Place effect, you have to go to the needle.
Right? A syringe with an impactless -- a few milliliter of an impactless substance that you're putting in a patient.
This is a very strong picture in your head. This is much stronger than a white pill.
This chart is really -- I'm going to show you another time we have a projector.
So the fact is that the white pill doesn't seem as good as the blue pill that doesn't work as well as a captain that doesn't work as good as the needle.
And nothing of it has some really pharmaceutical property, it's just our belief that's made in us a stronger effect.
I wanted to know if I could use this idea for a magic trick.
I take something that's obviously an deception, and let it look real.
We know from the study that you have to go to needle when you go to the thing.
This is a 18-minute hat, hat, and it's very, very, very spheh. And I'll start sterileize it a little bit.
This is really my meat. It's not a special meat that's a chimpanzee.
This is my skin. This is not a special effect of Hollywood.
I'm going to put this needle in my skin and run through it until it comes back to the other side.
If you're a slam -- if you're just going to fall into ear -- I've introduced this a couple of friends last night in the hotel room, and some people I didn't know, and this is a woman that's become powerful.
So I'm going to suggest that if you're going to go fast, look away for the next 30 seconds, or, you know what, I'm going to do the first part here in the back.
You can see it the same way, but you can also look away if you want.
So, it's like, right here, where my meat starts, at the bottom of my arm, I'm just going to make a little one.
I'm really sorry. Do you want this crazy?
And now just a little bit through my skin and on the other side.
Now we're actually in the same situation that we had when we were knife.
It's a resemblance.
But now you can't count my fingers, right?
So, I'll show you. This is one, two, three, four, five.
Well, yeah.
I know what people think when they see it.
They say, "Okay, it's not that stupid and it's a squishy of itself just to keep us down for a few minutes."
Well, I'll show you.
What does this look like? Pretty good.
Yeah, I know. And people in the back say, "Okay. I didn't really see that."
People are coming in the side now.
Let me show you from near-looking.
This is really my skin. This is not a special effect of Hollywood.
That's my meat, and I can turn it around.
Sorry. When you're mad, look away, don't look.
People in the back or the one that looks at the video at some point will say, "Well, that looks pretty amazing, but if it were real, he would -- you see here's a hole and there, if it was really, really sucking."
Okay, let me just sequence you a little bit of blood for you.
Yes, here it is.
Usually I would take out the needles.
I would suck my arm and show you that there are no wounds.
But I think in this framework here and with the intention of making something real, I'm just going to let the needle go in there and go from the stage.
We're going to meet a few more times in the next few days.
I hope you'll be happy to do that. Thank you very much.
So I've figured out a lot of fish in my life.
I just loved two.
The first one, this was more like a passionate saffluence.
It was a beautiful fish, a sexy, good controversy, a full, a sludge on the map.
What a fish.
But even better, he was convicted in aquaculture after the highest standards of sustainability.
So you could feel comfortable selling it.
I had a relationship with this beauty for several months.
One day, the boss called the company and asked if I could wear a event about the sustainability of farm.
"Of course," I said.
Here was a company that was trying to solve what this unimaginable problem has become for our heads. How do we keep fish on our food cards?
In the last 50 years, we've beaten the oceans as we beaten forests.
It's hard to cross the destruction.
90 percent of the big fish we love, the tunas, the cures, the salmonfishfish, they're broken together.
It's almost nothing left.
So, I think, or a ecstatic aquaculture, fisheries, will be part of our future.
Many arguments about this. We're putting fish in the environment, most of them, and they're inefficient, we're taking tuna, a big neighborhood.
He has a food production of 15 to one.
That means 15 pounds of wild fish are necessary to get a pound of pounding.
Not very sustainable.
It doesn't really make any good news too.
So here was finally a company that tried to do it right.
I wanted to support them.
On the day before the event, I called the head of public work for the company.
Let's call him Don.
"Don't," I said, "You know, to have the facts right, you're famous to build so far out in the ocean that you don't poll the environment."
"That's true," he said. "We are so far out that the waste of our fish is spread out, not focused."
And then he added, "We're basically a world.
This food resemblance of 2.5 to one, he said.
"The best in industry."
2.5 to one, great.
"You're going to have a walk, what do you do?"
"Nisal proteins," he said.
"Giveive," I said. Legt.
And that night, I was in bed, and I thought, what the hell is a sustainable protein?
So I called the next day, just before the event, Don.
I said, "Well, what are sustainable proteins?"
He said he didn't know that. He'll ask for question.
Well, I was able to do some people in the company. No one could give me a very nice answer, so far I finally figured out the biologists.
Let's call it Don.
"Don't" I said, "Well, what are sustainable proteins?"
Now, he mentioned some algae, and some fish humbling, and then he said, chicken shit.
I said, "Diddotes?"
He said, "Yes, feathers, skin, bone, rest, dry and food."
I said, "How much of your food is chicken?"
In the assumption, maybe two percent.
"Well, these are about 30 percent," he said.
I said, "Well, what is sustainable to feed chickens on fish?"
There was a long slam in the line, and he said, "It's just too much chicken around the world."
I loved myself from this fish.
No, not because I'm a self-asssembly and good thing.
I'm actually.
No, I actually loved myself from this fish, because I'm weak with God who's sat down to this conversation after chicken.
The second fish, that's a different kind of love story.
It's the romantic way you know the way you're seeing your fish, you love the fish for more.
I first eat it in a restaurant in South.
A journalist had talked about this fish for a long time.
It's sort of a sludge us.
He came to the table with a bright, almost slammed white color.
The chef had cookd him.
Just twice.
And amazingly, he was still delicious.
Who can make a fish so good after he was cookd?
I can't, but this guy can.
Let's call him Miguel. In fact, he's Miguel.
And no, he didn't cook fish, and he's not a cooking. At least in the way you and I understand it.
He's a biologist at Veta La Palma.
This is a fisherie in the southern corner of Spain.
It's near the mosquito of the river Guadalquivirvir.
Until the 1980s, the farm was in the hands of Argentina.
They grew meat squid on what were basically wetlands.
They did it by putting the land out.
They built these complicated squids of channels, and they sat out of the land and out into the river.
Well, they couldn't make it work, not economically.
And ecologically, it was a disaster.
It took about 90 percent of the birds to do what these places are for many birds.
And so 1982 has bought an Spanish company with environmental consciousness.
What did they do?
They've re-eyed the river of the water.
They literally re-emowed the lever.
Instead of using the water, they used the channels to pull the water back in.
They fluted the channels.
They created a 1,000 hectare of fish -- baros, marine ones, shrimp -- and then they've got Miguel and his company's environmental destruction completely.
The farm is incredible.
I mean, you've never seen anything like this.
They stare at the horizon, which is a million miles away, and everything they see is slowed cans and these dense marchs.
I wasn't there long ago at the time.
He's an incredible guy, three parts Charles Darwin and a part "A crocodile to cows."
Okay? There we were, and we fought through the  Feyma and I think and sweat, I've got Mats to my knees, and Miguel is in a biology field.
Here he's putting a rare ginaar.
Now he mentioned the minerals of physics.
And here, he sees a pattern of giraffes that reminds him of the chimp giraffe.
It turns out that Miguel spent the biggest part of his career in Mikumi national park in Africa.
I asked him how he had become a fisheries tool.
He said, "Are you? I don't know about fish.
I'm an expert for relationships."
And then he goes and sat down into more rare birds and algae and strange water plants.
And don't get me wrong, it was really fascinating, you know, the biofuel community, in the way.
It's great, but I was in love.
And my head was swam across this delicious piece of fish that I had at night.
So I put him under the sex. I said, "Migue, how come it, you know your fish tastes so good?"
He showed up the algae.
"I know, boys, the algae, the physics plankton, the relationships, that's incredible.
But what do your fish eat?
How is the food production?"
Well, he's going to continue telling me that it's such a rich system that the fish eat what they eat in the wild.
The plant biomass, the physics plankton, the zplankton, that's what the fish feeds.
The system is so healthy, it's completely renewable.
There's no food.
What about a farm that doesn't feed their animals?
And later on the day, I went around this site with Miguel, and I said, "Do you think a place that seems so natural, but unlike any farm I've ever been, "Do you try to succeed?"
It was like a movie-like thing would have been going on.
And we walked around the corner and offered the most incredible, thousands and thousands of pink flames, literally pink carpets so far the eye is enough.
"That's success," he said.
"Look at her shit, pink.
They're smart."
Was it a bad thing? I was completely confused.
I said, "Do you want to get your fish?"
"Yes," he said.
"We lose 20 percent of our fish and fisheries to birds.
Well last year, in this site, there were 60,000 birds, more than 250 different ways.
It's now the largest and one of the most important private bird-related bird-related birds in Europe today.
I said, "Doel, isn't a good bird's last thing you want to do on a fisherie?"
He sat down his head, no.
He said, "We build extensivv, not intense.
This is a ecological network.
The flameingos eat shrimp.
The shrimp eat the physics.
So the pink pandemic of the better the system."
Okay, let's think about that. A farm that doesn't feed their animals and a farm that enables them to their success on health.
A fisheries, but also a bird reserve.
Oh, and by the way, this flame shouldn't even be there.
They sat down in a city 240 miles away where the groundness is better for nest maintenance workers.
Every morning they fly 240 kilometers to farm.
And every night they fly 240 kilometers.
They do it because they can follow the white line of the country's street A92.
Basically.
I had figured out a journey of penguins, so I looked at a stagging.
I said, "Migue, do they fly 240 kilometers to the farm and then fly it back 240 kilometers back at night?
Do they do it for the children?"
He looked at me when I had just sat a song of Whitney Houston.
He said, "No. They do it because food is better."
I didn't mention the skin of my favorite fish that was delicious, and I don't like fisheries, I don't like it. I don't like it. I don't like it.
It's this naive, a taste of taste.
I'm almost never cook with it.
And yet, when I tried it in this restaurant in South Asia, she didn't sat down at all.
She sat down and insizens, as if you took a bear from the ocean.
I mentioned that to Miguel, and he would no more.
He said, "The skin seems like a symphony.
It's the last re-eyed before something goes into the body.
She's developed over evolution to squirt."
And then he added, "But our water has no unfinished."
Okay. A farm that doesn't feed their fish. A farm that re-eyed their success on success.
And then I realized, when he says, a farm that doesn't have any tadolescence, it's a massive, because the water that comes through this farm comes from the river  Guadalquivirals.
It's a river that leads all the things that are happening today, from rivers, to lead them to chemical pollutants, a flow of skull.
And when it fought through the system, and this one is a ffluence of clean water than it did.
The system is so healthy, it sucks the water.
So not only do they have a farm that is not only a farm that snucks their animals, not just a farm that snucks their success on their health, but a farm that literally is a water-based system, not just for those fish, but for me and for you.
Because when the water turns out, it sucks in the Atlantic.
A drop in the ocean, I know, but I take it, and I should do it, because this love story, like romantic, is also rich.
You might say she's a recipe for the future, good food, whether we're talking about baros or meat cortexs.
Now what we need is a radical new idea of agriculture, from a food that's actually good at.
But for many people, that's a little too radical.
We're not realists; we're more gene-based. We're a half-dollar.
We love markets in weeks. We love little families. We talk about local food. We eat biofuels.
And if you say that these are the things that are the future good food that's standing on someone and says, "Hey, I love pink fingos, but how are you going to feed the world?
How are you going to feed the world?"
Is it honest?
I don't like that question.
No, not because we're making enough calories to feed the world more than just making it.
A billion people are now starving.
A billion -- that's more than ever before -- because of the crappy in distribution, not the total production.
Now, I don't like that question because it's essentially gotten the logic of our food system over the last 50 years.
The eliars of plants, the ecologist of monocultures, chemicals on the planet, chickens, chickens, and all the time, agrazing industry simply asked, "If we feed more people how terrible this can be?"
That was the underlying reason. It was the right thing. It was the business plan of American agriculture.
We should call them what it is, a industry in a industry that enables fast ecological capital to be able to do exactly that production.
This is not an industry, and it's not agriculture.
Our Koran is threatened today, not because of the re-semblance of the savanna, but because of the re-educated resources.
Not through the latest cliffs and tinkering land, but through a cold land, not by pumps, but by fresh water, not by stumbling, but by forests, and not by fisheries and nets, but by fish in the ocean.
You want to feed the world?
Let's start with the question: How are we going to feed ourselves?
Or better, how can we create conditions that can feed every community to feed themselves?
To do that, don't look at the agrar industry model for the future.
It's really old, and it's done.
capital, chemistry and machines are on top, and it never produced anything really good for food.
So instead, let's look at the ecological model.
That's the one that's coming back to work experience for two billion years.
Look at Miguel, farmers like Miguel.
For those who are not worlds, business, who are re-engineering, who are re-engineering, business, who are building the extensivannas instead of only intense, farmers who are not just beliefs, but experts for relationships.
Because they are the ones who are also experts who are tasted.
And if I'm really honest, they're a better cooking than I'll ever be.
You know, that's right, because if that's the future of good food, it'll be delicious.
Thank you.
I grew up with a slame porn science fiction.
I went to school with the bus every day, every day.
And my nose would always be in a book, a science fiction fiction that would give me a different kind of thought and tell my deeper and a little bit of a curiosity to me.
This curiosity also showed that whenever I was in school, I was not in the forests, threw and sat down and sat down and frogs and snakes and ponds and ponds, everything I'd look home under the microscope.
I was completely science, you know.
It was always about trying to understand the world and to get the limits of the Ms.
And my love of science fiction seemed to be able to re-eselated in my environment, because at the time, in the late '60s, we flew to the moon and we explored the deep sea.
Jacques Cousteau came to our living living room with his fascinating show that animals and places and a world that we could never have imagined before.
And that's probably pretty much like science fiction.
And I was an artist.
I could draw. I could paint.
And there's no video games or this re-eyed movie nor the whole image language in the media landscape, and I didn't have to create the images in my head.
We all had to read this back then. When we read a book, we took the description of the author and we put them on the screen in our heads.
My reaction to that was the drawings and painters of aliens, except Indian worlds, robots, spaceships and all that kind of thing.
I was constantly thrown by the teacher, like I was sat down behind teaching book.
The creativity had to sort of get out of it.
And something interesting happened to me, which was fascinated by Jacques Cousteen's program, was the thought of a completely unknown world on our own.
I would never get an extraordinary world with a spaceship. It seemed quite unlikely to me.
But here was a world I could actually step up here, and it was as fascinating and exotic as all that I'd been able to read about when I read these books.
So I decided when I was 15, I was going to be a thousand.
The only problem with this was that I lived in a small village in Canada, 150,000 miles away from the next ocean.
But I didn't encourage myself to that.
I was nervous, until finally he finally made a dive school in Buffalo, New York, inventing exactly on the other side of the border where we lived.
I made my dive in a pool of YMCA in the middle of the winter in Buffalo, New York.
But the ocean, a real ocean, I just got two years later, when we moved to California.
Since then, in the 40 years that have been slowed down, I spent about 30,000 hours underwater, 500 hours of it in dives.
And I learned that the world of the deep sea, even in the flat oceans, is so rich to life as we can't really imagine.
The epheists of nature don't know the limits, quite versus our own, of our own human imagination.
Until today, I feel deepest honor for what I see on my dives.
And my love for the ocean is holding on the same intensity as it is and ever.
And when I was a job, it was the movie.
This seemed the best way to tell my inner drug stories, with my need to create images.
As a child, I was drew comic books and so on.
So films were the way to do images and stories. It suck together.
Of course, the stories I've been studying from the science fiction fiction were, "Terminator," "Aliens," and "Abysss."
I could connect my ancestors to the underwater world and connect the thousands with the movies.
So, they kind of re-eyed my two passions.
Something interesting happened in "Abyssss," to solve a more narrative problem in this movie -- and that's how we had to create a kind of liquid water, we launched computer animation,CG, back.
What he did was, the first computer-ray Soft piece that ever was in a film.
Now, the film didn't make money, in fact, he was playing his cost of production, but I realized something fascinating: the audience around the world was like hypnotized by the magic that went from it.
Arthur Clarkes' law are known to be known as advanced technology and magic no longer different from each other.
So they saw something magical.
And that's what I found, really exciting.
And I thought to myself, "Wow, that's really got to be a piece of art in the movie."
So we went to term, " terminator 2," my next movie, much further.
So together with ILM, we created the guy from liquid metal, and the success started off just like this effect would come.
And it worked. Again, we created something stomach, and the effect in the audience was the same, but we've been playing a little bit more money on the movie.
From these two experiences, a whole new world has been achieved, a whole new world of creativity for film.
So I started a company with my good friend Stan Winston, who was at the time of the best Make-Up and Creature design. She was called "Digital Domain."
The basic idea of this company was to start the phase analog processes with optical printing printing and so on and with digital production.
And we did that, and we created a time-class competition.
But in the mid-1990s, we realized that in the mid-1990s and Character design, what we actually founded for -- to slow down.
I had written this piece called "Avatar" that the knife in visual effects and computer effects should be able to be able to in a whole new height, real human, print-resolution character that was made byCG, and the main character should be all theCGs. And the world should beCG.
But the measurements were pretty much re-eyed, and people in my company told me that we were not able to do this yet.
So I went and did this other film about the big ship that goes below.
The movie studio I sold as "Romeo and Julia to a ship," which became a love film of epic scale, a passionate movie.
But I really wanted to get to the real syrew of Titanic.
That's why I made the movie.
That's the truth. The studio didn't know.
But I convinced them by saying, "We're going to get the shit. We're putting the real forests.
We're going to show it in the opening sequence of the film.
It's a very important one. It's a good followers for marketing."
And I talked about putting an expedition.
But it goes back to that, again, the imagination can create a reality.
We actually created a reality six months later in a Russian dive, and then I went back to a Russian dive, four kilometers below the surface of the North Atlantic, and looked at real Titanic through a bullic sawa.
This was not a movie, not an HD, that was real.
So, that really sucks me around.
And the preparation were enormous. We had to build cameras and failures and all kinds of things.
And I noticed how much this deep sea squid, a space emissions.
Well, they were also highly technically and they were more powerful.
You go down into this captain, you put it down into this dark, fine environment where no hope is if you don't get it back.
And I thought, "Wow, that's the same as if I was in a science fiction fiction.
That's really cool."
I was quite obsessed with the deep sea.
Anyway, the part that has to do with curiosity and science was everything. It was adventure, it was curiosity. It was imagination.
And it was an experience that I couldn't give to Hollywood.
Because, you know, I could imagine a creature that we could then design a visual effect, but I couldn't imagine what I was going to see outside the window.
In some of the following expeditions, I've seen creatures in Thermal source, and sometimes things I've never seen before, sometimes things that nobody had ever seen before and had seen science at the time when we saw them, haven't seen words.
So that's really thrown me around, and I wanted to get more.
And so I met an unusual decision.
After the success of "Titanic" I said to myself, "Okay, I want to put my main character in Hollywood on ice and become full-time full-time scientists."
And then we started to plan these expeditions.
We sat down to the "Bismarck," and we explored robot vehicles.
We went back to the Wrack of Titanic.
We took small robots that we built, which were a squishy wireless wireless.
Our intention was to come in and look inside the ship, which had never been done before.
No one had ever had the inside of the syrew, and you had no means for it, so we developed the technology.
Well, I'm sitting there on the ceiling of Titanic, in a dive boat, and I see planks that are quite similar to these boards and I know that a band played there.
And I'm going to fly through a small robot vehicle through the resemblance of the ship.
I actually do it, but my consciousness is within the vehicle.
It felt like I was physically inside the ship's shipyard.
This was the most surreal form of a Dé I've ever experienced because before I grew up a corner, I knew what was going on in the light of the vehicle, because I was running over the movie for months when we turned the movie.
Because that was a very specific copy of the building plans of the ship.
So that was a highly strange experience.
She made me realize that this telescope experience that you can use such robotic avatars and so your consciousness can put into the vehicle in these other forms of existence.
It was really profound.
And maybe a little bit of a look at what might happen in a few decades, if you've got cyborgs to explore something, or to do things in all sorts of post-human futures that I can think of as science fiction.
After these expeditions, we started to really appreciate what we've seen at the bottom, to learn, for example, these deep sea sources, where we saw these amazing animals, which are kind of aliens, but here on Earth.
They live with chemmosyntheses.
They don't exist in a sunlight based on the way we do that.
And so you see animals that are directly next to a 500 degrees Celsius.
The water-wolke live. And you can't imagine they can survive there.
At the same time, I was also interested in space science, which was again the science fiction movement from my childhood.
And so I landed with the people who were interested in space and who were sitting in NASA's space and who are in NASA's doing right-in-scavengeing and planning spacecraft, and they're going to Russia, and they're going to go through the mission of the mission, the biomedical protons and all heart and hean, and then to the international space station, and take our 3D system.
That was fascinating.
But at the end, it was going to work out that I took space scientists to the deep sea.
I took them and I walked them down to the world at the bottom, astronomologists, planets, people who were interested in such extreme situations, and I took them to the sources so they could take samples and test instruments and so forth.
We turned documents, but actually science, more specifically, said space science.
So the circle of my existence was a science fiction, then as a child, and the re-eyed reality.
And I've learned a lot about this discovery over the course of this discovery.
I've learned a lot about science, but I've also learned a lot about leadership.
Now you're certainly thinking, a director must be a leader like a shippit or something.
But I didn't understand much about leadership before I get these expeditions.
Because at a certain point, I had to say, "What am I doing here?
Why do I do that? What's it coming out?"
These bumblebees don't bring us money.
We're just playing production cost, not a traces.
Everybody thinks I'm between "Titanic" and "Avatar" and I'd had a squid on a stumbling on my hand.
I've made all these films, these documents, for a very small audience.
No pity, no honor, no money. What are you doing?
You're going to do it around the task -- and the ocean is challenging the most challenging environment, which is, you're doing it because of the discovery, and because of the strange connection that comes when a small group of people are able to build a team.
Because we've done all this with only 10 to 12 people who've been working unsustainable for years, and sometimes we've been on sea for two to three months.
And in this community, you realize that the most important thing is the front thing you have before each other, because you have a task that you can't explain.
If you go back to land and you say, "We had to do it, the key thing, the sound, the entire technology, the whole technology, and the difficulty, the difficulty, the human performance, if you work on seas," you can't explain the other one. That's like police or soldiers who have a common thing to know that they can never explain it.
There's a connection, a respect for each other.
So when I came back to turn my next film "Avatar," I tried to apply the same leadership, which is that you respect your team and you make it respect for respect.
And so this really changed the dynamic.
So I stood back there with a little team on unknown terrain, and we turned "Avatar" with a new technology that didn't exist before.
Especially.
A huge challenge.
And we were able to get a quarter of four and a half years to a real family.
And so my way of making films completely changed.
There were people who were mys, we would have really sat down this ocean, really well, and transport them on the Pandora.
For me, it was more basically a way of doing my job, which has changed in the outcome.
So what can we close from all this?
What lesson did we learn?
I think first of all, the curiosity is curiosity.
It's the most powerful human property.
Our imagination is a force that can actually create a reality.
And the head of your team is more important than all Lorbes in the world.
To me, young filmmakers who say, "You know, I'm able to do something like this."
And I say, "Look, don't think you're yourself.
The other thing you're doing is not to worry about yourself, be not against yourself. It's a risk of risks."
NASA has a favorite approach: "Stop is not an alternative."
But in art and exploring, divorce has to be an alternative, because it's a trusting confidence there.
No important underdogs, innovation was ever taken to risk.
You have to be willing to take these risks.
That's the idea I'd like to give you a way to do, and it's a alternative, but fear is not. Thank you.
If I want to bring you a closer point today, it's that the totalness of data that we consume is bigger than the sum of their parts and instead of thinking about information, I want you to think about how we can use information to make patterns so much, and we can recognize the trends that have not been visible.
So what we're seeing here is a typical pennies gram for age.
The program I use here is a little experiment.
It's called Pivot, and what I can do with pioneer is I can filter after a certain cause of death, say accidents.
And immediately I see another pattern that makes itself.
And that's because in the middle, people are the most active, and they're the most vulnerable over here.
We can go out and take a step further and then see the data re-semblance and see that circle disease and cancers are the usual, but not for everyone.
Now, if we go further and we sort of go on and sort of aging, say 40 years or younger, we see accidents even the main cause of people should worry about.
And who looks further about this is a particularly true thing about men.
So you can see that this is a information and data in this way that's very much swimming in a living information graphic.
And if we can do this for raw data, why not content themselves?
So what we have here is the title of every single "Sport Illustrated," which have ever been printed.
It's all here. It's all online.
You can test it to my talk in your room.
With pioneers, they can come up with a decade.
You can go into a certain year.
You can jump directly to a certain copy.
Now, if I look here, I see the ethical ones that seem to be in this copy and the sports.
I'm a Lance Armstrong fan, so I click here where all the spending I mentioned in the Lance Armstrong Armstrong.
Now, if I just want to get a larger re-conductor, I could think, "What if I go through the subject?"
So I go back to step, and I get the perspective of the way.
Now I see Greg Lemond.
And so you get an idea that if you go through this kind of information, more specifically, more wide, zoom in, you don't just zoom in, you don't just look for it.
You do something that's actually a little bit different.
It's something in between, and we think it changes the way information can be used.
So I want to do this idea a little bit further with something like a little crazy.
What we did here is we took every single Wikipedia side and put it on a little sum.
The summary has a short, short run, and a symbol of the area that it comes out of.
I'm just showing the top 500 of the most popular Wikipedia sites.
But even in this limited view, we can do a lot of things.
So we get a sense of the topics that are most popular on Wikipedia.
I'm going to choose the topic now.
Now, after I've elected government, I realize that Wikipedia categos, the most to cover Time magazine is "Mens of the year."
This is really important because this is a insight that doesn't put in a single Wikipedia.
This is just to recognize when you go back and look at the whole thing.
And I can look at a particular one of these summarys, and then I can go into the theme Time magazine's theme of the year, and all of them see together.
Now, if I know all these people I know that the majority of government are euthanated, some of them come from science. Some of them are less, some of them come from the economy. Here's my boss. And one comes from the music area.
And interestingly, Bono is also a TED Prize winner.
So we can jump and look at all the TED Prize winner.
You see, we're putting the Web on the Web the first time, as if it's a net, not just from side, but much more abstract.
And so I want to show you what another surprise might be.
I'm just going to show you the New York Times website.
Pivot, this application -- I don't want to call it a browser; it's not a browser; it's really a browser, but you can look at websites -- and we can get this Zoom technology to every single website like this.
So I can go back and jump right into a specific soap.
That's why it's important because you just look through the website in this way, looking at all the Internet-based ways.
So I can zoom in in my walk in a particular period of time frame.
Here's the state of the whole demonstration that I've been looking for.
And I can predict everything I've seen today, repeat back.
And, if I step out and look at everything, I can maybe look at my search-to-face transition, here I have looked for Bing, or here, for live Lab's pioneer.
And from here I can go into the site and call it back.
It's a metaphor that's used over and over again, and every time it makes it bigger than the sum of the data.
Right now, in this world, we think data is a river.
We're talking about the flow of information.
We're talking about the "sbeass in information."
What if we could turn this situation around and put the Internet on the head so that instead of going from one to another, we can start to go from lots of things, and see patterns that would have been otherwise hidden?
If we can do this, then this information will be a new source of good information, maybe a new source of good information.
And, instead of just moving in information, we can get knowledge out of it.
And if we learn knowledge, maybe we can even pull out the wisdom.
So I hear you very much.
Everybody's talking about happiness today.
I have gotten some people to count the number of books that have been published with "Happiness" in the last five years, and they gave them about 40, and there were a lot more.
There's a massive wave of interest in happiness.
There's a lot of happiness in the sandth of happiness.
Everybody would like to make people happy.
But despite all these rivers, there are several cognitive cases that are almost impossible to think about happiness.
And my talk today is mostly done by these cognitive cases.
That's true for salmons who think about their own happiness, and it's true for scientists who think about happiness, because it turns out we're just as everyone else.
The first of these case is to give complexity a contradiction.
It turns out that the word is simply not a useful word anymore, because we apply it to many different things.
I think there's a certain sense of what we might be able to do, but in the big and whole, that's something we need to be surrounded, and we're going to have to take into account the complicated view of what well-being is.
The second case is a resemblance of life and memory: essentially it's between his life and his happy life or happy with his life.
And these are two very different concepts, and they're both thrown together in the idea of happiness.
And the third is the concentration illusion, and that is the unhappy fact that we can't think about a sense of prosperity, without causing meaning.
I mean, this is a real cognitive case.
There's just no way to get it right.
Now, I would like to start with an example of someone who had a question-and-a-half-a-half-a-half-half-a-half-half-the-sh joke after a story that was reported -- he said he had heard a symphony, and it was absolutely wonderful music, and at the end of the recording, there was a very circuitry sound.
And then he added, really quite emotional, which has a whole experience.
But that didn't.
What had been re-informed memories of the experience.
He had had the experience.
He had gotten 20 minutes of beautiful music.
They didn't count because he was a memory, he was a memory, and the memory was a memory that he had given.
What that really tells us is that we could think about ourselves and think about other people in the sense of two types of self.
There's a experience of self that lives in the present and knows the present is capable of seeing the past, but basically the present has.
It's the experience of self that the doctor is coming to -- you know, when the doctor says, "Do you know what it's like when I'm going to do this?"
And then there's a remembering self, and the remembering self is the one that gets up and gets the story of our lives, and it's the one that the doctor talks by saying, "How have you felt in the last time?"
or "How did your journey go to nightmares?" or something like that.
These are two very different units, the experience self and the remembering self, and the two of the re-educated is part of the term of happiness.
Now, the remembering self is a storyteller.
And that really starts with a fundamental reaction to our memories -- it immediately starts.
We don't just tell stories if we do it, tell stories.
Our memory tells us stories, which means we can keep our experiences from being a story.
And let me start with an example.
There's an old study.
These are real patients who are moving from painful persuasion.
I won't go into detail. It's not painful today, but it was painful, when this study was done in the 1990s.
They were asked to do all the 60 seconds over their pain.
And here are two patients. These are their records.
And you'll ask, "Who's gotten more yellow?"
And this is a very simple question.
Patient B has clearly gotten more yellow. His gut reflected longer, and every minute of pain, the patient A had patient B, and more.
But now there's another question: "How much did these patients think they were suffering?"
And here's a surprise.
And the surprise is that patients A had a much worse education on the gut as a patient.
The stories of gut levels were different, and because a very critical part of the story is how they end up.
And no of these stories is very, very large or great -- but one of them is clear -- but one of them is much worse than the other.
And the worse one is where pain was at the very end of his height. It's a bad story.
How do we know that?
Because we asked these people about their gut, and also much later, "How bad was the whole thing all?"
And she was much worse for A than B in the ecstatic.
Now, this is a direct conflict between the experience of self and the remembering self.
And he had clearly a bad time to experience self.
Now, what you could do with patient A, and we actually did clinical experiments, and it's been done, and it's actually done, and it works, you could actually put the re-informed re-eyed patient's sounded by just sucking the squirs in there without having a very famous face.
That will lead the patient to suffering, but only a little less and a lot less than before.
And if you do that for a few minutes, you have a sense that the experience of patient is worse, and you have made it worse, and you have a more rethinking self of patients's a lot better off, because now you have patients with a better story about your experience.
What is a story drew?
And that's true for the stories that give us memory and it's true for the stories that we invent.
Whereas a story is a dreadful, significant moment and end.
And end up, very, very important, and in this case, the end was very important.
Well, the experience of self lives his life.
It has moments of life, one after another.
And you ask, what happens to those moments?
And the answer is really simple. They're lost forever.
I mean, most moments of our lives -- and I've been able to make this out -- you know, psychological present is about three seconds long, which means that in a life there are about 600 million of them, and there are no traces of them for about a month. Most of them leave behind traces.
Most of them are completely ignored by the remembering self.
And yet, you get the impression that they should count that what happened during that moment of life is our lives.
It's the limited resource we use while we're on this planet.
And as we used it would seem to be important, but that's not the story that reminds self-interest.
So we have the reminding self and the experience self, and they're really quite different.
The biggest difference between them is time-making.
From the way to experience self, if you have a vacation and the second week is just as good as the first two-way vacation is twice as good as the one-way vacation.
That's not how it works for the remembering self at all.
For the most important self, a two-odd vacation vacation is not better than the one-on-one vacation, because there's no new memories of memories.
They didn't change the story.
And in this way, time is really the critical variables that distinguishes a remembering self from a experience, time has very little impact on this story.
Now, the remembering self makes more than remembering and telling stories.
It's actually the one that makes decisions because if you have a patient who has two guts in two different surgeons, and decides which he should choose, then the one who chose the memory is less bad and that's the surgeon that's going to be chosen.
The experience of self has no voice in this choice.
We don't actually choose between experience. We choose between memories of experience.
And even if we think about the future, we don't normally think of our future as an experience.
We think about our future as a re-educated memory.
And basically, you can look at this, you know, as a tyranny of self, and you can remember the remembering self as one that's sort of a experience-inffluence takes through experiences that doesn't need to experience self-interest.
I have the idea that if we do vacation, that's very common, that means we're doing vacation a lot in the service of the remembering self.
And that's a little hard to get, I think.
I mean, how much do we teach our memories?
This is one of the explanations that will give for the dose of the remembering self.
And when I think about it, I think of a vacation that we've done a few years ago in Antarctica, which was clearly the best vacation I've ever had, and I think quite often about how often I think about other vacations.
And I probably took my memories from these three-dimensional journeys, I would say for about 25 minutes in the last four years.
Now, if I had opened the orphanage with the 600 images that I'd spent another hour in it.
Well, these are three weeks, and they're the highest one and a half hours.
There seems to be an ingenuity.
Now, I like to be a little bit extreme, you know, how little Appetit I have on the toy of memories, but even if you do more of that, why do we give memories to the weight that we give to the weight that we give?
So I want you to think about a thought experiment.
Imagine your next vacation, you know that at the end of the vacation, all of your images are thrown out, and you get one at thenesian drug so you won't remember anything.
Now, would you choose the same vacation? And if you choose another vacation, there's a conflict between your two types of self and you have to think about how you decide this conflict, and that's really not obvious at all, because if you're thinking about it in the sense of time, you're going to get an answer, and if you could think of a different response.
Why do we look at vacations that we're studying is a problem that gives us a choice between the two species of self.
Well, the two ways of self throws two words from happiness.
There are actually two concepts of happiness that we can apply to one self.
So you can ask, how happy is the experience of self?
And then you would ask: How happy are the moments of life in life?
And they're all -- happiness for moment is a pretty complicated process.
What are the emotions that can be measured?
And by the way, we're now a pretty good idea of happiness with the time it's been given.
If you ask happiness about the very lucky self, it's a very different thing.
This is not about how happy a person lives.
It's about how happy or saving the person when they think about their lives.
Very different terms.
Everybody who is not different is going to be able to enlist the term of happiness, and I hear a lot of researchers about well-being that have been able to study the research of happiness for a long time.
The distinction between happiness and happiness of the past few years has been recognized, and now you're able to measure the two-month-olds.
The gallup Organization has a global survey where more than half a million people have been asked about what they think about their lives and their experiences, and there were other efforts in the direction.
So in the last few years, we've started to learn about the happiness of the two species of self.
And the most important lesson we have learned is that they're really different.
You know how satisfied someone with his life is, and it really doesn't teach them how much about how happy he lives and reversed.
Just to give you a sense of the correlation that correlation is about a tinker.
What does that mean is that if you meet somebody, and you would tell you, oh, his father's a two-meter-Maner, how much would you know about his size?
Well, you would know something about its size, but there's a lot of uncertainty.
They have so much uncertainty.
If I tell you that somebody has his life as eight on a scale of 10, you have much uncertainty about how happy he is with his experience.
So the correlation is a little bit low.
We know something about what happiness is about.
We know that money is very important, goals are very important.
We know that happiness is mostly happy to be satisfied with people we like to spend time with people we like.
There are other pleasures, but that's dominant.
So if you're lucky to maximize the two species of self, you're going to do very different things at the end.
The conclusion from what I said here is that we really shouldn't imagine happiness as a survivor.
It's a completely different term.
Well, very briefly, another reason we can't realize happiness is that we don't pay attention to the same things when we think about life and when we actually live.
So if you ask the simple question, how happy people in California aren't going to get the correct answer.
If you ask this question, you think people in California must be happier if you are, say, in Ohio.
And what happens is that if you think about life in California, think about the difference between California and other places, we say, in climate.
Well, it turns out that climate is not very important for the experience of self, and it's not even very important for the rethinking self that decides how happy people are.
But because it's responsible for self-interest, you can end up -- some people could pull off to California.
And it's kind of interesting to track what happens to people who are going to go to California in hope, happier.
Well, you're not going to be happier.
We know that.
But one thing will happen. They think they're happier because when they think about it, they'll remember how awful the weather was in Ohio, and they'll feel they've made the right decision.
It's very difficult to think about well-being, and I hope I've given you a sense of how hard it is.
Thank you.
Chris Anderson: Thank you. I have a question for you.
Thank you very much.
Now, when we mentioned a couple of weeks ago, you mentioned me that there was a pretty interesting result that came out of this gallup poll.
Is this something you can participate in, because you have a few minutes left?
Daniel Kahneman: Sure.
I think the most interesting result we found in the Gallup poll is a number that we had absolutely not expected to find.
We found that in terms of happiness.
When we looked at how feelings can represent income.
And it turns out that under a income of 60,000 dollars a year, for Americans, and this is a very large sample of Americans, about 40,000, but it's a very representative sample, under a 40,000 dollars a year.
CA: 60,000.
DK: 60,000.
60,000 dollars a year, people are unhappy, and they're increasingly terribly unhappy, ever going to be poorer.
We get an absolutely flat line about that.
I mean, I rarely saw flat lines.
What's obvious is that money doesn't create an experience, but lack of money is certainly a misery, and we can measure this misery very, very clear.
In the sense of self, the remembering self, you get another story.
The more money you make is the more satisfied you are.
It's not true of emotions.
CA: But Danny, all of the American best is about life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness.
If people were to take this kind of a redistribution, I mean, it seems to put everything on your head, everything we think we think, for example, in terms of tax policy and so on.
Is there a chance that politicians, that the country would generally take a kind of a invented and make it based on policy?
DK: You know, I think there's a recognition of happiness research in politics.
The recognition is slowly going to be in the United States, not a question, but in the United Kingdom it's happening right now and in other countries it's happening.
People are familiar with the fact that they should think about happiness when they think about politics.
It will take a while, and people will discuss whether they want to study experience, or whether they want to study life-changing, so we have to pretty soon lead that discussion.
As you can get lucky, it's very different than how you think and whether you think about the remembering self or whether you think about the experience of self.
That's going to affect politics, I think, in the years.
In the United States, you're doing something that's a good thing to measure the experience of the population.
That's what I think is going to be in the next few decades or two of the national statistics.
CA: Well, it seems to me, this issue is going to be, or at least the most interesting political debate to follow over the next few years.
Thank you for the invention of behavioral economics.
Thank you, Danny Kahneman.
Today, I'm going to talk to you about energy and climate.
And that might be surprised to be a little bit surprising because my full-time conversation about foundations mainly about vaccines and Saaticals to invent things that we need to invent and provide the poorest two billion better lives.
But energy and climate are extremely important for these people, in fact, more important than any other way on the planet.
We know climate-savanna means that the Saens won't grow over many years, we're not going to grow too much, or we're going to have too little rain, and things are going to change as they can't stop their fragile environment.
It leads to hunger. It leads to uncertainty. It leads to unimaginable.
So, climate change will be terrible for them.
And also, the price of energy is very important for them.
The fact is, if you could only reduce the price of one thing, you would have to reduce poverty in far most effective.
Well, the price of energy is about time.
In fact, progress is based on energy society.
The carbon revolution was a rapid time-to-face industrial revolution, and even in the 20th century, there was a rapid case in electricity prices, and so we have refrigerators, climate plants, we can make modern materials and so many things.
So we're in a wonderful situation with electricity in the rich world.
But if we reduce the price -- we're going to get half the price -- we're going to meet a new barrier and this barrier depends on CO2.
CO2 is a very clear planet, and the equation for CO2 is actually quite clear.
They sum up the carbon dioxide of the temperature that leads to temperature, and that temperature has some very negative consequences, and perhaps worse effects on the weather, and perhaps worse, that natural ecosystems can't adapt to such changes and so forth with all systems.
Now, the exact relationship between a carbon footprint and a result of temperature change, and where the other consequences are, there are some inertia, but not very many.
And there's certain inequality about how bad these consequences are, but they're going to be extremely bad.
I asked the top people more times, "Do we really get down to zero?
Aren't half or a quarter?"
The answer is, until we get close to zero, the temperature will continue.
So it's a big challenge.
It's very different than saying, we have a 3.5-foot truck that has to be under a three-foot bridge. You can think of it as you're able to suck up.
This is something that has to go down, to zero.
Well, we pushed a human carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billion tons.
Every American, about 20 tons. People from poor countries, less than one.
It's about five tons of every single planet.
And somehow we have to bring changes that are based on zero.
It's gone through the resemblance.
Just different economic changes have influenced it at all, and we have to go from rapidly increase to a reduces to zero.
This equation has four factors. A little multi-touch. You have this thing on the left -- CO2 that you want to get from zero, and that's used by the number of people who are using services on average, the average energy for every service and the CO2 that's being a leader per unit.
So let's look at each factor and think about how we get it to zero.
Probably one of those numbers must come close to zero.
Now this is fundamental alpha, but let's go through it.
First, we have the population.
Today, 6,8 billion people live.
And it's going to go to nine billion. That's a nine billion.
If we were very successful with new vaccines, health care and production medicine, we could probably be able to take 10 to 50 percent, but at the time we see a squatter around 1.3 dollars.
The second factor is the services we use.
That's all the food we eat, clothes, television, heating.
These are very good things and poverty-based services that are almost available on the planet.
It's great that this number is going up.
In the rich world, in the upper billion, we could probably make a little bit more sawry, and we could use less, but on average, the number will rise every year, and so more than double, the number of services that the service will be prepared for each person.
Here we see a very basic services. Is there light at home so you can read the homework?
And these students don't have it, so they go out and read their school services under the street light.
Well, in effect, the E, the energy per service, there's finally good news.
We have something that is not up.
Occasionally, in the light sector, through other cars, through new methods in the houses, there are many services that you can get swam in the power, wirelessly, 103 00:05 50,000:05.05: 00:05 :53,000, some services will be re-free.
Some of them are re-educated 90 percent.
In other services like manufacturing, 105 00:05 — 006,000 — 00:05 — —05 or air transport, or air transport, is the space for improvements.
In total, if we're optimistic, we might get a speech-based speech three or maybe even a factor.
But for the first three factors, we've gone from 26 billion to maybe all the best 13 billion tons of tons, and that's just not enough.
So let's look at the fourth factor -- and this is going to be a key factor -- this is the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of energy.
It's the question of whether you can get that on zero.
If you burn coal, no.
If you burn natural gas, no.
Almost every manufacturing method for power emits today is a carbon footprint, except renewable energy and nuclear energy.
So what we need to do on a global level is to create a new system.
We need energy wonderful.
Now, if I use the term "Wunder", I don't mean the impossible.
The microprocessor is a miracle. The PC is a miracle.
The Internet and the service is a miracle.
People here have been able to develop a lot of these wonders.
Normally, there's no Deadline that you need a miracle to a certain date.
Normally, you're just kind of just standing in and some come, some don't.
But in this case, we have to give full gas and get a miracle in very short time.
Well, I wondered, how can I really bring this over?
Is there a natural joke, a demonstration that screams people's imaginations?
I remember last year when I brought mosquitos and somehow liked people.
The idea was really a physical idea for her, you know, there are people living with mosquitos.
For me, this is a energy that I noticed.
I decided that the free flies of light would be my year-old contribution to the environment here.
So here are some natural flies.
You've told me they're not standing. In fact, they're not even left the glass.
Well, there are all kinds of players like this, but they don't get much.
We need solutions either, or we have multiple scales and unimaginableness, and although there are many directions where people are looking for it, I really see just five that can afford these big requirements.
I left months, geothermal, fusion and biofuels.
Now, this may afford a moderate and if they're doing better than I would expect, but my core thing here is that we have to work on all five of those, and we can't give them a sawretched job because they have significant problems.
Let's first look at the burning fossil fuels, either coal or natural gas.
What you have to do there might be easy, but that's not. You have to get all the COhorn that comes out of the firestone, catch pressure, and then put it in somewhere, and hope it's there.
There are some pilots that are creating this on a 60 percent level, but it's going to be very difficult to get, and a re-engineering for carbon dioxide is a big challenge, but the biggest problem here is the camp time question.
Who will make it safe?
Who can guarantee something that literally can spend a lot bigger than any kind of garbage that you can imagine from nuclear and other things?
That's a lot of volume.
So that's a hard nuss.
Next, nuclear power.
The three big problems, the cost of the rest of the countries, especially high-tech countries, and the question is that you really feel that nothing can go wrong despite the human work is not used for weapons.
And then what do you do with the waste?
Because despite not very large, there's a lot of thinking.
People have to feel good at this. 18400:10: 00: 00:10: 25,000: So three very difficult problems that might be able to eat.
So three very difficult problems that might be able to be able to eat, and that's why you should work on.
The last three of the five I've gathered together.
They're the adventure of energy that they're often called.
And they also have -- even though it's great that they don't need fuel -- they have some pieces.
One is the density of energy that creates these technologies dramatically lower than the power plants.
These are energy farms, you talk about many square kilometers, thousands of times more areas than a normal power plant.
And also, these sources of underwear.
The sun doesn't seem all day long, it doesn't seem like it's not always crying every day, and the wind doesn't seem like it all the time.
So you have to be dependent on these sources, a way to have energy in times when you're not available.
So there's big price of price. There's challenges in transmission, and if we say that the energy source is outside the country, you don't just need the technology, you also have to deal with the risk of where the energy is coming from.
And there's the camp problem.
And to show the dimensions, I've made all sorts of batteries that are made: The cars, computers, cell phones, cell phones, everything. And that's what I've been using with the amount of electronic energy that the world uses, and I found that all batteries that we could produce now, less than 10 minutes of the total energy.
So we need a big breakthrough here, something that will be 100 better than the approach to time.
It's not impossible, but it's not that easy.
That happens when you try to get these underseas of things, say, 20 percent -- 30 percent of the use of use.
If you want to support 100 percent of it, you need an incredible miracle battery.
Well, where should we go, what's the right approach?
A "Man has projects"? How do we get to the target?
What we need is a lot of companies working on this.
In each of these five areas, we need at least 100 people.
Many of you will say, those are crazy! That's good.
I think there are many, many, many that are already involved there.
Bill Gross has several companies, among other things, called the great solar technologies that we have.
Vinod Khosla invested in dozens of companies doing great things and interesting opportunities, and I'm trying to support that.
Nathan Myhrvold and I fund a company that, perhaps, is surprisingly, is surprisingly, the nuclear approach.
There are some innovations in nuclear areas; modular, liquid.
The development in this industry has stopped in some time ago, so it's not a big surprise that some good concepts are flying around.
The terrain traffic accepts that instead of a part of the Big Bang, one percent, the U235, we decided to burn the 99% 38.
That's a pretty crazy idea.
But in fact, you had thought about it for a long time, but you could never simulate whether it was going to work, but since there's been modern supercomputers, you can simulate it and see that, yes, the right materials are going to be able to do it that way.
And because you burn these 99 percent, the cost offilt is much better.
In fact, you burn the waste, and you can even use the waste from today's reactors as a drive.
Instead of putting your head on it, you just burn it. It's a great thing.
The origins are used, a little bit like a candle.
You can see that it's a kind of pillar, often called "Whatade wave Rea reactor."
It really solves the fuel problem.
Here's a picture of an orphan in Kentucky.
This is the waste that 99% has, you have the part that's burned today, so it's called a sawn of a sneop.
This was the U.S. for hundreds of years.
And if you're a ocean-suasive and easy, you get enough fuel for the rest of life on the planet.
You know, there are many challenges, but there's an example of many hundreds of concepts we need to get forward.
Let's think about how we should measure our success.
What should our stuff look like?
Well, we go to the goal we need to get to, and then we talk about the meantime.
Many talk about 80 percent reduction to 2050.
It's really important that we're going to get there.
The rest of 20 percent are produced in poor countries, and they're still going to be a little agriculture, and hopefully the forest becomes a forest and cement to clean up.
So to reach these 80 percent, the industrial states, including countries like China, have to completely rethink their electricity.
The other note says whether we use the zero-sum technology, whether it's in all developed countries, and we're on the way to get them to the rest of them.
That's great.
This is going to be a key element of this stuff.
If we go back from there, what should the 2020 stuff look like?
It should be the two elements again.
We should use the effect of creating the speech to get the path, the less we emit, the less carbon footprint, and also the temperature.
But actually, this note for the things that we do not have to do, which is not completely lead to the great speech, just the same, or even something that is less important, which is the speed of innovation for this breakthrough.
We need to track these breakthroughs with full gas, and we can measure that in companies, in pilot projects and regulation.
There are many great books to this issue.
Al Gore book, "We have the election," and David McKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air."
They really go through it and create a framework where this can be a wide-down, because we need support for all sides.
There are some things that have to come together.
That's a wish.
A very concrete wish that we invent this technology.
If you're just a wish for the next 50 years, I could choose the president, a vaccine, and I love that, or I could choose that wish, which is a half-a-half-dollar energy price, I'll be invented without CO2.
This has the biggest impact.
If we don't get that wish, the grave between the long-term and the short-term people will think terrible, between the United States and China, between poor and rich countries, and almost all of those two billions will be much worse.
So what do we need to do?
What are the things that I do?
We need to use more research money.
If countries look in places like cosmoscopes, they shouldn't just talk about CO2.
You should talk about this strategy, and you would be shocked by the ridiculous money that are spent on these innovative ways.
We need market incentives, CO2 taxes, Cap & Trade something that creates a price signal.
We need to spread the message.
We need to take dialogues and to lead full and fully the things that are being done by the government.
It's an important wish, but I think we can meet it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Just to understand a little better -- first, can you give us an idea of the scale of this investment?
Bill Gates: To put the simulation on a supercomputer, all of the big scientists we've done, we just need a few 10 million, and even if we tested our materials in a Russian reactor to make sure that it works, you're only in the 100 million.
The hard step is to find the building of the first reactor, to find another billion, the Regulars and the place in fact, the first one.
Once the first thing is done, when it's as hidden, it's clear, because the economy, the energy density is so different from nuclear energy, as we know it.
CA: So to understand that right, that means building deep into the ground almost like a vertical nuclear fuel, that use a great chimpanzee, and then the process starts to go up and work on the bottom?
BG: Right. Right now, you've got to fill the reactors up, so there are many people and lots of control that can go wrong. This thing you open it up and put things in there or out. That's not good!
But if you have very cheap fuel, you can fill it for 60 years -- think of a pillar -- that you buried without all the complexity.
And it's sitting there and it's going for 60 years, and then it's done.
CA: A nuclear reactor that provides a solution to the garbage.
BG: Yeah. Well, what happens to the garbage: you can sit it -- there's a lot less garbage with that method -- you take it and put it in the next reactor and you burn it.
And we start by taking the waste that exists already in these refrigerators or dry effects, which is our launch.
So, what this reactor was a problem that we fill in, and that's a dramatic waste in the process as this process is dramatic.
CA: But while you've talked to different people around the world about these opportunities.
What's the biggest interest in this way to really do this?
BG: Well, we haven't got a place to go out and have a lot of interesting open rules for everything that's called aukar, and there's a lot of interest in the name, and there's a lot of interest in Russia, India, India, and I've met the minister of energy and talked about how this fits to energy.
I'm optimistic. You know, French and Japanese have done something in the direction.
This is a version of one that was done.
This is an important step forward, but it's like a faster reactor, and some countries have built this, so everyone who's done a quick reactor, a candidate for our first.
CA: In your mind, time frames and probability of something really like this?
BG: Well, we need one of these scalable, re-engineering things that are very cheap, we have 20 years to invent, and then we have 20 years to go.
This is sort of the Deadline that has shown us the environment models that we have to stop.
And, you know, terrainPower, if everything's going well, and that's a big wish, that could easily keep it.
And luckily, there are dozens of companies today, and we need hundreds of companies that work just like the approaches that work for their pilots to do it.
And it would be best if there were several people to use it, because then you could use a mixture.
In case we need a solution.
CA: Is this the big breakthrough that you know is the squid that you know?
BG: A energy process is the most important.
That would have been the environmental challenge without the challenge, but it's still so important.
There are other innovative companies in the nuclear sector.
You know, we don't know about the work as well as this, but there's the modular method, that's another approach.
There's a liquid reactor, which seems a little bit difficult, but maybe they say that about us.
And so there are different, but the nice thing about this is that a molecule has a million times the amount of energy, say, a coal molecule, and that's why if you can deal with the problems and the road is mostly the radiation, the footprint, the cost, the cost, the potential, the effects on land and other things, almost in one of your own Liga.
CA: If that doesn't work, what does it do?
Do we need to have a re-con-engineering to try and keep the temperature stable?
BG: If you come to this situation, it's like you've eat too much, and you're just in front of a heart attack, what do you do? You need a heart surgery or something like that?
There's a research process called geoengineering that's allowing various techniques to get the warming up to get 20 or 30 years longer to get us together.
This is just an insurance method.
You hope we don't need that.
Some people say you shouldn't even work on insurance because you might do that, so you're going to be eat, because you know you're going to save your heart surgery.
I don't know if it's smart to take care of this problem before, but there's a discourse in geoengineering about whether you should have that available if things are coming faster or this innovation needs longer than we expect.
CA: climate acceptist: Have you or two sentences for you to convince you, maybe?
BG: Well, unfortunately, the skeptics live in very different camps.
The ones who make scientific arguments are very little.
Do they say there's negative effects that have to do with the clouds that are going to move?
There are very, very few things that they can even say, of which there is a chance in a million.
The main problem here is the same as AIDS.
You make the mistake now, and you pay a lot later on.
And so the idea is, if you have all kinds of urgent problems, in something that you have only later -- and that's not so clear that the investment isn't necessarily the most bad scenario, and there are people in the rich world looking at IPCC and saying, okay, that's not a big drama.
The fact is that this uncertainty should worry about us.
But my dream here is that if you can make economic, and at the same time the CO2 level, the skeptics say, "Okay, don't care that it's not a carbon sawry, I wish it's going to accept it, but I'm probably going to accept it because it's cheaper than the previous method."
CA: And that would be your answer to the Bjiborg arguments, that if you use all of those times and energy to solve the problem of CO2 problems, all the other goals below, the poverty ring, the rethinking malaria and so on, there's a stupid waste of resources to invest money in the way that we can do better.
BG: Well, the actual spending of research -- say the U.S. should spend 10 billion a year more than they do today -- that's not that dramatic.
They shouldn't suffer other things.
You come to large-scale money, and you can talk about people here, if you have something that is not economic, and try to fund that. For me, most of the waste is happening here.
It's because, you're very short before you're a cost-effective and a lot of learning curves, and I think we should try more things that have the potential to be much more cheaper.
If you get the re-educated, you get a very high energy price, you can only stop the rich.
I mean, each of us here could spend five times the amount of energy in our lifetime without changing its lifestyle.
But for the lower two billion, it's a disaster.
And even Lomborg thinks.
His new mamma is now, "Why don't the research be done anymore?"
He's still going to be able to snudge through his former stories, with the skeptics, but he understood that this is a very sludge group, and therefore he's now putting the research.
And this is a thought that I think is appropriate.
The research, it's just crazy, how little it can be supported.
CA: Bill, I think I'm talking for almost all people here when I say I really hope your wish will be true. Thank you very much.
BG: Thank you.
I'd like to tell you something that I'd been able to do a few months ago writing a article for Italian Wired.
I've always been studying my synthesisonymter's dictionary, but I've been done with the process of text, and I've already noticed that I've never really walked into my life what the word "bead."
I'll read you the one.
"Because, obesity, helpless, helpless, snuck, stumbling, snuck, snuck, snuck, snuck, snuck, fuck, fucking, paralyzed, paralyzed, paralyzed, fuck, fuck, sneces, snuck, snucking out of traffic, sneces, snucking, snucking, snucking, sn
Antonyme: Geund, strong, powerful."
I read this list loudly, and I had to laugh first, and it was so ridiculous, but I just came up with "the conversation" and I couldn't talk anymore, and I had to stop reading and collect myself after this sort of a wordfluor and connected the emotional shock.
Of course, this was a French, old syncyonym. I just thought the copy has to be pretty old.
But in fact, it was an issue on the early 1980s when I was just starting with the basic school, and started building my self-assssembly environment outside my family, and also in terms of other children and the rest of the world around me.
And thank God, I didn't use synthesis at the time.
If I were to take this post-conflict world that someone like me would be able to perceive as a person who can't run positive, but today I'm going to be a chance and adventure that I've experienced.
So I immediately called the online issue of 2009, and I expected to find a more re-evolving contribution here.
Here's the factized version of this one.
Interestingly, it's not much better.
Especially, the last two words are searonyms and "ganz" and "se."
But it's not just the words.
It's about what we think about people that we describe with these words.
It's about the values that are putting in those words, and how we build these values.
Our language is influenced our thinking, and how we see the world and the people around us.
Many old societies, including the Greeks and the X-ray, have really believed that the language of a river has a great force because what you're talking about is able to manifest themselves.
So, what do we really want to manifest -- a disabled person or a powerful human?
In fact, if you're a human, eightless child, it could be enough to join them and to give them ideas.
Wouldn't it be nice to open your doors?
A human who opened door was my child child at A.I. You're a institute in copy of Delaware.
He's called Dr. Pizzutillo. A Italo-American name, which you can think of, most Americans could not speak correct, so he's always been called Dr. P.
And Dr. P. wore very flies, and was very flies, and it was just created for kids.
I found the time I spent in this hospital just great -- up to my physio therapy.
I had to repeat individual exercises often with these thick, re-con-fetched, re-in-the-art species -- in different colors -- you know, to build my leg leg, and I hated that change more than anything else. I hated them. I hated them. I hated them. I hated them.
And imagine, even when I was a kid with Dr. P.C., trying to stop that exercises, without success.
And one day he looked at me at one of my exercises -- these exercises were just tired and slamous -- and he said to me, "Wow, Aimee, you're such a powerful, powerful and young girls, you're going to be a change one day.
And if you create it, I'll give you hundreds of dollars."
That was, of course, a simple trick of Dr. P. P., so I didn't want to do the exercises that I wanted to become the most powerful five-year-old girl in the hospitals, but he actually brought me to see my daily exercise exercise with new eyes, so that's a new and promising experience.
And I wonder today how much his vision of me as a strong and powerful young girl, and I could imagine seeing myself as a natural, powerful and a human-to-in-the-shelf person.
This is just one example of many, many adults in power composition can create the imagination of a child's imagination.
But like the already synthesis examples from the synonymer dictionaries, our languages doesn't make us a space, a little bit of a thing we would want to do: to enable each individual to see themselves as powerless people.
Our language is based on social changes that have been solved in many cases by a technological change.
From the point of view, you can say that my legs, the laser brain-to-pe-resolution, knee-to-face, knee-in-law, aging and artificial hip-deaps, that allow people to actually use their possibilities and use their boundaries that have given their natural fate, not to speak from social Networking platforms, people will allow themselves in ways,
And if you look around the world, we're able to orient groups that they're going to pick themselves up.
So maybe this technological change is clearer because there's always been another truth, which is that every human society can give something special and very power and that human ability to adapt to our biggest plus.
The human ability to adapt -- this is an interesting story, because people always ask me how to talk to jokes and I'm going to stand up with jokes and I'm going to tell you something: this sentence has never been fun for me, and I've always felt very uncomfortable with people about it, and I think, "I understand why."
This sentence of a Widion is a set of a way to eat success or happiness depends on a challenge without being able to be able to be able to be able to get a challenge to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to get my life successful, because I could get the possible case of a living with a prosthetic life, or whatever I've been doing with my disability.
But the truth is that we change. Of course we're involved in the challenge, whether it's physical, emotional or even both.
And I say that's good.
Widrity is not a obstacle we need to curve to get better with our lives.
It's just about our lives.
And I tend to see jokes as my shadow.
Sometimes I realize it's very present sometimes, it's not very hard to see, but it's constantly constantly at me.
And I don't want to make a difference or a person's impact, and the gravity of a human being is a human.
There are a lot of challenges in life, and challenges that are just real and every person is about it, but the question is not whether we get to Widria or not, but how do we get to it?
So we're not just responsible for bringing people to preserve fates, but also to prepare them to get good.
And we don't usually think of our kids as we give them the feeling they can't adapt.
You have to separate two things: to be the medical fact that you're broken and the other social opinion about whether I'm disabled or not.
And to be honest, the only real and remain disability that I had to sit apart is that the world is constantly able to describe me with these definitions.
In our wish, to protect people who are at heart and share the cold truth about their medical progeria, or even a progeria of life that they expect, we don't have to fit the reason for that, that's actually a stwam.
Maybe this is the concept that is just watching what's broken in one box, and how we fix it for every single disability than the pathology.
If we don't treat a human being, and we don't quite have to perceive all its forces and possibilities, and we recognize that in addition to the natural struggle that they may have to lead, another disease.
We're putting a human being that has value for our society.
So we have to look beyond the Patology and focus on all the areas of human possibilities.
But most importantly, it's between the perception of our inesulity and our great inventors, there is a connection.
We should not defy those challenging times, not to defy them, we should not try to avoid them, nor should we return them under the carpet, but to see the rethink of opportunity.
It's maybe to me, to make clear that we don't necessarily have to overcome jokes, but that we are open to re-intentione them to put them on the lap, to use a struggle and maybe even dance with it.
And maybe we can do it, irrationalness as something natural and useful and feel so empathetic by their presence.
In this year we celebrate 200th birthday from Charles Darwin and when he wrote about evolution 150 years ago, Darwin, in my eyes, he had gotten into something very exciting in the human character.
I would write it like this: not the most powerful thing about its species, and not the most smartest of its species, but the change that can adapt best.
And conflict comes creativity.
Not only from Darwin's work we know that the ability of human beings to survive and to survive is the fight of human mind to turn through conflict.
So again, change and adaptation are the greatest skills of human beings.
And maybe we know just what wood we're snucking when we're really being done.
Interestingly, that's the sense of Widrity, a perception of what I think is a sense of our own power.
We can give ourselves something like this.
We can give Widrity a new meaning that goes beyond hard times.
Maybe we can see jokes as change.
We have a change in the way that we haven't adapted yet.
I think the biggest damage we have to deal with ourselves is we should be normal.
Let's face it, who's normal?
There is no normal.
There's the evil. The guy. But not the normal thing. And you would want to know this poor person really, gray person, really, if they really did.
I don't think so.
It would be great if we could put this paradigm against a different paradigm or a different strength, to form it even a little bit more dangerous, to connect the forces of very many children, and to bring them into a very special and valuable skills to society.
And thropy found that we have always asked people to be one of our society: to be smart and to afford a contribution.
There are evidence that Neanderthals have been around 60,000 years ago, and people with severe physical injuries, and maybe that happened because life experience was valuable to the survival of these people.
They didn't look at these people as broken and sawam, they were treated as a thing and a value.
A few years ago, I grew up in the city where I grew up in a food market in the north of Pennsylvania, and I stood there a Scheffel tomato.
It was summer, and I had Shorts.
And I hear a guy saying, "Well, if that's not Aimee Mullins."
And I turn around and I see this older man. I had no idea who he is.
And I said, "Sorry, sir, we know? I can't remember you."
And he said, "Well, you wouldn't remember me.
When I first saw you, I took you out of your mother's belly."
Oh, so that's the one.
And of course, it's done, of course.
This was Dr. Kean, a man I just knew from my mother of mine over this day because I, of course, came to my birthday two weeks late.
The doctor of pre-deathuaries for my mother was on vacation, and so my parents could bring the man to the world, not at all.
And because I was born without a syringe legs, and my feet were thrown to them, and I had just a few toes on this one and a few toes at the other foot, he was the bribes, this stranger had to bring the bad news.
He said to me, "I had to tell your parents that you would never walk, and never be as moving as other children or that you could never live an independent life, and since then you've just gotten me out."
And what I found out is that he had collected newspapers from my entire childhood, whether I had won a letter in the second grade of class at Halloween, whether I was in the Parade with the Parade, whether I had my tribe or a sport victory or a sport victory, and he used these clip victory to teach his students from the Hahnemann Medical School and the Hershey Medical School.
And he called this part of his course the X factor, the potential of the human will.
You can't just tell enough how this factor can be a quality of life for people.
And Dr. Kean said, "I learned that kids don't always get something else, and even if they get a little bit of support, if you give children children a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a chance to reach themselves, children can get a lot."
Look, Dr. Kean changed his thinking.
He understood that the medical diagnosis, and how someone goes around it, two different things are.
And I changed my thinking over time, if they asked me about 15 years old, whether I had been able to exchange my prosthetic legs and bones, I wouldn't have gotten a second.
I really wanted to make a difference at the time.
If you ask me this today, I'm not so sure.
And this happened, WEIL, I experienced something with my legs, and not a sludge of that experience.
And maybe that change could happen because I've been so many people who have opened up to me instead of looking at people who wanted to join me or think about an idea.
You see, it really takes just one person who's affecting you how you can manifest your forces, and you're through.
If you allow someone to activate your own, your own forces -- human spirit is so dreadful -- if you can do this, and open it up for someone in a critical moment, you're a very good teacher for these people.
They bring them to open their own doors.
The actual meaning of the word "educate" grew into the word "educe."
It means bringing something out in a way that's the potential to enact it.
Again, what potential do we want to call?
In the '60s, in the U.K., a case study was done, and then we turned Gymnasia into total schools.
They call this "Piring Trials" in the United States, which we call it "Tracking."
The students are shared after notes.
And the A student is going to be more difficult to get the better teachers and so on.
They then gave them about a three-month period of students with a "suck" that they gave them very well. They were Asse, they were very clever, and after these three months, they really wrote one.
And of course, it sucks to hear that heart was told that the next one was told they were just enough.
And then it was the same after three months.
But only those who were still in school -- were from students who had sat down to school.
And it was critical to this study that the teachers weren't thrown out.
The teachers didn't know that something was changed.
They were just told that they were the one-and-a-half-one, and they were the students with the note enough, and they taught them something, and they treated them.
The only real disability is a broken mind that has broken, no longer been hope, and it doesn't find any more beautiful, and it doesn't mean our natural, child curiosity, and our preventing ability to eat.
But if we can support the human mind to continue hoping to find themselves and other people around them, to be curious and re-intentioned, we really do our forces positive.
If a mind has this quality, we can create a new reality and new form of forms.
I want to end with a poem that was a by a persuaded by a persuaded by a 19th century called Haf in 14th century, and by the friend of Dembois, and the poem is telling me, "The God knows four words," "Jedes, not the God of the name, not the god of thebot, but the god of God who knows just four words, and that constantly knows, dancing with me."
Come on, dance with me. Thank you very much.
How would you want to be better than you are right now?
And I said, by a few changes in your genes, a better memory -- pre-eyed, more and more quickly, more quickly.
Or you want to be fit, stronger, more force.
Do you want to be more attractive and more attractive?
How about living longer at good health?
Or maybe you're one of those who've always been looking for more creativity.
What would you like most?
What would you like to have if you could only have one?
creativity.
How many people would choose creativity?
Just take your hands. Let me see.
A few. Probably about as many creative people here.
That's very good.
How many would decide for a good memory?
And a few more.
How about fitness?
A few less.
What about longevity?
Ah, the majority. I like to think of that as a doctor.
If you could only have one of them, it would be a whole different world.
Is this just a education?
Or maybe it's possible?
evolution has been a different subject here on the TED conference, but today I want to give you a doctor's view.
The great genes in the 20th century, T.G. Dobhansky, who was also a communication in the Russian Orthodox church, wrote a approach called "Nich a cover in biology does not make sense of the light in evolution."
Now, if you're one of those who are not proof of biological evolution, this would be a very good time to turn your listening to your personal device -- I'm going to give you the permission -- and maybe you can take a look at cathedral schools, which is wrong because nothing in this talk will make you any sense.
But if you accept biological evolution, do you think this is just about the past, or is it about the future?
Is it a different way or is it true to us?
This is another view of the tree of life.
In this picture, I've put a bus as a center of despair in all directions, because if you look at the Rif you look at the tree of life, all the existential special in the top of this two-way terms of evolutionary terms: they've lived; it's been a bust; it's been a strength and strength.
The human part of this bus, far at the end, of course, is what we're most interested in.
We're two of us together to modern chimpanzees about six or eight million years ago.
In this period, maybe 20 or 25 different species of hominids.
Some have come and walked.
We've been here for about 400,000 years.
It seems like we're right away from the other parts of the building of life, but actually the biggest part, are the fundamental mechanisms that our cells are pretty much the same.
I'm sure you can pull out of it and create the mechanisms of a common bacterium to produce the protein of the human insulin, which is used to treat the diamonds?
This is not like Humaninsulin; this is the same protein that's chemically remarkably euglid from what comes out of the pancreatic.
And so, in fact, where we're talking about bacteria, is it aware that each of us in our guts leads more bacteria than it is in the rest of our bodies?
Maybe 10 times the amount.
I mean, do you think about it when Antonio Damasio asks your self-asio, do you think about the bacteria?
Our gut is a wonderful gas environment for these bacteria.
It's warm; it's dark; it's a sadolescence; it's very comfortable.
And you're all going to offer you nutrients that they could only offer without effort their patient.
It's really a easier way to bacterial, with a bribe of the unintended, ever resemblance of pride.
But otherwise, you're a wonderful environment for these bacteria, just as important to your life.
They help in the re-constructence of essential nutrients, and they protect you against certain diseases.
But what will come in the future?
Are we in a kind of evolutionary balance in a species?
Or are we going to be a little different -- something that might even be adapted to the environment?
Now, let's step back to the time of the Big Bang 14 million years ago -- the Earth, the solar system, about four and a half billion years ago -- the first signs of creatures, maybe three to four billion years ago on Earth -- the first -- the first -- the first two to four billion organisms, maybe 800 or a billion years -- and then the human species that are generating in the last 13 years.
In this huge unrephony of the universe, life on Earth is just about measuring the animal kingdom, like a single Tak, and the human life, a small notes.
That's what we were.
This is also the conversation worth of this talk, so I hope it has you.
Now, when I was a newling on college, I mean my first biology class.
I was fascinated by the elephant and beauty of biology.
I fell in love with the power of evolution, and I found something very basic: in most of the existence of life, in a single-scale organism, a cell, and all the genetic information of cells in both of the daughter cells are kept on.
But at the time, as more cellular organisms emailed, things started changing.
It's sex plant-like plant that's going to happen.
And really important, with the introduction of sexuality, the genome is going to continue to be able to get rid of the rest of the body.
In fact, you might say that the inesomeness of death of our body is a sexy moment in the same way that sexuality does.
Now, I have to get up when I was a college student, I thought, okay, sex/Tod, death for sex/Tod, it seemed pretty good at the time, but with every year, it's too much more doubt to my increasingly doubt.
I came to understand the feelings of George Burns who did his show in Las Vegas in the '90s.
And one night, there's a clones on his hotel door.
He opens the door.
He stands a beautiful show of show.
She looks at him and says, "I'm here for super-ex."
"That's wonderful," George says, "I'm going to take the soup."
I came to the idea that when I was a doctor, I was working in a different way than the goal of evolution -- not a squealling, but a different way.
I tried to keep the body.
I wanted to keep healthy.
I wanted to re-evolving health to a disease.
I wanted us to live a long and healthy life.
Evolution is all about the electrically of the genome to the next generation, adaptation and survival of generations.
From an evolutionary point of view, you and I'm developed as a carbon rocket to send the genetic fragments into the next level of orbit to get into the sea.
I think we would all understand the mood that Woody Allen brought to expression when he said, "I don't want to reach out to my work.
I don't want to get it by not sterile.
Evolution doesn't mean to prefer the longest life.
It's not necessarily the most privileged, the most vulnerable or the most speed, and not even the most compelling.
Evolution privileged the creatures that adapt best to your environment.
It's a single test of survival and success.
The reason why we have bacteria available is that thermophilphilans are there, and by doing so, the snarrator survive differently, if fish were there, it would be vacuums to the consequence, yet they've managed to make it a habitable environment for themselves.
So what that means is, if we look back at what's happening in evolution, and how we think about people's place in evolution, and particularly how we look forward to the next stage, I would say there's a series of opportunities.
The first is that we're not going to be able to grow.
We've reached a kind of balance.
And the reasons for this would be that it was first done by medicine, we had a lot of genes that would have been picked out and had been removed from the population.
And secondly, we as a species, we've been so able to re-evolving our environment, that we've managed to adapt to us, and we're adapting them.
And by the way, we go and we sat down and scream and sne us so much that you can't say you're necessary to find out isolation for evolution, rather than finding.
One second possibility is that it's going to be a traditional way of being, of course, in terms of the forces of nature.
And the argument here would be that the wheels of evolution are slow, but they're incredibly euthanated.
And so far the isolation goes when we're a species-specific planet, there will be isolation and the changes of the environment that might produce evolution in a natural way.
But there's a third way, a squatter, fascinating and a scary possibility.
I call it neo-E revolution -- the new development that is not just natural, but led by us as individuals.
Now, how could this happen?
How could it be possible that we do this?
Let's start looking at reality that people today, in some cultures, make decisions about their offspring.
They are, in some cultures, the choice to have more men than women.
It's not necessarily good for society, but it's what the individual and family decides.
So think if it wasn't only possible to choose the gender of your child, but also to take the body of genetic adaptations that would cure disease and if it were possible to do it.
What if you could make genetic changes to get diabetes or Alzheimer's disease or a reduction of cancer or stroke?
Wouldn't you want to make these changes in your genes?
If we look forward, these kinds of changes will be increasingly possible.
Human genome Project started in 1990, and it took 13 years.
It cost 7 billion dollars.
In the next year, when it was done in 2004, you could do the same for 20 million dollars in three to four months.
Today, you can have a sequence of three billion base pairs of human genomes to a price of about 20,000 and a week in space of about a week.
It will not take long, until the reality will be that there will be 1,000 dollars of human genomes, and it will be increasingly available for everyone.
A week ago, the National Academy of Engineeringaper Prize for Francis Arnold and willemaper, two scientists who developed independent techniques that encourage the natural process of evolution to work faster and wish to make proteins more efficient in a more efficient way -- what Frances Arnold calls "The Infinity Arnold."
A few years ago, the Lasker ice cream was able to fly to the scientist Shinya Yamanaka for his research in which he took a adult skin cell, and through the manipulation of only four genes that remained four genes to make them a plucko cell -- a cell in the body is able to become any cell in your body.
These changes are in the community.
The same technology that can make the human insulin in bacteria that can't only serve viruses but can also serve the immune to other viruses.
Whether you believe it or not, it's an experimental study in gang with vaccines that have been built into the cells of a taboo.
Can you imagine something good that comes from tabak?
This is all reality today, and in the future, much more possible.
So imagine only two other small changes.
You can change the cells in your body, but what if you could change the cells to your neighbor?
What if you could change the sperm and eggs, or the fresh eggs, to give your children a better chance for a healthier life -- a diabetes, re-emophilia, re-emophilia, risk of cancer?
Who doesn't want healthier kids?
And then the same technology, the same motor of science, that can allow the changes to avoid disease, could also help us adopt super-Ate super-Atid superpowers -- the better memory.
Why haven't the stroke of a Ken Jennings h, especially if you can expand it with the next generation of Watson?
Why not have the fast muscle fibers that will allow you to run faster and longer?
Why no longer live?
These will be incredibly unintended.
And if we're on a place where we can continue to go on to the next generation, and we can adopt the attributes that we want, we will be transformed by old-Saharan revolution.
We're going to have a process that may be able to take 100,000 years to the rule, and we can rely on it for thousands of years -- and maybe even the next 100 years.
These are decisions that you're looking at, or the grandchildren, you have to deal with.
Do we apply these decisions to a society that is better, which is more successful?
Or will we choose different ways of putting in a number of ways that we want for some of us and not for others?
Are we going to form a society which is more a more powerful and more a more re-educated, more robust and more rethinkable?
These are the kinds of questions that we need to be able to meet.
And the most profound of all, will we ever be able to develop the wisdom and the wisdom that we need to make these decisions?
Good like evil, and earlier than you might think, these decisions will be on us.
Thank you.
I want you to imagine something now, a tragic robot that gives you a sense of a re-educated skills, or a different one that helps you to stand up and go back.
We call this robot exoskeleton at Berkeley Bionics.
You're not different than anything that you put in the morning and you're putting the extra strength on, and that's going to continue your speed, and that's going to help you keep your balance.
This is actually the true re-eyed man and machine.
But not only that -- if you're a stumbling and interconnected with the universe and other devices out there.
It's not just a crazy idea.
Now to show you what we're working on, we start talking about the American soldiers that are on average of about 100 pounds on his back, and it's the requests that they should carry more equipment.
Of course, this leads to some major implications -- back injury, 30 percent of them -- chronic back injury.
So we thought we were going to take this challenge and create an exoskeleton that would help us deal with this problem.
So let me introduce you to a rethinkingLC -- or the Human universal Load Carrier.
Soldier: With the HULC skeleton, I can carry 200 pounds of different terrain for many hours.
His flexible design allows you to suck down deep, to snuck and to make highly suck up motions.
It feels what I want to do, where I want to go and then go to my strength and regret.
We're so far to imagine with our industrial partner of this device, this new exoskeleton in this year.
So it's true.
Let's now take our view to the wheelchair drivers, something that I'm particularly passionate about.
There are 68 million people who are estimated in the world in wheelchair.
That's about one percent of the population.
And that's actually a conservative estimate.
We're often talking about very young people with spinal cord injury, who have been in the flowering of their lives -- 20ers, 30s, 40s -- and the wheelchair is the only option.
But it's also about aging population, the number of times.
And pretty much the only option -- when it comes to brain, or other implications -- is the wheelchair.
And so, by the way, it's been 500 years since its own, I have to say, very successful introduction.
So we thought we could start writing a completely new chapter in the field of mobility.
Now let me introduce you to aLEGS, which is being carried out by Amanda boxtel, which is a spinal cord injury in 19 years ago that you couldn't walk anymore, and now, by 19 years ago.
Thank you very much.
As I said, Amanda is ourLEGS.
It has sensors.
He's completely non-invasive sensors in the backs, the signals back to our uncleboard computer, which is based on her back here.
Here are battery re-conducts, which are motors, and they're also a hip-like, like they're moving forward in this very squishy gang and very natural gang.
I was 24 years old, and I was in the best form, when a year-old Purcellular tree was paralyzed in a skier.
In the fraction of a second, I lost every feeling and every movement below my Becks.
Not long after that, a doctor in my room came to my room and he said, "Amanda, you'll never be able to go back."
And that was 19 years ago.
He's a feces of any feces of hope from my consciousness.
Amongst technologies have been able to learn since then, to ski, climb and even drive with the hands of hands.
But nothing was invented, that would let me go again until now.
Thank you very much.
As you can see, we have the technology, we have the platforms to meet and to discuss with you.
It's in our hands, and we have the whole potential here to change the lives of future generations -- not just for the soldiers, or for Amanda and all the wheelchairers, but for everyone.
Thank you very much.
At home in New York, I'm the head of developing a nonprofit organization called Robin Hood.
If I don't fight poverty, I fight as a aid of a fire-Haupman with a volunteers to fight fire.
Well, in our city where volunteers have been able to support a high-resolution career fire, you have to be pretty early on the fire instead of able to do with Indians.
I remember my first fire.
I was the second volunteers at the fire instead, so I had a pretty good chance to put in.
But it was still a race against the other volunteers to reach the main man and find out what would be our tasks.
When I found the main man, he had just had a very serious conversation with the house owner, which certainly had one of the worst days of her life.
It was in the middle of the night, and she stood in the sleep suit and barter under a screen outside the rain, as her house was in flames.
The other volunteers who came out of me -- call him lexic Luther -- reached the main man's first and was asked to go to the house and save the dog's owner.
The dog! I was not talking about Neid.
There was some lawyer or wealth that could now tell the rest of his life that he was going to a burning house to save a living just because he was five seconds faster than me.
Well, I was the next one.
The main man, tiny, he was going to get me.
He said, "Bezos, you have to go to the house.
You have to go up, fire over, and you have to get a pair of shoes."
I'm going to keep it.
Now, not exactly what I'd hope I'd go, but I'd go up -- the squids, the tides, the real firemen, the firemen, who were pretty done at this point, pretty much in the bedroom to get a pair of shoes.
I know what you're thinking, but I'm not a hero.
I wore my thylacine back down where I met my door and I met my drew dog.
We wore our skull out to the house owner, where, not surprising, his attention got more attention than I was.
A few weeks later, fire growth got a letter of the house owner where they thought they were a brave use of their home.
One of the things that happened was that a pair of kindness had actually brought her a pair of shoes.
In my career at Robin Hood and in my side-by-side era, I am a volunteers of generosity and kindness in large scale, but I also see the most esods and the courage of individuals.
And you know what I learned?
They're all important.
So if I look around this room and see people who have either achieved a re-resemblance or on their way there, I want to offer you the following memory: Don't wait.
Don't get you to make a difference in life until you've reached your first million.
If you have something to have, you'll have it now.
You're in a soup, dreaming a park in your neighborhood.
You're a mentor.
Not every day, we will provide a chance to save the lives of a human, but every day, we will have the opportunity to change one.
So go ahead; save the shoes.
Thank you very much.
Bruno Giussani: Mark, Mark, come back.
Thank you very much.
I'm just going back from a community that knows the secret of humanity's a human race.
A place where women lead the tent, with sex, say, "Hello, and the game grew the day -- where fun is a serious issue.
And no, it's not Burning Man or San Francisco.
Ladies and gentlemen, your relatives.
This is the world of wild Bonobos in the origin of Congo.
Bonobos are with chimpanzees our next living relatives.
That means we have a common ancestors, an evolutionary grandmother, about six million years ago.
Well, chimpanzees are known for their Congress.
But unfortunately, we've been talking about this aspect of human evolution.
But bonobos show us the other side of the medal.
As chimpanzees are introduced by large, fearing guy, the Bonobo society is led by powerful females.
They really thought about it, because this leads to an spoken tolerant society where killing lethal violence has not been seen.
But unfortunately, bonobos are known at least among primates.
They live in the depths of the golese a forest, and they're just hard to see.
The Congo is a paradox -- a country of extraordinary species and beauty, but also the heart of darkness itself -- the re-conductor of a massive amount that has been able to use for decades and so many lives have been asked as the first World War II.
It doesn't surprise that these destruction also feeds the survival of bonobos.
So meat trade and the feedback of the tree was that you couldn't even fill a stadium with the stinkering -- and even there we aren't sure that we are honest.
And yet, in this country of violence and chaos, you can hear a hidden laugh that the trees shake.
Who are these relatives?
We know them as "Dear instead of war" because they have often, even sex, changing partners, and rules the conflict and social issues.
I'm not saying that would be the answer to all humanitarian problems -- because life is made up of the Bonobos more than the camel.
Bonobos -- like people -- love playing their lives long.
It's not just kids play.
For us and it's fundamental to play the relationship of relationships and care of the tolerance.
And we learn trust and the rules of play.
So play is a game that is a very powerful thing, and it's all about diversity -- diversity of interactions, diversity of behaviors, diversity of connections.
And when you look at bonobos at play, you see the evolutionary origins of human laughter, dance and rituals.
play is the Kitt that keeps us together.
Now, I don't know how you play, but I want to show you some unique images from the wild.
First, a ball game on Bonobo -- and I don't think of foot ball.
So here we see a young female and male in a following game.
Look at what she does.
This could be the evolutionary origin of, "You're going to put it on the eggs."
Only I think it's more likely to like it, right?
Yeah!
So sex games are common, both in bonobos and in humans.
And this video is really interesting, because it shows -- and this video is really interesting, because it shows the ideas that you get into play with -- how the honey -- and how the game requires both trust and -- while it's also great fun at the same time.
But the game is a form of shape.
play is a form of shape, and it can take many forms that some of them are more quiet, more euthanized, curious -- maybe to detect the amazing thing.
And I want to show you, this is Fuku, a young female, and she's playing peaceful with water.
I think just like them, we sometimes play alone, and we re-semotal boundaries of our inner and extremely.
And it's this playful curiosity that makes us move, and interact, and the unexpected pleasure we make are the real nutrients of creativity.
This is just a small ancestor on the insight, the Bonobos squirts us in our past and present.
But they also have a secret for our future, a future where we have to adapt to increasingly challenges, through larger creativity and a stumbling cooperation.
The secret is that the game of the key to these skills is to do this.
In other words, play is our adaptation.
To adapt to a successful world, we need to play.
But will we make the best out of our game?
play is not silly.
It's essential.
For bonobos and human beings, life is not made of teeth and class alone.
Just if it doesn't seem to be the most necessary game.
And so, my primate camera, let's play this gift of evolution and play together as we cover creativity and the dust.
Thank you.
I want you to imagine two couples, in the middle of 1979, the very same day, right now, every baby -- OK.
So two couples, each one of them is a baby.
Now I don't want you to use too much time to imagine stuff, because if you imagine all the time, you won't listen to me.
Just imagine that for a moment.
And in this scenario, imagine that in a case the sperm is a Ycholmoso that hits the X chromosome of the egg.
And in the other case, the sperma is a X chromosome that's putting on the X chromosome of the egg.
Both are capable of living, both of them are capable of living.
We'll come back to these people later.
Most of my activities I have on two hut.
One hat, I'm a hater, and I'm a story of anatomy.
I studied historians, and in this case, I've been studying people with anatomy -- human body, animal bodies -- how they went around body fluids, with body conceptuals, how they thought about body.
The other hat that I've been sat in my work is the activist, as a patient's interior -- or, as I say, sometimes an impatient -- of people who are patients of doctors.
In this case, I worked with people who have body types asking social norms.
So for example, I've been working with people who are simple twins, two people in a body.
I worked with people -- so people who were smaller than common.
And very often I've worked with intersexic people who are gender-based -- so people who don't prove the average male or female sex.
And as a general term, we can use the word "dolescent."
It's interesting in many different forms.
I'm just going to give you a couple of examples of the kinds of genders that don't give you the male or female standard.
In one case, you may have somebody with a X chromosome, and the SRY gene of the Ycholmosome, the prototypes that we all have to grow Hodeno.
And so the testes in the fecal teststers are a test fecal test.
But because this individual is missing the receptors to recognize the testosterone, the body doesn't respond to the testosterone.
And this is called Androgant receptors.
So a lot of testosterone, but not a response.
As a consequence, the body is more a typical female walk.
When the kid is born, she looks like a girl.
She's a girl. She's being moved as a girl.
But it takes most of them to get puberty and grow their bridges, and they don't get their periodic table until someone comes to it.
And they do some tests, and they find that instead of eudhives and room, they actually have honeybees in itself, and they have a chromosome.
And what's important to understand is that you could actually think of this person as male, but they're not really.
Women like men, have something in our bodies called obesity.
They're in the back part of our body.
And the side are the other virtuous hormones, which are virtuous hormones.
Most women, as I think -- I think, to be a typical woman -- I don't know my actual chromosomes, but I think I probably have the typical -- most women like I'm speaking in Androgs.
We produce Androgs, and we speak to Androgate.
The consequence is that somebody like me actually put a brain out of other Androgens, when a woman born with Horogant, and has a Androgantantant.
So gender is really complicated; not only are in the middle of gender -- in some ways, they can be distributed across the whole range.
For example, another example, I got the call from a 19-year-old man who was born when he was a boy, he had a friend who had sex with his friend, lived as a man, and he had just found that he had a hives and a hives.
He had a very extreme form of a sneocortex bubble.
He's got X chromosomes, and he's in the mother's way, his side effects were so active that they've created a male hormone in the essential era.
And as a consequence, his genital males were emated, his brain was the typical male part of the hormone.
And when he was born, he looked like a boy -- nobody looked something.
And it was only when he was 19 years old, he got enough medical problems, actually, because he was a human-profit that doctors found out that he was in the inside of female.
Okay, just a quick example of a version of interaction.
Some people with X chromosomes, develop something called the Ovoiestis, where imic tissue is a test of honeybee tissue.
We don't really know why this is happening.
So gender can go up in many different kinds of different kinds of different varieties.
The reason kids with this kind of body -- whether it's a sex twin or a sex twin, is often adapted by surgeons, is not because it's for their physical health benefit.
In many cases, these people are completely healthy.
The reason why they often get taken on different kinds of surgical surgery is because they use our social categories.
And it's based on the idea that a particular atomic-based identity is based on a particular identity.
So we have the concept that a woman is to have a female identity, a black person, is to be a woman, to have an African anatomy in terms of their own history.
So we have this awful idea.
And if we're faced with a body that actually represents something very different, it's a rethinking that's looking at these Kate algorithms.
So we have a lot of romantic ideas about individualism.
And our nation is really based on a very romantic concept of individualism.
Now, you can imagine how amazing it is when kids are born, the two people in one body are born.
Where I had experienced most of my time in the last year was the southern African ocyassamenn Semenya, who was asked sex in Leatletlet in Berlin last year.
Many journalists called me to the question, "What are they going to do, who will give us a machine whether Castmenya female or male?"
And I had to explain the journalists that there is no test.
We now know that gender is complicated enough that we have to admit that nature doesn't take a line between us and female or between male and female and female and interrogate; we are, in fact, that's what these separation line is, of course, as a natural line.
So we have a situation where, as we continue to continue our science, we have to stand up so we have to understand that those categories that we had for stable atomic categories that made very simple, permanent identities to create a much unsustainable identity than we've taken away.
And it's not just in terms of gender.
It's also true of race, which turns out to be much more complicated than our appointmentology.
We were able to look at our savanna areas in all kinds of unqueakable areas.
We're stoming, for example, on the fact that we have at least 95 percent of our DNA in common with chimpanzees.
What should we do with the fact that we're just different from them by a few nuclear lobotes?
As we continue to move forward our science, we're increasingly in a zone of the inequality where we need to recognize the euthane categories that we probably had all the sadolescence.
We see this in all sorts of different areas of human life.
One of the areas that we see in the process of seeing today in our culture today, in the United States, are the stinkerers over the beginning and the end of life.
We have difficult conversations about what's going to be a body to human, so that he has another right to live as a fractal life.
We have very difficult ways to think about each other today -- maybe not as public as in medicine -- about the question of when someone is dead.
Our ancestors had never been so hard to fight when someone was dead.
They've given someone the highest feather under the nose, and when they move, they haven't buried them yet.
If it wasn't moving anymore, you buried it.
But today we're in a situation where we live organs, and we want to be able to bring them to other people.
And as a result, we start with the fight with really difficult question, when someone is dead, and that brings us a really difficult situation where we don't have as simple categories as we used to.
Now you might think that the whole collapse of category would somebody like me really make me happy.
I'm politically progress, I'm a defense of unusual bodies, but I have to admit it makes me nervous.
To understand that these categories are really much more insecure than we thought makes me a lot more reshape.
And it makes me re-educated in terms of democracy.
So to tell you about this euding of thespannung, I have to first recognize that I'm a big fan of the founding.
I know they were Rassins, I know they were sexist, but they were great.
I find that they were so brave and so strong, and so radical, in what they did, that I would look at all the years of watching the stin Musical76, and it's not because of the music that's absolutely forgotten.
It's because of what happened to 1776 with the founding foundingvy.
The founding fathers were from my view, the original nuclear activists, and that's why.
What she showed back was anatomic concept, and they replaced it through another radical and beautiful, and 200 years of scaled for us.
As you all remember, our founding fathers emailed the concept of monararchy, and the Monar, basically, based on a very sading concept of anatomy.
The gentleman's old world had no concept of DNA, but they had a concept of birth rights.
They had a concept of blue blood.
They were the notion that people who had political power should have this political power, because of the blood line of the grandfather to son and so on.
The founding founding fathers showed this idea, and they replaced it through a newatomic concept, and this concept said that all people were created equal.
They re-conserved the game field, and they decided that atomically counted, commonity, not the differences. And that was very radical.
Now they did this in part because they were part of a more education system where two things grew together.
The democracy grew up, but at the same time, science grew.
If you look at the history of founding fathers, it's clear that many of them were very interested in science, and they were interested in a concept of naturalist world.
They went away from explanations, from explanations, and gathered things like a re-educated concept of power, where transmission based on a very sludge of birth rights.
They moved to a naturalist concept.
And if you look at independence for example, they talk about nature and God's God's nature.
They don't talk about God and nature's nature.
They talk about the power of nature to tell us who we are.
And as part of it, they taught us a concept that was about anatomic commonities.
And they've actually prepared the future rights movement.
They didn't think about it that way, but what they did for us was great.
So what happened years after that?
For example, women who used the right to have the idea of the founding, the concept of the founding, which says that anatomic commonity is more important than theatomic difference, and said, "This is a hives and ehives, we have no difference than differences, that we shouldn't have the right to own the full-scale civil rights, the right to own the right, etc."
And women argued that.
The next thing that happened was the successful citizen rights movement, where we saw people like the Sojourner Truth who were walking about it, "Bin't I?"
We find men in the savanna group of citizens who say, "I'm a man."
Again, people who are based on different skin color, who are based on nuclear common differences, again, successful.
We see the same thing in the disability movement.
Of course, the problem is that, as we start looking at all the commonities, we need to start asking why we stop certain separations.
Well, I think I want to stop certain separations, in our culture, in our culture.
For example, I don't want to give you a fish that's the same rights as a human being.
I don't want to say that we should take all the anatomy from the mind.
I don't want to say five-year-olds are supposed to be right to give her a sense of sex or sex.
So there are some nuclear separations that make sense for me, and that we think I should keep.
But the challenge is to try and figure out which ones are and why we keep them, and whether they're good.
So let's go back to those two creatures that have been thrown to the beginning of the talk.
We have two creatures, both in the middle of 1979 on the exact same day.
So imagine one of them, Maria, three months was born, so she was born on June 1 1980.
Heinrich, on the other hand, is born to birthtermin, so he's born at the 1, March 1980.
Only because Maria three months were born, he was born, he sat down all sorts of rights for Heinrich -- the right to choose sex, to drink the right.
Heinrich needs to wait all this, not because he actually has another biological age, only because of the time of his birth.
We're still finding other features about what their rights are.
Heinrich, you'll notice, he's male -- although I didn't tell you that he's the one with XY -- you'll take males, he's now a ttve got to be worried about where Maria is.
Maria at all states, can't perceive the same rights, the Heinrich in all states, and that's the right to marry.
Heinrich can marry a woman in every state, but Maria can now marry a woman in a few states today.
So we have these permanent nuclear category that are in many ways, and questionable.
And to me, the question is: What will we do, because our science of those progress in the area of anatomy makes a point where we have to admit that a democracy that could come up with anatomy?
I don't want to give up science, but at the same time it feels like science is making itself a little bit self-interest.
So where do we go?
It seems like our culture is a kind of a pity re-ed-in-the-shelf, "Well, we need to pull a line somewhere, so we're going to pull it anywhere."
But a lot of people are starting to get in a very strange position.
So, for example, Texas decided at a point that a man was married that you don't have a Y chromosome, and a woman means you have a Y chromosome.
Now in practice, people are not tested on their chromosomes.
But it's also very ecstatic because of the story I told you about the beginnings of Androgepticism.
If we look at one of the founding democracys of modern democracy, Dr. Martin Luther King, he offers us in his "I have a dream," a solution.
He says we should not be able to judge people by the skin color, but to judge their character, and go beyond anatomy.
And I want to say, "Well, that sounds like a really good idea."
But how do you do that in practice?
How do you judge people because of their characters?
I also want to point out that I'm not sure that we should be able to share rights in terms of people's rights because I have to admit that I know a series of Golden Retrievers that probably deserve social services more than some people I know.
I want to make a difference that I probably know some bright Labradores that are more able to make intelligent and more smart decisions about their sexual relationships than some 40-year-olds I know.
So how do we want to take the question of the character?
It turns out it's really hard to get out.
And part of me would be wondering what if the content of a personality would be something that would be in the future -- could be made by fMRI?
Do we really want to go to this direction?
I'm not sure where we're going.
What I know is that it really matters to think about the idea that the United States is to make thoughts about questions of democracy.
In our efforts, we've done democracy really well, and I think we'd do our thing in the future.
We don't have the situation like it is in Iran's case where a man who feels sexually sex with other men who is best sex with death is willing to be prepared to join a gender tool in which case he can stay alive.
Now, states of this kind don't exist in us.
I'm glad to say that we don't have these states -- a surgeon that I talked to a few years ago, a few simple twins, to separate them, partly to make a name.
But when I was on the phone, and I asked him why he did this surgery -- it was highly risky surgery -- his answer was that in his country, these kids would be treated very bad, and therefore he had to do it.
I said, "Well, did you have moved political Asyl in warming rather than running an operation?"
The United States has incredible opportunities to allow people to be the ones they are without changing the will of the state.
So I think we need to be a lead.
Well, just to conclude, I want to realize that I've talked a lot about the fathers.
And I want to think about the possibilities of democracy, or what might have seen if we had more mothers involved.
And I want to say something that is a taminist to say a little bit radical, and I think there might be different ways of putting up different kinds of anatomy, if people think about groups.
For years, since I was interested in interesting things, I was also interested in research in gender-based research.
And one of the things that I really found is the difference between men and women in terms of how they think and in the world.
What we've experienced from cultural studies is that women, on average -- not every one, but rather, more complex social relationships and social relationships for people who are vulnerable to a lot of attention.
And so, if we think about it, we have an interesting situation to think about it.
When I was a student, I asked myself one of my studies that knew my interest in feminism -- I looked at myself as a feminism, so it was -- a really strange question.
He said, "Well, look at what's on a feminism."
And I thought, "Well, that's the most angry question I've ever heard.
Feminalism is about bringing sex to gender, so he's not a female.
But the more I thought about his question, the more I thought there might be some female in feminism.
This is supposed to be hot, there could be something, average, where female brains are different from male brains, which makes us more important for high complex social relationships, and more carefully make it more comfortable for protection.
So where the founding founding fathers were extremely thought to find out how individuals could be protected before the state, it's possible that if we put more mothers in this concept, we would get more a concept, not just how to protect them, but how to make them.
And perhaps it's what we're going to go to the future when we're doing democracy beyond anatomy -- less about individual body body, what identity is about, and thinking more about relationships.
So that if we try to make a perfect connection, we think about what we can do for each other.
Thank you very much.
I'm Jessi, and this is my suitcase.
But before I show you what I have in it, I'm going to make a very public savage, and that's what I'm obsessed with 100 percent.
I love to find another opportunity frozen, crazy outfit, and to photograph and to photograph at the time.
But I'm not buying anything new.
I get all my clothes from second hand on the inside and in Second-and-a-half feet.
Ooh, thank you very much.
Second-and-a-half-half-half context allows me to reduce the impact on my Gares and also to reduce the environment on my own money.
I meet all sorts of great people; my dollar serve usually a good purpose; I look quite unique; and it makes shopping for my whole personal shame.
I mean, what am I going to find today?
Is it my size?
Who do I like the color?
Will it cost less than 20 dollars?
If all the answers are yes, I feel like I won.
I come back to my suitcase, and I'll tell you what I've been doing here for this exciting week at TED.
I mean, what does anybody do with such a thousand?
So I'm going to show you exactly what I brought to.
I brought seven couples underwear, and that's all.
There's a slam under the same week, all I did in my suitcase.
I bet I bet I'd bet I'd bet everything I wanted to wear, if I had to get to Palm Springs once.
And you've not heard of me as the woman running around at TED in her underwear -- that's what I found a few things.
And I'd like to show you my outfit this week.
Does that sound good?
While I do that, I'm going to give you some of the lessons that I believe or not, they've learned from those adventure, not to wear anything new.
Let's start with Sunday.
I call this the tiger tiger.
You don't have to spend a lot of money looking great.
You can almost always look great for less than 50 dollars.
This whole outfit, including the Jacket, walked me 55, and it was the most expensive piece that I've been in this whole week.
Monday: color is a little bit of power.
It's almost physiologically impossible to be bad if you're wearing light pants.
If you're happy, you're going to pull other happy people.
Tuesday: During the end, it's completely re-eyed.
I spent a lot of time in my life trying to be myself, and to adapt myself at the same time.
Just take who you are.
If you give yourself the right people, they won't just understand it, they will appreciate it.
In Wednesday, if you hug your inner child.
Sometimes people say to me, I'm like playing "the seven-year-olds" or I remember her seven-year-old.
I like to defe and say, "Thank you beautiful."
Donners day: confidence is key.
If you think you're looking good at something, it's almost as safe.
And if you think you're not looking good at something, you probably have right.
I grew up with a mother who taught me the day for day.
But first I got 30, I really understood what that means.
And I'm going to put that in a quick way for you.
If you think you're inside and you're a wonderful person, there's nothing you can't wear.
So there's no excuse for anyone in this audience.
We should be able to rock everything we want.
Thank you very much.
Friday: A universal truth -- five words: Golden arrows fit everything.
And finally, Saturday: a unique, unique style, is a great way to tell the world something about a word without saying a word.
It was shown to me over and over again, when people came to me this week, just because of what I was wearing. And I had great conversations.
Obviously, this is not going to happen in my tiny physicist.
So before I go home to Brooklyn, I'll give it all back.
Because the lesson I try to learn this week is that it's okay to let go.
I don't have to get that kind of emotional, because the same thing will always be a different crazy, frozen, sludge, sludgeing on me, waiting for a little love in the heart and looking for it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, all together.
I have something I want to show you here.
Think of this as a picture, as a flying image.
That's what we call in our lab, real design.
Let me tell you a little bit about it.
Now, if you take this picture -- I'm a original Italian, and every boy in Italy grows up in this image, but the reason I'm going to show you this is because I'm going to show you something that's happened in the last few decades.
And so, a while ago, if you wanted to win a formula 1 race, you took your budget and put your money on a good driver and a good car.
And if the car and the driver were good enough, you won the race.
Now, today, you need to win a race, if you want to win something like this -- something like this car that has woke up in real time, some thousands of sensors that are putting information on the car, putting it on the system, and then putting it back and then send it back to that car decisions and then changing things in real time.
This would be called in engineering team, a real-time control system.
And basically, it's a system that's made up of two parts -- a feeling part and a respondable a stinie.
What's interesting today is that the real-time control systems are starting to come up in our lives.
Our cities have been gathered in the last few years, just with networks and electronics.
They become computers in the open.
And as computers in open, they start reacting in other ways, they become truly emailed.
If we make cities, that's actually a big deal.
And by the way, I want to mention that cities are only two percent of the world's surface, but 50 percent of the world's population is there.
They're 75 percent of the energy consumption -- to 80 percent of the CO2 emissions.
So if we do something with cities, that's a big deal.
And beyond cities, all this re-eyed and driving into objects of everyday life.
This is from an exhibition that Paola Antonelli for MoMA later, in the summer, organized.
It's called "Ten with me."
Well, all of our objects, our environment, start to speak back to us.
In a sense, it's almost as if every atom is out there to both be a sensor and a re-conductor.
And that changes radical interaction that we have with our environment.
In a way, it's almost like the old dream of Michelangelo...
You know, Michelangelo Moses reacted the Moses, he said, "Why did he take the hammer and he was Moses -- you can still see a little place down there -- and said, "Perché non-violent non-violent non-violenti?"
Well, today, our environment starts to answer us all the first time.
I'm just going to show you some examples -- again, to take the idea of taking our environment and move it out.
Let's start with the perception.
Now the first project I want to introduce you to is actually one of the first things we're doing in our labs.
It came out four and a half years ago in Italy.
And what we did was actually using a new kind of network that was used in the world at the time -- this is a mobile network -- and anonymously using information from this network that was collected without putting it in the footage to understand how the city works.
The summer was a happy summer -- 2006.
It was when Italy won the football World Cup.
Some of you will remember it was when Italy played against France, and then at the end of the goat, the head sucks.
And no matter Italy did end up won.
Now look at what happened on this day, just the observation of activity that happens in the network.
Here you see the city.
You can see in the middle the colony era, the dung Tibery.
On the morning, before the game.
You can see the time up there.
In the early afternoon, people here and there, the calls and move.
The game starts -- silence.
France makes a Tor. Italy makes a Tor.
Ten-time people are doing a short call, go to toilets.
Two-time, at the end of the normal game.
First sounds, second.
Pretty much, in a moment of head.
Italy win. Yeah.
Well, at this night, everybody went to celebrate the center.
They saw the big impact.
The next day, everybody went to the center to meet the prime team and the prime minister at the same time.
And then everybody went down.
You see the image of the place Circosimo, where, since the open time, people go to celebrate -- to have a big party, and you see the impact on the end of the day.
Now, this is just one example of how we can feel the city today, in a way that we couldn't do it a few years ago.
Another example of a different kind of adolescence: this is not about people, but about things that we use and consume.
Well, today we know everything about where our things come from.
This is a map that shows you all the chip that a Mac computer is made of how they came together.
But we know a little bit about where things go.
So in this project, we actually designed some little Markers to follow the garbage while he's going through the system.
So we started with some volunteers that we've been able to do before a year, a little more than one year, to mark things that they're going away -- different kinds of things you can see -- things that they would throw away without moving.
Then we have the little chip that lived little brands on the garbage and started to track it.
Here are the results we just got.
Seattle...
after a week.
And with this information, we realized that there are a lot of efficiency in the system.
We can actually do the same things with less energy.
The data has not been available before.
But this is what makes a lot of unsustainable transportation and complicated things happen.
The other thing is, we think that if we see every day, the cup we throw away, we don't just disappear, it's still on the planet.
And the plastic bottle that we're still squeaming away every day.
And if we could show that to people, we can drive a behavior change.
So that's why this project is.
My colleague at MIT, Assafman, Assaderman, could take you a lot more about the perception and the many other wonderful things that you can take with orphanage, but I want to talk to the second part that we've been talking about at the beginning and that's the savanna of our environment.
And the first project is something that we did a few years ago in Zaragoza, Spain.
It started with a question of mayor that came to us and said that Spain and South Europe have a beautiful tradition to use public places as part of the architecture.
And the question was, how could you connect technology to new technology?
And one of the ideas that was being able to put on MIT in a circle, imagine these squids and Ventiles, magnets, open and close.
They're putting in the water's way that they're putting water in the water.
If these points come down, you can write patterns, you can show patterns, images, text.
And you can get closer and it will open up to make you go through the image, as you can see on this picture.
Well, we introduced the mayor Belloch.
It had very much like him.
And we got the mission to design a building at the front of the expo.
We called it the digital tens of millions of water.
The whole building was made of water.
There's no doors or windows, but if you get closer, it will open and let you go.
The roof was also covered with water.
And if it's tiny, if you want to reduce the syringe, you can even make the roof down.
Or you could close the building and you could close the whole architecture like this case, you know, this days, when you drive down the roof, you get images of people who were there and say, "You've destroyed the building."
No, they didn't destroy the building, it's just so that architecture disappears.
Here you see the building works.
You can see the person who's going to ask himself what's going on inside.
And here you see me when I tried to get on the sensors that opened the water, not being snaive.
Now, I should tell you what happened one night when all the sensors were hearing.
But actually, at that night, it was a bigger fun one.
All the children from Zaragoza came to the building because the way they played with the building was very different.
Not longer a building that would open up to let you open, but a building that still had a break and holes in the water, you had to jump without being a sludge.
And that was, really exciting for us, because as architects, engineers, as designers, we always think about how people use things that we design.
But reality is always unimaginable.
And that's the beauty of creating things that are used and interacting with the people.
So here's a picture of the building with the physical image, the image of water and the projections on it.
And this is what brought us to think about the project I'm going to show you now.
Imagine if this image could actually start flying.
Imagine you could have little helicopters flying through the air, and each of you will change a little image with light -- almost like a cloud that can move through the room.
Here's the video.
Imagine a helicopter that you saw earlier, moving with others, completely synchrony.
You can have these clouds.
You can have a kind of flexible screens or a ads like this -- a very eud formation in two dimensions.
Or in three dimensions, in which what changes is light, not the position of the image points.
You can play with different species.
Imagine the screen could just appear in different formats, or scales, in different resolutions.
But then this could be just a 3D cloud of the image that you can go and move through and move through that, which you can look at from many, many directions.
Here you see a real Flyfire slam sawam that sucks down like a very sludge to the same father.
If you turn the light on, it looks like this. So, just like we saw before.
Imagine that every single one of the people is being pushed.
It could have a impulse that comes from people, from the movements of people or the same.
I want to show you something here to all of you.
We've worked with Roberto Bolle, one of the best ballet dancers of our time -- the Étoile at the Metropolitan theater in New York and Scala in Milan -- we've taken his movements in 3D to use it as impulse for the Flyfire.
Here you see Roberto dancing.
On the left you see the points that come in, the different adolescent sylacines.
It's also a real-time-3 scan, and it's a movement-time.
So you can pull all the movement out.
You can do this all the time.
But then once we have all the points, you can play with color movement and design gravity.
We want to use that as a possible impulse for the Flyfire.
I want to show you the latest project we're working on.
It's something we're working on for the Olympics in London.
It's called The cloud -- the cloud.
The idea is again, imagine that we're going to move people back to do something and changing the environment -- almost like we call it clouds, like moving a failure, but with a cloud.
Imagine that each one can give a small donor to a picture.
I think the remarkable of the last few years, the last decades, is that we've changed from a physical world to a digital world.
It's all influenced by the knowledge, and it's available by the Internet.
Today, for the first time -- and the campaign of Obama has shown this -- we can change from the digital world, from which self-organizing forces of networks to the physical world.
This can be in our case that we use it to create design and a symbol.
This is something that's built in the city.
But in the morning, it can take us to make the challenges -- think about climate change, or CO2 emissions -- how can we change from digital world to physical world.
So the idea is that we actually pull people together with things that they do.
The cloud is again a cloud of a cloud in which the same way as a real cloud is of particles.
And these particles are water, while our cloud is a cloud of a picture.
It's a physical image in London, but covered with picture points.
You can move inside and make different kinds of experiences.
You can actually look at it from the bottom, the most important moments for malaria and about it, and use it as a kind of connection to community.
So both of those physical cloud in heaven and something that you can go to the top of the top, like London's new Bere apples.
You can go in.
And a kind of digital sphere at night -- but as a space-like, a new kind of experience for everybody who wants to go to the top.
Thank you.
As an artist, I'm very important.
I try to express my work that people are not separate from nature and that everything is connected to each other.
The first time I was near Antarctica, about 10 years ago, where I saw my first iceberg.
I was awe.
My heart sat down, I was swaming while I was trying to figure out what was going on.
The iceberg squid around me at about 60 feet from the water, and I could only squid that a snowflock was on another snowflock, year around year.
icebergs are born as a calcium of a glacier or a glacier, or sexing out of ice.
Every iceberg has its own individual personality.
They interact in a clear way with their environment and their experiences.
Some people are crying and clapping down to the bitter end, while others don't stop it, and snumb into a dramatic passion.
If you look at a iceberg, you think they're isolated, separate and alone, just as we humans often see.
But the truth is far away from it.
While a iceberg squid, I breathe its pre-dizen atmosphere.
While the iceberg is squid, it's a mineral drinking water that's putting lots of life forms.
I go to my recording of this iceberg like I'd make portraits of my ancestors, where consciousness exists in these individual moments, and never will exist again.
It's not death when they suck; it's not an end, it's a demonstration of its arrow along the life cycle.
Part of the iceberg in the iceberg that I'm a lot of young -- some thousands of years old.
And part of the ice is more than 100,000 years old.
The last pictures I'd like to show you is a iceberg that I've been able to in Kekerosuat in Greenland.
Very rare, you actually get stuff out of a roll iceberg.
So here you see it.
On the left side, you see a little boat.
That's about five meters long.
Please look at the shape of the iceberg and where it's on the water line.
You can see here, he starts to roll, and the boat moves to the other side, the man is standing there.
This is the average size of a Greenlandberg.
He's putting about 120 feet out of the water, or 40 meters.
And this video is real time.
And just like that, you can see the iceberg a different side of his personality.
Thank you.
My life is really extraordinary through work on some amazing projects.
But the coolest thing I've ever worked on is this guy.
His name is TEMPT.
TEMPTPT was one of the leading graffiti of the '80s.
Then one day, he came back from the course and he said, "Paps, my legs shattered."
And that was the ALS.
TEMPT today is completely paralyzed.
It can only use his eyes.
I stood up to him.
I have a company that makes design and animations, so graffiti is a complex part of what we admire in the art world.
So we decided, Tony TEM PT -- and we decided to support his thing.
I met with his father and his brother and I said, "We'll give you this money.
What are you going to do with it?"
And his brother said, "I want to talk to Tony again.
I just want to talk to him again, and I said, "Don't that be -- I saw Stephen Hawking -- can't all be paralyzed people communicate with these devices?"
And he said, "No, only if you've heard about the higher-up society and you have a remarkable insurance, you can really do that.
People are not accessible to these devices."
And I said, "How are you putting in?"
Anybody see the movie "The Big Bang" and a syglock?
That's how they communicate -- they're running their fingers along the way.
I said, " Very archaic, how can this be?"
So I came up with the need to just take a check and put it on, and instead I put a check out of it, which I didn't have the most quiet idea how to make it.
I was a place to go to his brother and his father -- "Well, my suggestion is this: Tony will talk to him, we will be able to get a device, and we will find a way to make a art again.
Because it's a Farce that someone who's still wearing all of this can't communicate it."
So I spoke a few months later at a conference.
I met these people of GRLi Research Lab, and they have a technology that allows them to produce a light on any surface, and then draw a laser point on it, which is just the negative area that's a negative surface.
So they're going around and making art art like this.
They say that all things that are being re-eyed up there are following a life cycle.
It starts with the sex, then the sex words come after that, the Bush-like sex and the last thing people actually do art.
But there was always a life cycle in its presentation.
So I went home and I ate with my wife and told her about all of this evening, and we thought, "Well, if there's this technology that you can use to control your eyes, then we should find a way to control TEM PTSD, so he could make a laser again, that would be great."
That was the beginning of the journey.
And about two years later, about a year later, after a lot of organization and a lot of stuff, we've reached some things.
First, we've put the insurance on the front door, and actually, for TEMPT, we've got a device that he can communicate with -- a Stephen Hawking machine.
That was incredible.
And he's really funny -- I call him Yoda, because you talk to him, or you get email, and he says, "I'm so strange, this guy is incredibly powerful."
And we also sat down seven programs all over the world -- literally from all the corners of the world -- to us home.
My wife, my children and I are moved to garage, and these hackers and programming and conspiracyists and anarchists have taken our house.
Many of our friends thought we were nice stupid to do this, and we would come back and get all the images on the walls of graffiti.
But for two weeks, we've been programmed, we went to the beach in Venice, my kids became a re-eyed, and we created this.
It's called EyeWriter, and you can see the description.
This is a cheap sun that we bought on the beach model of Venice, some copper wireless and some things from the building market and electronics.
We took a PS3-Kamer, we built it apart, put it on a LED box, and now we have a device that's available -- you can build it yourself, we put the code around free, you can download the software.
So we've created a device that's completely free of crows.
No insurance can be able to re-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-wn.
No hospital.
Every yellow tin can actually communicate with his eyes or draw.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, that was incredible.
So at the end of the two weeks, we went back to TEMPTs room.
I love this picture because it's the room of someone else, and that's his room.
Now, there's all this Rumion in front of the great enthrism.
And after a year of planning, two weeks of programmers, whereas a raging, a sludge and drew, Tony for the first time after seven years.
And this is an amazing picture, because this is his life support system, and it sees its life support system.
We've gotten his bed out so that he can see outside.
We put a projector against a wall of the parking lot in front of the hospital.
And he was re-eyed for the first time, in his family's family and friends -- and you can only imagine what a feeling was on the parking lot.
So, if we had to break into the parking lot, we felt too, as a part of the sawam.
And at the end of the day, he gave us an email with this content: "I've been doing something for seven years.
I felt I was thrown underwater, and finally someone walked down and sat down and sat down my head so I can breathe."
Isn't that overwhelmed?
That's something like our battle.
That's what's happening to us, and it's a little bit more and more and more of us than that.
And we still have to improve a lot more of this device.
It's an amazing device, but it's going to come in a magicfel.
And somebody who has such an artistic potential made so much more.
So we're trying to figure out how to do it better and stronger.
Since that time, we've all got some kind of recognition.
We won a few prices.
You think it's free, nobody deserves us on this.
It's all coming out of our own pocket.
So the records were, "Oh, that's fantastic."
Armstrong tweeted over us, and then, in December, the Time magazine taught us the Time magazine, when one of the best inventions in 2010, was really great.
The coolest thing about this -- and this solitary circle -- is that, in April, there will be MOCA in the inner city of Los Angeles, an exhibition called "Art of the Streets."
And I think there's pretty much the most powerful bottom-up of art artifacts -- banksy, Shepard Fairey, CA: all these guys are going to be there.
TEMPT will be part of the show which is quite a bit gone.
So basically, if you look at something that's impossible, then it can be done.
Everything in this room was impossible -- this stage, this computer, this microphone, the Eyeer -- everything was impossible.
Do it possible -- all of you here.
I'm not a programmers, and I've never had anything to do with eyes-based technology, but I just sat down and give me some amazing people to share with us a little bit of the legs.
And that question should ask each of you, every single day, that you have to be done something that needs to be done. If not now, when? And if I, who?
Thank you.
So, I write for children, and I'm probably probably read America's book book in the world.
And I always say people that I don't want to get like a scientist.
You can have me as a farm, or in leather, but nobody ever elected farm.
Today, I want to tell you about circles and openness.
Well, a re-eyed resemblance is usually something you find because you've left it somewhere.
You're about block and you're taking it as an openness.
This is a painting of a circle.
One of my friends made it -- Richard Bollingbro.
It's the kind of complicated circle that I want to share with you today.
My circle started in the '60s at the high school in Stow, Ohio, where I was the classroom.
I was the one who beaten every week in the boy's office, and blue, until a teacher saved my life.
She saved my life by using the toilets in the teacher room.
That's what she did.
She did it for three years.
And I had to go out of the city.
I had a thumb, I had 85 dollars, and it suggested me to San Francisco in California -- and I found a lover -- and then I found it important at AIDS level.
About three or four years ago, I got a call from that teacher, a woman poster, saying, "I've got to see you.
I'm sad that we never know each other as adults.
Can you come to Ohio and please come together with the man I know you found him in now.
And I should mention that I have construction cancers, and I want you to be able to get a symarrow."
Well, the next day we were in Cleveland.
We looked at them, we laughed, we we we we we we we knew, and we knew they had to be in a Hospiz.
We found one for her, we brought her, and we took care of her, and we gave up her eight, because it was necessary.
It was something we knew we were going to do.
And just as the woman who wanted to know me as adults, he learned how to turn me into a box, and was put into my hands.
What happened was that the circle had closed, it had become a circle -- and the openness of which I talked about.
The openness is death is part of life.
She saved my life, and my partner and I rescued her.
And you know, this part of life needs everything that the rest of life needs.
He needs truth and beauty, and I'm so glad that this is what I've been mentioned today.
It takes the same -- it needs dignity, love and pleasure, and it's to give us these things.
Thank you very much.
Imagine a big explosion as you get up to 1,000 meters.
Imagine a plane full of smoke.
Imagine a Trieb, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.
That sounds a fearful thing.
Well, I had a unique place on that day; I sat on oneD.
I was the only one who could talk to the flight level.
So I looked at her in the same way, and they said, "No problem, we probably have some birds."
The pilot had already been using the machine, and we weren't so far away.
You could see Manhattan.
Two minutes later, three things happened at the same time.
The pilot built the machine after the Hudson River.
That's not the route usually.
He's going to turn off the tinker.
Imagine a soundless airplane.
And then he said three words -- the most vulnerable words I've ever heard.
He says, "Because for the reverberation."
I didn't have to talk to the sads.
I could see it in her eyes, because it was a shit, life was at the end.
I want to share with you three things that I learned about this day.
I learned that everything else is different.
We have this planet, we have these things that we want to do in life, and I thought about all the people I wanted to get a hand, and it wasn't doing all the sads I wanted, all the experiences I wanted to do and never did.
And while I was thinking about it later, I realized one of the things that was, "I'm doing bad guys."
Because when the wine is far, the person is there, I open it.
I never want to go on anything in life.
And that adolescent, that goal, really changed my life.
The second thing I learned about this day -- and this was when we failed the George Washington bridge, pretty much the hair -- I thought, there's a thing I really do.
I had a good life.
In my own humanity, and with my mistake, I sat after that, I get better at being sat down in everything I was doing.
But in my humanity, I also gave my ego space.
And I took time to make sense of meaningless things, people who mean something.
And I thought about the relationship with my wife, to friends, to people.
And after that, when I thought about it, I decided to burn negative energy from my life.
It's not perfect, but it's much better.
I haven't gotten two years to go back with my wife.
It feels great.
I'm not trying to be right; I'm happy to be happy.
The third thing I learned -- and that's when the inner clock is going to start, "15, 14, 13,..."
You see the water coming.
I said, "Please fly into the air."
I don't want this thing to break into 20 parts of how you know it from Dokumentation.
As we sat down, I felt that human beings were dying, not terrible.
Almost like we were to prepare for our lives for that.
But it was very sad.
I didn't want to go; I love my life.
And that sadness really rethinks in a thought, which is that I just wish one thing.
I just wish I could see my children growing up.
One month after that, I went to see a slam of my daughter -- first-sobse, not a lot of artistic talent...
... not yet.
And I celebrate, I'm crying like a little kid.
And in the world, everything made sense to me.
I realized then, by bringing the dots together, that it's only about being a great father.
More than anything, everything else is my only goal in life to be a good father.
I became the miracle to participate in that day not to die.
I got another gift, which is to see the future, and come back and live different.
My call to all of you who are flying today is: imagine the same thing happening on your flight -- please don't -- but imagine it; and how would you change?
What would you do to do that, because you think you'd be there forever?
How would you change your relationships and change the negative energy in it?
And more than anything, are you the best parents you can only be?
Thank you.
The idea behind the Stuxnet computer, which is pretty simple.
We don't want Iran to build the bomb.
The most important poster there for development of nuclear weapons is the origin of the origin of Nawn.
The gray boxs you see here are real-time control systems.
Now if we can look at the systems that are putting the election and the Ventile, we can actually cause a lot of problems with the center.
These gray boxs don't walk with Windows software; they're based on a completely different technology.
But if we can do it, a effective Windows virus on a laptop that's used by a waiting engineer to create these gray box, we're in business.
And this is the planning behind Stuxnet.
So we start with a Windowsropper.
The data is consuming into the gray box, damaged the centers and the Iranian nuclear program -- a mission that's based on it.
This is a game of kids, right?
I want to tell you how we found this.
When we started our research on Stuxnet six months ago, it was completely unknown what the purpose of this construction was.
The only thing we knew is very, very complicated, which is the Windows part, the Dropper part, made by countless Zero- Day use.
And it seemed to be a little bit afraid of this gray box, this real-time control system.
That he created our attention, and we started a lab project where we put our environment infected with Stuxnet, and we studied this construction.
And then something weird happened.
Stuxnet sat down like a lab rat that didn't like our cheese -- sat down, but didn't want to eat it.
That didn't make any sense in my eyes.
And after we argued with different kinds of cheese, I went to see this is a more specifically attack.
It's a certain goal that's based on a certain goal.
The hump is active on the gray box to try to figure out if a special configuration was discovered, even if the special program that's trying to infected it on that goal.
And if not, Stuxnet does nothing.
So, the soft interest really started working with this, almost around the clock, because I thought, well, we don't know what the goal is.
It could say, for example, a U.S. power plant, or a chemical system in Germany.
So we should be able to find out better what the goal is.
So we did extrapolate and we found that it's based on two digital heads -- a smaller and larger.
And we also noticed that they were very incredibly re-evolving, of people who obviously had all the insiders information.
She could ever get the kind of bits and tidyma that she had to take.
They probably could have the shoe size of the machinebed.
So they knew everything.
And if you've already come to know that the Dropper of Stuxnet is complex and high-tech, let me tell you, the data is a science for you.
It's much more sophisticated than anything we've ever seen.
Here's a clip from this attack code.
We're talking about 25,000 lines here -- about 15,000 code.
It looks pretty much like old-fashioned Assembler language.
And I want to tell you how we were able to be able to be able to be able to be sat in this code.
So after what we were looking for, systems were function calls because we know what these are going on.
And then we went to Timerns and data structures and tried to connect this to the real world -- with potential targets in the real world.
So we needed theories about those goals that we could think or we could suck.
To put these theories on memory, we're definitely high-speed Sabos, and it's got to act on high-speed goal, and it's very likely to be in Iran because most of the infections have been signed.
Well, in this area there aren't multiple thousand goals.
Basically, it's going to go beyond the bush-based nuclear power plant and the origin of the era.
So I said to my assistant, "Please bring a list of all experts to centers and power plants out of our customers."
And I called them up and I zap her knowledge to compare her to what we found in code and in the data.
And that worked very well.
So, we were able to connect the little digital head of the red control with the red control.
The redor is this moving part inside the center, this black object you see.
And if you re-con-semblate the speed of this Rotors, you're actually able to break the redor and even exploding the centers of a syringe.
What we've also found is that the goal of attack was actually to make it slow and incredibly improbable -- obviously, in the attempt to make training training, so that they wouldn't be able to get there quickly.
The big digital head -- we got a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a data and a data structure.
So for example, number one squids very out of this code; you can't look it.
I started working with scientific literature about how these centers are built in Na dancing and found that they're structure-based in what's called the boxas, and each box has 164 centers.
So that made sense, it fit together.
And it became even better.
These centers of strines in Iran are divided in about 15 levels.
And guess what we found in the attack?
A almost identical structure.
So again, that really sucks well together.
And this gave us a big confidence for what we studied here.
Now, don't get me wrong, that wasn't just that easy.
These results were achieved by a couple of weeks hard work.
And often we just ran into a dead race and had to collect ourselves.
But anyway, we found that both digital heads in reality were actually going to control and control the same goal, but from different directions.
The little explosive head takes a box, and it turns over the redors and slows it down, and the big explosive head goes down with six boxes and  manipulating Ventiles.
So, in the Great and large, we're very confident that we actually have what the goal is.
It's Na dancing, and it's just dancing.
So we don't have to worry that other goals could be hit by Stuxnet.
Here's something really cool stuff we discovered -- really suck out of the hunch.
There's the gray box on the bottom, and you can see the centers on the top.
Now, what this thing does is it starts out the re-engineering value of sensors -- so for example, pressure sensors and livestock sensor -- and it's legitimate code that's still available during the attack, with false data.
And in fact, this false data from Stuxnet has already been around.
So it's just as in Hollywood movies, where as the following straight line, the surveillance cameras are squid with before video.
That's cool, right?
The idea here is obviously not just, the machine people are re-eyed in the control room.
In fact, it's much more dangerous and aggressive.
The idea is to talk about a digital security system.
We need digital security systems where a human machine machine can't respond fast enough.
So for example, in a power plant, if the Great steam squid, you have to open up a re-siding a millisecond in the world.
Of course, this can't be done by a human leaders.
So at this point, we need digital security systems.
And if the feces are endangered, then really bad things can happen.
The power plant can explode.
And neither the machines, nor the security system, is going to notice it.
That's scary.
But it gets worse.
And what I'm saying now is very important.
Think about it. This attack is a creative one.
He has nothing to do with centers of trivians, with a great deal of origins.
So for example, he would work as well -- in a power plant or in a automobile factory.
It's generate.
And you don't have to -- as thegreifer -- you don't have to teach the data about a USB nitrogen, as we saw it at Stuxnet.
You could also use ordinary worm technology to spread.
You just have to spread it as far as possible.
And if you do that, then you get cyber-physiology.
That's the consequences we have to ask ourselves.
So unfortunately, the biggest number of goals for such attacks are not in the Middle East.
They're in the United States, in Europe and Japan.
So all of these green areas, these are the most target environments.
We need to make the consequences better, and we're starting to prepare.
Thank you.
I have a question.
Ralph, it was reported a lot of people think that the Mossad is the main organization behind it.
Is that your opinion?
Okay, you really want to know this?
Yeah. Okay.
And I think the Mossad is involved, but the driving force is not Israel.
So the driving force behind it is cyber-machine.
There's only one, and that's the United States -- happiness, happiness.
Because other things would be even bigger.
Thank you for coming to a heidote, thank you.
I've spent the last few years running into situations that usually are very difficult and kind of dangerous at the same time.
I went to jail -- hard.
I worked in a coalberg -- dangerous.
I was able to film war areas -- difficult and dangerous.
And I spent 30 days eating nothing like this -- walking in the middle, a little bit difficult in the middle, very dangerous.
I actually put the biggest part of my career off the day after a very sadolescence, and this is all for the attempt to study socially, so that they're compelling and interesting, and hopefully in some way that they can do for the audience.
So when I knew I would come here to look at a TEDTalk of Branding and Sponsoring, I knew I was going to do something a little bit different.
Some of you may have heard of this, I turned a evaporized a couple of weeks ago at Ebay.
I sent some Facebook people, some Twitter programs, and I gave people the opportunity to stand up on my TEDTalk at the end of 2011,.
In fact, some happy people and companies and non-profits, the unique opportunity -- because I'm sure Chris Anderson will never leave me again -- buy the name right to the talk that you just saw at the moment that you didn't have a title or a lot of content, and not a lot of clues about what would be the subject.
So what you got was this: My name presented here: My TEDTalk, which you have no idea what the subject is going to be, and the one you may actually fly to the ears, especially if I left your company for their participation.
But even from that, it's a very good media opportunity.
You know how many people look at this TEDTalks?
A lot.
This is actually just the work title by the way.
So, even though that warning was that I knew anyone would buy the name of the right.
Now if you asked me this one year ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell you this with the wisdom.
But in the new project I work on, my new film, we study the world of marketing, the advertising.
As I said, I've been going to spend some pretty terrible situations over the years, but nothing could prepare me, nothing could make me feel so little bit of a tail, and aspirations as with these guys.
You know, I had the idea for a film.
What I want to do is make a film about Product Place, marketing and advertising, which is funded by Product Place, marketing and advertising.
And the film is called "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold."
So what happened in "The Greatest Movie Everd," is that everything from up to bottom, from the beginning to the end is totally solitary -- from the title you'll see in the movie, this is the brand X.
Now, this brand, the Qualcomm stadium, the Staples Center...
These people are connected to the film in E.R. for whatever.
And so the film is going to study this whole idea -- this is what? Inwa, forever?
I'm an redundant person.
That was more for concrete.
It was "Inness, forever."
But we're not only going to have the brand X as a cover, but we're going to make sure we're going to sell every possible category in the movie.
So we may sell a shoe, and it will be the greatest shoe you ever...
The most amazing car you ever went from "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold," the most amazing grain you've ever had, a attention from "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold."
So the idea is to show that brand is part of life, actually, to get them to fund the film?
And we actually show the whole process of how it works.
The goal of all the film is transparency.
You'll see the whole thing going on in the movie.
So this is the whole concept, the whole film, from beginning to end.
And I would be happy if CEG was helping this happen.
You know, it's funny because when I heard it first, it's the ultimate respect for the audience.
I don't know how hard people are going to be.
Have you a perspective -- I don't want to use a slick angle, because that has a negative squirt -- but you know how it's going to be going to develop?
How much money is needed to realize this?
1.5 million.
I think it's going to be hard to meet them, but I think it's a case of, in any case, value, to really know some of the brand.
If the film comes out, maybe we'll see a hormone full-tas.
What do you think the answer is going to be?
The answer is probably going to be "no".
But is it a difficult thing about the film or a difficult thing for me?
JK: Both.
So,... "It's not that optimistic.
So, my gentleman, can you help me? I need help.
I can help.
Okay.
Fantastic.
We need to think about what brands are.
Yeah.
If you look at the people you've got to do it...
There are some places where we can apply.
Imagine the camera.
I thought, "Because the camera out," that we wanted a background to lead.
It turns out that actually it meant to be, "We don't want to do anything with your film."
And just like that, all these companies disappeared, one after another.
No one wanted to do something about the film.
I was amazed.
They were not going to have anything to do with the project.
And I was confused because I thought the whole concept of advertising was your product as many people as possible, let it see as many people as possible.
Especially in the world today, in this interface of new and old media landscapes -- it's not the idea of being exciting in this new business of being the mass of this message.
No, that was what I thought.
But look, the problem was that my idea had a fatal mistake, and that was the consequences.
Actually no, that wasn't the mistake at all.
That wouldn't have been a problem at all.
That would have been okay.
But what this picture is for is a problem.
You see, if you put transparency in the Google squid -- this is one of the first images that seems.
I really like your kind of Sergey glasses. Now.
That was the problem: transparency -- free from deception and deception, just to explore and look through, immediately, understandable, and enlightened information, especially in business, -- the last line is certainly the biggest problem.
You know, we're hearing a lot about transparency right now.
Our politicians say it, our president says it even our CEOs say it.
But if it comes to the point that it should be re-eyed, anything changes.
But why? Well, transparency is fearful -- like this strange bear that is still a sludge.
It's unsustainable -- like this strange land street.
And it's also very risky.
What else is risky?
A whole sle Cool Whip.
That's very risky.
So when I started talking to the companies and tell them that we wanted to tell this story, they said, "No, we want you to tell a story.
We want you to tell a story, but we just want you to tell our story."
You see, when I was a kid, and my father sat me in the lie -- and he's sitting there looking at me and looking at this look -- he would say, "My son, there's three versions of every story.
There's your version, there's my version, and there's the real version."
So you can see, with this film, we wanted to tell the true version.
But there was only one company that was willing to help us -- and that's because I've known John Bond and Richard Kirshen tree for years -- I realized that I had to do it alone, I had to deal with the means of going to the companies.
So what you suddenly started to understand -- or what I started to understand -- was that if you start talking to these companies, the idea of how your brand is understood, is a very powerful problem.
I have friends who make big, giant Hollywood community, and I have friends who are doing little Independent-Filmes like me.
And my friends who make big, giant Hollywood community say, why their movies are so successful, is because of the brands they have.
And then my friends who make little Independent-Filme, "Well how do we compete with these big, giant Hollywood companies?"
And the film is called "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold."
So what are we going to see bananas in the movie?
Every time I go on the way, and whenever I open up the medical fridge, you'll see banana Deodorant.
And every time I interview somebody, I can say, "Are you fresh enough for this interview?"
Are you so far? You see a little nervous.
I want to help you to do it.
So you might want to put a little bit of this in front of your interview."
And then we're going to offer one of these great hips.
EFloralfusion or a radise wind, they will have choice.
We're going to be a sexy for men and women -- well, roles, or nitrogen, whatever.
This is the short term.
Now I can answer all of the questions and give you a sense of fiber.
We're a smaller brand.
As you talked about the little movies, we are as brand a herdford.
So we don't have a budget like other brands.
So, doing these things -- you know, people remember bananas -- that's kind of why we're interested in.
What word would you describe with bananas?
Ban is blank.
That's a great question.
Woman: Really technology.
Technology is not the way you should describe something that someone does under the axis.
We're talking about artificial, fresh.
I think "fra" is a great word that this categories really makes a positive, compared to "beun odor and Feuchtigkeit."
It's going to give you fresh.
How can we keep you fresh -- better fresh, more fresh, three times more fresh.
These things have a positive effect.
And this is a million corporations.
What about me? What about the squiding squid?
I have to talk to the man on the street, which is like me, Otto norms.
They're supposed to tell me something about my brand.
How would you describe your brand?
Hmmm, my brand?
I don't know.
I really like to have beautiful clothes.
Woman: 80-dollar Revival hits skeptics, except the washing day.
All right, what's the brand odor?
It's a true thing.
I think the gene, the style I have, is probably "dark glamorous."
I like a lot of black colors, lots of grays and stuff like that.
But usually, I have a Access, like sunlls, or a jewelry, and a stuff.
Woman: If Dan were a brand, he would probably be a classic Mercedes Cabrio.
Man 2: The brand I am is, I would say, flies.
Woman 2: hippie, part Yogi, part of Brooklyn particle -- I don't know.
Man 3: I'm the syringe.
I'm a re-educated ecstatic in the country, worldwide.
So I think that's my brand.
This is my brand in my little, snucking industry.
Man 4: My brand is FedEx because I'm a goods.
Man 5: Markese sexy alkostic saor of adolescence.
Does that matter?
lawyer: I'm a lawyer.
I'm Tom.
Now, we can't all be the Tom market, but I often see myself at the interface of dark glamorous and a very short fly.
And what was happening was I needed a experts.
I needed someone who could go into my head, someone who could really help me understand what they call the "sbearity."
And so I found a company called Olson Zaltman in Pittsburg.
They've helped companies like nests, a re-educated, Hallmark, to discover these brands.
If they could do it for those, they could help me.
You brought your images, yeah?
I have that. The first picture is a picture of my family.
Just count me a little bit about how this is connected to your thoughts and feelings about you.
These are the people that shape my world.
Tell me about the world.
MD: This world? I think the world is your own world in which you live -- like people around you, the friends, the way you live your life, the work and the way you do.
All these things come from a place, and they start with me and they start with my family in West Virginia.
What's next is what you want to talk about.
The next one. This was the most beautiful day of my life.
What context is that to think about the thoughts and feelings of you?
It's like me, you know?
I like things that are different.
I like things that are weird. I like a little bit weird stuff.
Tell me about the "why" — What does it bring us?
What is the machete? What are the arrows in it right now?
Why is it important to re-evolving? What is the red?
Tell me a little bit about this part.
A little bit more about you, that's not you.
What else else are you going through?
... This is not going to be scared. What kind of axis are you in?
EEEEEE! No, thank you.
Thank you very much for your patience.
Yeah. All right.
Yeah, I don't know what's going to happen.
There were a lot of crazy things going on.
The first thing I saw was this idea that your brand squid has two separate pages, but the Morganlock market is an eight-foot brand.
They're very good at putting themselves in.
And I think there's almost a contradiction to that.
And I think some companies are just going to focus on a strength rather than both.
Many companies tend to -- and this is human nature -- to avoid things that you're not sure you're scared, they're afraid, these elements, and that you want to be called, and you turn them into something that's actually a positive, and that's a sent-up suit.
What other brands do they do?
The first is a class, Apple.
And you can also see it here, Target, Wii, mini Cooper's and jetBlue.
Well, there are brand and eight brands that come and go, but a game, eight, a pretty strong brand is a very strong thing.
A eight-digit brand. How is your brand?
If someone asked you to describe your brand, your brand sexity, how would it be?
You know, are you an Up-At abuse? Are you something that's going to get blood into Wall?
Or are you more like a Down-Attribut?
Are you something that's a little bit more quiet, more conservative?
Up-Attribute are things that are game-eyed, fresh like the Fresh Prince, time-eyed, expensive, slaming and loved, who's adolescence and a sludge, sludge, sludge, sland-a-sland-a-sknucking, sand-a-sland-a-sland-a-sk.
Or are you more like a Down character?
Are you eight and mondrs like007?
Are you being able to do traditional, more elominous, protecting, compassionate, oprah?
Are you reliable, stable, family, secure, erectating, sacred, thought, how the Dalai Lama or Yoda?
And over the course of the film, we had more than 500 companies, the Up and DownFimen, and theNo people said, "No," because they didn't want to be part of the project.
They didn't want to do anything with this film because you didn't have control, no control over the finished product.
But then 17 brands that were willing to be willing to give up on these control that was going to make some business with someone like me, and finally, to tell stories that we could not have told -- stories that would never support any commercials.
They able to tell the story of neuromarketing, as we tell the story in this film today, that we use MRIs to deal with the MRIs of the brain, both to make advertising and films.
We went to Sao Paulo, where the outsider was a sludge.
In the entire city, for five years, no adboard, no poster, no Flyer, nothing.
And we went to school district where companies were putting their way into a cliche, all over America.
And what's really exciting for me is that the projects that I got most of the feedback that I got, or where I've had the biggest success, those are where I interacting with things directly.
And that's what these brands did.
Because they went around the Middlemann, they went around the agent, and said that maybe the agents may not really have their interest in the sense.
I'm going to act directly with the artist.
I'm going to work with him and create something completely different, something that people think is going to be a world-class view.
And how did it do that? What did it do?
Well, because the movie at Sundance film Festival Premiere, we can look at this.
So Burrelles was the prime in January, and since then -- and this is not even the whole thing -- there were 900 million calls of this film.
This actually is only one period of two and a half weeks.
This is just online -- no press, no television.
The film has not been made out of it yet.
There's no one online. No one's going to be doing it.
He's not even gone out in other countries.
Well, finally, the film has done a very large moment.
And that's not bad for a project where almost every commercial agency we talked to, their customers have a finger to let it happen.
Something I'm really aware of is that if you take your opportunity and you take risks, you'll put in these risks.
I think if you stop people from it, you get them closer.
I think that if you train your employees to avoid risks, you prepared the whole company to get a profit.
I feel like we need to encourage people to take risks.
We need to encourage people to be afraid of ways that maybe they're frightened.
Finally, we should be scared to fear.
We should put the bears in the cage.
He wants to get the fear. He's a risk of getting it.
Anyway, the big lion, we're going to be able to get the risk.
And finally, we should be called transparency.
Today, more than ever before, it brings us a little bit of honesty.
And that said, with honesty and transparency, my whole talk, "Hello you want transparency," was presented by my good friends by EMC, the $7100 for the name of Ebaya.
Big data is transformed for organizations around the world.
EMC says, "You know transparency wants to come."
Thank you very much.
Now, Morgan, in the name of transparency, what happened to the $7100?
That's a great question.
I put a check in my pocket, a check-to-face, the TED Talk, the Sapling Foundation -- a check in high-tech100 to fund my TED stage next year.
My name is Amit.
I did something else in Google 18 months ago, and I was able to do something with museums and art, and my boss, which is also, I gave myself green light.
And it took 18 months.
A lot of fun negotiations and stories, I can tell you, with 17 very interesting museums from nine countries.
But I'm going to focus on the performance.
There are a lot of stories about why we did this.
I think my personal view is very simple with this slide and explains access to her.
I grew up in India.
I became a great education -- I didn't complain -- but I had too many  museums and those artworks, and I didn't have access to them.
And when I went to go to visit these museums, I started learning a lot.
And while I was working for Google, I was trying to make this silk -- to make art more accessible -- with technology.
We then created a team, a great team, and we started this.
I'm going to start with the demo, and tell you some interesting things that happened since the launch.
So you just go to GoogleArtProject.com.
You can look around in all these museums here.
There's the Uffected, the MoMA, the Hermitage, the Rijks, the Van Gogh.
I'm actually in one of my favorite, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
You come in two ways -- very simple.
Click, and wacky, you're in the museum.
It doesn't matter where you are -- bombay, Mexico, it doesn't make any difference.
You're about being on top of it.
You want to orient yourself in the museum?
Have the map, and jump with a click.
You're, you want to go to the end of the gang.
Just further. A lot of fun.
Do you.
Thank you, but the best one is coming.
So I'm in front of one of my favorite images, a beetahives of bees in the Met.
I see this plus signs.
If the museum gave us the picture, you click on it.
So this is one of the images.
These are all the metaphor data.
Those of you who are really interested in art can click here -- but I click that now.
This is one of the images we've been able to deal with what gigapixel technology is.
This image, for example, has about 10 billion points of image, I think.
And a lot of people ask me, "What do you get for 10 billion points of image?"
So I'm going to show you this.
You can zoom in very easily and zoom out.
You see something funny here.
I love this guy; his expression is unintended.
But then you really want to get deep inside.
And so I started playing around, and I realized that there is something going on.
And I thought, "Well, this sounds interesting."
I went close, and I noticed slowly, and that kids actually did something.
I'm going to do a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a sludge with a little bit of a sludge, and actually, this is a game called Squail, where a Gan is beaten on the fast service service.
It was quite popular.
I don't know why they did it, but I learned something about it.
To really go close, you can go up to the sand.
Just to give you the case, I zoom out so you can see what you get.
Here we were, and this is the painting.
But the best thing is -- in a second.
Let's jump quickly to MoMA, again in New York.
Another favorite picture of me, star tin.
So, in the previous example, it was about finding individuals.
But what if you want to see the paintbrushes?
And what if you want to see Van Gogh this masterpiece?
You zoom in. You can actually go inside.
I'm going to zoom in into one of my favorite parts of this picture until I'm really at the suck.
This is staring, I think, never seen before.
Now I'm going to show you my favorite function.
There are many more, but I'm missing time.
This is the really cool part, he's called collection.
Every one of you, every one of you -- whether rich or poor, whether you have a great house -- doesn't matter.
You can go online and create your own museum online -- you can put your own collection on.
Just, you go in -- and I've created this, it's called the power of the Zoom -- you can zoom around.
This is "Theands," in the Nationalgalry.
You can send everything with remarkable friends, and so a conversation start to see what you feel when you look at these masters.
I think, close, is the main thing for me, is that all the wonderful things don't come from Google.
They don't even get out of the museums.
I should not say that.
They come from artists.
And that was an experience in my mind.
I mean, I hope that we will be able to deal with this digital medium of art, and we represent them online.
And the biggest question I'm asking is, "Do you do this to replicate the experience of a museum visit?"
The answer to that is no.
It's supposed to be the experience.
That's what it's about. Thank you.
Thank you.
This is a representation of your brain. Your brain can be saved in two and half.
That's the left half that's the logical side, and then half the right is the intuitive side.
If we had a scale to measure the hemisphere of every hemisphere, we could represent their brains.
For example, this one would be someone who is completely logical.
This would be somebody who is completely intuitive.
Now, where would you position your brain on this scale?
Some of us may have decided to have one of these extremes, but I think for most people in the audience, your brain looks something like this -- with a high hemisphere that's at the same time in both hemispheres.
It's not as if they're both acoustic or the same.
You can be logical and intuitive.
And so I look at one of the people together with most other experimental quantum physicists who need a good percentage logic to put together complex ideas.
But at the same time, we need a good percentage of intuition to actually do the experiments.
How do we develop these intuitions? Well, we love playing things with things?
So we go out and play with it and then we look at it reacting, and then we start developing our intuition.
Basically, you're doing the same thing.
So one of the intuitions that they've developed over the years is probably one thing can be at the same time.
I mean, it can sound weird to think that one thing at the same time is at two different places, but you haven't been born with this idea, you developed it.
I remember seeing a child on the ground.
He was still a small child, and he wasn't very good at it, and he was always going to happen.
But I bet that the game taught him to do a very valuable lesson, which is not just let you go by, and that they remain in a place.
And this is a great conceptual model of the world, so long you're not a particle physicist.
It would be a terrible model for a particle physicist because they don't play with the floor, but with these little strange particles.
And when they play with their particles, they find all kinds of strange things -- how they fly directly through walls, or that they can be at the same time at two different places.
And so they all wrote these observations, and they called the theory of quantum mechanics.
This was the state of physics a few years ago; you needed quantum mechanics to describe the little, tiny particles.
But you didn't need them to describe the big everyday objects around us.
That didn't sound like my intuition, and maybe it's because I don't play with particles as often.
Well, I'll play with you sometimes, but not very often.
And I've never seen them.
I mean, nobody ever saw a particle.
But my logical side has not gotten it.
Because if all of these things are made of particles, and all these particles follow the rules of quantum mechanics, shouldn't it just follow the rules of quantum mechanics?
I don't see why it shouldn't be that way.
So I would feel clear with the whole thing if we could somehow show that everyday states are also following the rules of quantum mechanics.
So I did a few years ago, doing exactly that.
I created one.
This is the first object you can see in the quantenchanic superposition.
So what we're looking at here is a tiny computer chip.
And you can see this green dot there in the middle there.
This is the piece I'm going to talk about in a moment.
This is a picture of the object.
Here I'm going to make it a little bit. We're looking at the center right there.
And here's a really big close-up of this little piece of metal.
So what we're looking at is a little piece of metal, it's shaped like a jump jumper, and it's over the ante.
So I did this thing in a similar way that you do a computer chip.
I went to a clean space with new Siberia, and I sat down for 100 hours of all the big devices.
And for the last little bit, I had to build my own machine -- to get this kind of swimming pool and get the thing.
This thing has the ability to be in the quantenchanic superposition, but it takes a little bit to do it.
Look, let me give you an analogy.
You know how unreisonance it is in a full elevator?
I mean, if I'm alone, I'm doing all kinds of strange things, but then I add other people to do it, and I'm listening to all these things because I don't want to, or, frankly, they're going to be gone.
So quantum mechanics says that unrecing objects are just as feeling.
The driver of unintended objects are not just people, but the light that seems to be on them and the wind that's going to be over and the heat of the room.
And so we knew that if we wanted to see that piece of metal sacrocodile, we had to go out all the way out of the travel.
And we did that.
We turned out the light, put it in a vacuum, sat down the whole air, and we sat it all the way up to the right now, all alone, was free of the metal, to behave like it was always wanted.
So we measured his movement.
We found that it really moved strange.
Instead of being quiet there, it vibrating, the way it vibrating it was about as this -- like a sexy bubble and squid.
In which we gave him a little teeb of a squid, we could actually vibrate it at the same time, not vibrating -- something that's only allowed in quantum mechanics.
So what I'm going to tell you about is what is truly fantastic.
What does it mean for an object at the same time, not vibrating?
Let's think about nuclears.
So the first case: all the trillions of atoms are still there, and at the same time, the same atoms are moving and down.
Only to pre-elote at the moment, they agree.
The rest of the time they're depressed.
That means that every atom at the same time is at the same time two different places, which means that the whole piece of metal is in two different places.
I think that's really cool.
Really.
That was worth putting me in the clean space for all of this year, because, you know, the mass atom difference between one single atom and this piece is about the difference between metal and you.
So if a single atom can be at the same time at two different places, this piece of metal can be in two different places, why not you?
I mean, that's just what my logical side says.
So, imagine you'd be at the same time at a number of places like this would feel?
How would your consciousness deal with the fact that your body in the room is degraded?
There's another aspect of history.
When we sat down, the light turned on, and the box looked in, we saw that the piece was always in a piece of metal.
And so I had to develop these new intuitions that it looks like all the objects in the elevator are actually just quantum objects that are sat in a small room.
They hear a lot of Gerenic culture about how quantum mechanics says everything is connected to everything.
Well, that's not quite right.
There's more to it, it's more deeper than that.
It's like these connections, your connections with all the things around you, literally define who you are, and that's the depth and the fun of quantum mechanics.
Thank you very much.
In 2007, I decided we should be rethinking how we think about economic development.
It should be our goal that if families think about where they live and want to work, they have the opportunity to steal between at least one hand of different cities that are all in competition for new residents.
We're far away from this goal right now.
There are billions of people in developing countries that don't even have a single city available to them that would be called.
But the amazing thing about cities is they're so worth building it as it costs them.
So we could very simple go through the world, maybe even hundreds of new cities.
Now this may sound absurd for you, if you've never thought about new cities.
Just put the construction of homes against cities.
Imagine half the people who want to live in homes are already doing this; the other half aren't.
You could try to expand the capacity of the existing homes.
But you know where you'd let yourself go, into these apartments and the environment to avoid and to defestation.
So it turns out it's very hard to get out of all these extensions.
But you could go to a whole new place, build a whole new block of housing, put the laws in there, support it and not make it disabled.
So I've been able to make governments new surfaces that offer enough place for a city and give them a name: Charter Cities.
And later I found out that about the same time, yes, and Octavio, have thought about the challenge of a reform in Honduras.
They knew that every year, about 75,000 Honduraners left their country to go to the United States and they wanted to know what they could do to make sure that these people can stay in their country and do exactly the same in Honduras.
And at this point, yes, he said yes, "What happens if we take an un-conserved area of our country, what if we just give them a message -- a part of the American message, if people want to work under the edges of the United States, or the United States, can they work there, and can they do everything they want to go to Canada or America?"
In the summer of 2009, Honduras were a very sluduras crisis.
The next planks, Pepeo in a sado, whose program was both a innovation and a re-eyed.
He Octavio he asked to become atab.
In the meantime, I was ready to speak at TEDGlobal.
Through improvement, and by consumers, I tried to reduce this complicated concept of Charter City to the fundamental elements.
The first point is the importance of laws, laws that are affecting the existing apartment owner.
We're putting a lot of new technologies back, but for progress, it needs technology and laws, and it's usually laws that hold us back.
In the fall of 2010, a friend of Guatemala Octavio sent the link to the TEDTalk.
And the re-conducting showed him yes.
The two call me.
And they said, "Let's present the carpenter of our country."
So we met in December in the seat of a hotels in Miami.
I tried to make clear how valuable cities are, how much valuable they are than they cost.
And I used this graph to show how valuable rawland is in a place like New York, and think that a area in some cases is worth thousands of dollars.
But it was a pretty abstract discussion, in a place where there was a break, he said, "Paul, maybe we could look at the TEDTalk."
So the TEDTalk, in very simple form, made a Charter City is a place that is a sad in the beginning of unintended land, a squatter that screams the laws that are putting the laws down there, and the people who are able to decide either live under those rules or not.
And so I was asked by the president of Honduras, who meant we need to make this project important, and that this is the way we put our country forward.
I was asked to come to Tegucigucigucia and hold another four and five January.
So I've been studying another fact that has given a graph like this that's trying to make a lot of value in a city, it has to be a very big city.
This is a picture of the city Denver, and the sketches are bringing the new airport that was built in Denver.
All of those airports has a area of 100 square kilometers.
So I tried to convince the Honduranuran, if you want to build a new city, you have to start with an area at least 1,000 square miles.
That's more than 250 thousand in the morning.
Especially all of us have applauded.
The faces of the audience were very serious and limited.
The Congress came up onstage and said, "Professor Romer, thank you very much for your talk, but maybe we could look at the TEDTalk.
I have him on my laptop."
So I put myself in, and they played the TEDTalk.
And I came to the core of saying that a new city will give people new possibilities.
It would have the opportunity to live in a city that would be in Honduras, rather than hundreds of kilometers away in the north.
And a new city also provides new opportunities for leaders.
The leaders of Honduras would be based on the help of partners in the countries, they could benefit from their partners, who would benefit them to the laws of laws and support that everybody can trust that the charter is really being done.
And the realization of President Lobo, was that the re-eyedness of thesetzung that I thought about as a way to get the foreign investors out of the city, and could be the same for all parties in Honduras who have been suffering from many years.
We went into an area.
This is a picture of this place.
It's a thousand square miles.
And just after that, on January 19th, they've gotten Congress to change the way we've been able to have a re-evolving rule that is wrong for special development areas.
In a country that has just been a sawam crisis behind, Congress was elected to change this thing with 124th.
All parties, all the fattys of society, supported this.
To become part of the constitution, but it has to be re-eyed by Congress twice.
On February 17th, it became the second time with 114 to a voice of genetics.
In the midst of this choice between the 21st-century and February, a degradation of about 30 dogurans in the world were the most interested in bringing into the businesses of the urban building.
The place is South Korea.
This is a picture of a big, new city center built in South Korea -- big than the city center of Boston.
All you can see in this picture was built within four years after it took four years to get the tiniecess.
The other place that was very interested in urbanization is Singapore.
It's been built two cities in China, and the third is in preparation.
So if you think about it practical, it's where we are today.
They already have a building piece, and they already solve this area for the second city.
It's been working on a legal system that managers allows you to participate, and it's also worked on an external legal system.
A country already offered his top court left to provide the court for the court court for the emergence of the there.
And also cities design and building are very interested in urban design.
They even bring funding to one another.
One thing you know, it's been a sludge, there's a lot of rent.
There are many businesses that would like to be in America, especially in a place with a open-source zone, and there are many people who would like to live there.
There are 700 million people around the world who are surrounded that they want to live in a different place.
A million people leave Latin America and go to the United States.
Many of them are fathers who are forced to leave their families back to look for work, sometimes they're a single-to-one mothers who have to make enough money to make food and clothing.
Unfortunately, it's even kids who try to find their parents who they haven't seen in some cases since a decade.
So what is it for an idea to think about building Honduras a whole new city?
Or even you build these cities, or are you putting hundreds of people around the world?
So what is it for an idea to make sure that every family has a choice between several cities that are in competition for new residents?
That's an idea worth spreading.
My friends from Honduras asked me to say thank you TED.
You know how many decisions you make in a typical day?
You know how many decisions you make in a typical week?
I did a survey recently with over 2,000 Americans, and the average number of decisions that are a typical American does a day in a 70.
And so recently, a study of CEOs was seen for a week when they saw CEOs.
And these scientists have just documented the different topics with which these CEOs have been busy, and how much time they spent making decisions that hang with the topics.
And they found that an average CEO is busy at 139 tasks a week.
Each of these issues, of course, was made up of many, many smaller decisions.
50 percent of their decisions were made within nine minutes or less.
Only for about 12 percent of their decisions, they needed an hour or more of their time.
Think about your own decisions.
Do you know how many decisions you make category for nine minutes in those of an hour?
How good do you think you're in a way to deal with the decisions?
Today I want to talk about one of the biggest decision-making problems of our modern time, the decision-making problem.
I want to talk about the problem and some possible solutions.
Now, when I talk about this problem, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions, and I want to know your answers.
If I ask you a question, raise your hand, just if you want to burn some calories.
And as a matter of fact, please, if I ask you a question, and your answer is yes, so my first question for today is: Are you ready to hear something about making a decision-making problem?
Thank you very much.
When I was a graduate student at Stanford University, I went to this very strong food store at the time; at least it was really a sludge.
It was a store called Draeger's.
This business, it was almost like a pleasure park.
They had 250 different types of mustard and re-seming and over 500 different kinds of fruit and vegetables and more than two different kinds of water -- and this was at a time when we actually did a sludge water.
I loved going to that business, but at one point I asked myself, how come you never buy anything?
Here's the olive oil.
They had over 75 different kinds of olive oil, including those who were closed in cheese, who came from thousands of old olive trees.
So one day I decided to go to the squid, and I asked the ladder, "Do you really want this model that you're really going to offer all these possibilities?"
And he showed up the bus bottles of tourists that came every day and had their cameras in it.
We decided to do an experiment, and we chose Marmelade for our experiment.
Here's her Marme Gang.
They had three48 different kinds of Marmelade.
We put a little bit of a cosmic ray right on the entrance of the business.
We put six different tastes of Marmelade or 24 different tastes of Marmelade, and we looked at two things: First, I think, what would more people stay and try Marmeer?
There were more people standing when they were 24, about 60 percent, when they were six, about 40 percent.
And then after that, we looked at what case people were more buying a glass of Marmelade.
Now we saw the reverse effect.
From the people who stayed when they were 24, only three percent actually bought a glass of Marme.
From the people who stayed when they were six, now we saw that 30 percent of them actually bought a glass of Marme.
Well, if you calculate it, people were buying six times more like a glass of Marmem, who they had six of them when they had 24 of them.
Now, not to decide to buy glass workers, it's probably good for us -- at least it's good for our Tail -- but it turns out that the decision-making problem is also influenced us with very focused decisions.
We don't choose to decide even if it's going to go against our best interests.
So, the subject of the day: financial savings.
I'm going to describe a study that I'm going to describe with Gur Huberman, Emir Kamenica, Wei Jang, who we were looking at the decisions we were looking at at the retirement plans for almost a million Americans in the entire United States.
And what we looked at was whether the number of fund results that were possible in a retirement plan that was 401 plan that was influenced by more morning.
And we found that there was actually a context.
So in these plans, we had about six57 plans that people had done anything between two to 59 different funds.
And what we found was that the more funds were offered, in fact, the participation rate was lower.
Now if you look at the extremes that have plans that have two fund rates that they have in their '90s -- still not as high as we want.
In the plans that were almost 60 funds, the participation rate now fell to about the most strange percent.
Now, it turns out that even if you're going to participate in a way that you're going to get more opportunities to choice, even then it has negative consequences.
So people who decided to participate in a more ways that the more opportunities they were available to choose the more stock and the more enlightenment they were.
The more opportunities they were available, the more they were in their entire money market.
No one of these extreme decisions, belongs to the decisions that someone recommends if we are going to make it more important for the future financial well-being.
Now in the last 10 years, we've seen three fundamental negative consequences of people that are putting the more and more choices in it.
She seemed to be able to make the decision -- she seemed to be on her own best interest.
They make more bad decisions -- bad financial and bad medical decisions.
They're more likely to decide for things that they make themselves less happy when they make it objective better.
The main reason for this is that maybe we're going to look at these huge shelfs of Mayonaise, Senf, sludges and Marmeer, but we can't really pull the comparisons and rethink the emergence and actually choose something out of the fantastic supply.
So what I want to suggest to you today is four simple techniques -- techniques that we've tested on different ways of research -- that you can just apply to your business.
First of all, suck.
You've heard it before, but it was never true today that less is more.
People are always worried about saying, "Because me."
You always worry about the shelf.
But in fact, we see it more and more, that if you're ready to re-educate, and the important possibilities are going to get rid of, well, there's a rise in the sales, there's a cost to be sent, and there's &D improvement in the decision-making.
As a Proctor and Gamble, the various headset reduced 26 different kinds of 26 in 15, you experienced a rise to the selling selling by 10 percent.
When the Golden Cat Corporation sold her 10 on the worst cat of the greatest cat, you saw that the profits 87 percent rise -- a result of both, the rise of selling and the speech hallucination.
You know, the average supermasst today, offers you 45,000 products.
A typical Walmart is now allowing you 100,000 products.
But the nine-year-old supermarket that is now nine superpowers in the world today is Aldi, and they only offer you 1,400 products -- sort of tomato sauce in Dosen.
Now in the savings world, I think one of the best examples that has come to market recently is how to do the best choices you have was something that David Laibson was very strong with, it's a program that's offered at Harvard.
Every single Harvard employees automatically takes place in a lifetime of time.
Those who really want to meet a choice are offered 20 funds, not 300 or more funds.
You know, as people often say, "I don't know how to eat it.
They're all important possibilities."
And the first thing I ask is, "Well, look how the possibilities are different from each other.
And if your employees can't stop apart, it can't be your customer."
Well before we started out with day, I had a conversation with Gary.
And Gary said he was willing to be willing to offer all the people in this audience a hammer to the most beautiful street vacation in the world.
Here's a description of the street.
And I want to read you the one.
And now I'm going to give you a couple of seconds to read them, and then I'm going to ask you to clap if you're ready to take Gary's supply.
Okay. Everybody who is willing to take Gary's supply.
Are everyone?
Well, let me show you a little bit more of that.
You knew it was a trick, oh?
Now who is ready for this journey.
I think maybe I've heard more hands.
Good.
The fact is that you've looked at objectively, when you first saw more information than the second time, but I would guess you'd be more real at the second time.
Because the images made it feel more real for you.
What brings me to the second technology that helps you to deal with the problem of decision-making, is the concentration.
It's about understanding people's difference between ways of understanding what consequences are associated with the individual possibilities, and that these consequences need to be felt deeply and concrete.
Why do people spend about 15 to 30 percent more when you use a EC card or a credit card than money?
Because it doesn't really feel like we're making money.
And it turns out that if you do it, something is a very good tool to save people.
So we've done a study that I've done with Shlomo Benartzi and Aless Previtero, we've done a study with people ING -- employees that all ING -- and these people were all in a collection of their retirement plan for their retirement plan.
And while this collection, we have this collection right as it was always as it was, we only added a smallness.
The smallness that we added was that we asked people to just think about all the positive things that would happen in their lives if they save money.
And in which we did this simple thing, there was a rise of participation to 20 percent, and there was a rise of the number of people who were willing to save or a rise to four percent of the people they were willing to pay for the savings account.
The third technology: Kate algorithms.
We can do better with more category than we can do with more choices.
So, for example, here's a study we did in a magazine magazine.
It turns out that in the way, it's a super-sism up and down the North area, the number of 331 different kinds of magazine has gotten up to 664 magazine.
But you know what?
If I show you 600 of the magazines, and I show you in 10 category or 400 different categories, and I show you 400 category in 20 categories, I think I gave you more choices and a better choice than I gave you 400 of those if I gave you the 600.
Because the categories tell me how to keep it apart.
Here are two different jewelrys.
One is called "Jazz," and the other is called "Swing."
If you think the left ad Swing is a dymphony on the right, the clap is clapping in your hands.
Okay, there are a few.
If you think that's on the left-hand side, and the one on the right is a squirt, please clap.
Okay, so a few more.
Well it turns out you're right.
The one on the left is jazz, and the one on the right is sexing, but you know what?
This is a highly un-resolution Kate chemical.
The category have to tell the pick-up to something that is not willing to make the choice.
And this problem often is when you look at the long lists of all this fund.
Who do you want to get it done?
My fourth technology: Really for complexity.
It turns out that we can actually deal with more information than we think, we just have to simplify you.
We need to slow the complexity down.
Let me show you an example of what I mean.
Let's take a very, very complicated decision: the Kauf of a car.
Here's a German car company that gives you the opportunity to completely control their car.
You have to make 62 different decisions to design your car completely.
Now these decisions are different in the number of choices that they provide per decision.
Cars, outside the car -- I have 56 possibilities.
engines, drive -- four options.
What I do now is I change the order in which the decisions come.
Half of the customers are going to go from the many ways to the 56 car colors to the low-income opportunities.
The other half of the customers go from the low possibilities, four-year-olds to the 56 cars, many possibilities.
What do I look at?
How you are interested.
If you take the standard choice in the decision, it means you're going to be asking, I lose you.
What you find is that the people who go from the many to the low selection are always going back and forth and choose the standard choice.
We lose them.
Go from the few choices to the many, they stay in there.
It's the same information. It's the same number of possibilities.
The only thing I've done is it's presented in this information.
When I start with the simple beginning, I learn how to pick out.
Even though the drive drive, nothing to me about my ancestors, instead of saying, it's still ready for me to pick it up.
It also sat me in a sense about the big product that I'm putting together, and so I'm willing to motivate myself to be interested in doing this.
Let me summarize.
I told you about four techniques that are based on the problem of decision-making -- they're going to go through the liquid alternatives; they're going to go ahead and they're doing it, they're doing it, they're doing it real; we can do better with more category, less ways to prepare complexity.
Every one of these techniques I'm going to describe to you today is to help you manage the possibilities -- well for you, you can use for yourself, good for the people you're bringing service.
Because I think the key to the best choice is that you're a syringed in choice.
And the more we choose to pick up the more we get, the better we will be able to practice the art of decision-making.
Thank you very much.
Hi. I'm Kevin Allocca, trends at YouTube. I look at YouTube video.
That's true.
Today we want to talk about how videos are going to become viral, and why that's important.
We all want to be starving, singers, comedians -- when I was young, this seemed so difficult.
But web video is able to have a point that we can all be famous or all of our creative activities in part of the culture of our world.
Every single one of you might be famous on the Internet until next Saturday.
But in YouTube, more than 48 hours of video every minute are adapted.
And this is only a tiny percentage ever going to be viral and thousands of times a year, and this is how culturally a moment is going to look.
So how does that work?
Three things: Tastemaker, participationcommunities and unexpected.
Well, let's try.
Oh my God. Oh my God.
Oh my God!
Whereah!
Ohhhh, wowww!
Last year, Bear Vasquez send this video that he had filmed in his house in Yosemite National Park.
In 2010, it was 23 million times.
This chart shows what it looked like when the video was first popular.
Actually, Bear didn't want to make viral video.
He just wanted to share a rainbow.
Because you do that in a way, when you're called Yosemite Mountain Bear.
He had pushed a lot of natural video.
And this video was actually been sat in January.
What happened here?
This is Jimmy Kimmel.
Jimmy Kimmel sends the tweet that made the video so popular last.
Because keysmaker like Jimmy Kim is asking us new and interesting things to do, and show them a big audience.
It's Friday, Friday. Goda on Friday. Everybody's looking at the weekend. Friday, Friday, Friday. Get Friday on Friday. You wouldn't have thought we would take this conversation without talking about this video, I hope.
Rebecca Black's "Friday" is one of the most popular videos of the year.
It was looked at almost 200 million times this year.
This is how the graph looked.
Just like "Double Rainbow" seems to be from nothing.
What happened on that day?
Well, it was Friday, that's true.
If you want to know what it is: these other tops are Fridays.
But what about that day, that particular Friday?
Well, Tosh.0 was on, lots of blogs started writing about it.
Michael J. Nelson from Mystery Science theater was one first to make a joke about it.
What's important is that a single person or group of keys took a point and shared a big audience and accelerating the process.
Then these community of people who were a big inside of them, started talking about it and playing around with it.
Now there are 10,000 Parodies of "Friday" in YouTube.
And even in the first seven days, there was a sex for every single day.
In other words, as a 20th century, the participation of the community is our way to become part of this phenomenon -- either by spread it or making something new out of it.
"Nyan Cat" is animation and music in endlessife.
That's it, very simple.
This year, it was looked at almost 50 million times.
And if you think it's crazy, you should know that there's a three-year-old version of this that's been looked at four million times.
Even cats look at this video.
So cats look at cats looking at this video.
What's important is creativity that's been in the Internet culture of the Tech and the geek.
There were remixes.
Somebody did an old-fashioned version of it.
And then it became international.
A whole remix-based floor shot from the ground that made it a stupid joke to something that we all can participate.
Today, we don't just find a slam of something, we do it.
Who could have imagined this?
Who could have heard "Double Rainbow," or Rebecca Black or "Nyan Cat"?
What books could have been writing in which things are in?
In a world where every minute two days of video is thrown up, only only one really nice and unexpected thing can be mentioned is the videos.
I was not very interested in being a friend of mine, and I was told to look at this great video, about a guy who was protesting in New York for bicycles.
I got a ticket because I wasn't able to go away on the wheel, but often there are disability that don't let you go on the wheel away.
And there was a completely surprising and humor, Casey kidney-like idea, and his argument is looking at five million times.
That approach is true of everything we do.
And this all leads us to a big question.
What does that mean?
Ohhhh.
What does that mean?
Now, keysmaker, creative people, total unexpected communities, are the features of a new kind of media and culture that everybody has access to and in the audience.
As I said, one of the greatest stars -- Justin Bieber -- made his beginning in YouTube.
Nobody has to give your ideas green light.
And today, we all feel like we're also a owner of our pop culture.
And these are not the features of old media and they're not really hardly meeting the media media today, but they're going to determine the entertainment of the future.
Thank you very much.
How can I talk about the spread between women three generations of women, and how the amazing strengths  manifest themselves in life of a four-year-old girl when she walked together with her little sister over 30 years ago, her mother and her grandmother for five days and nights in Chinese seas, and a verbal life that sat in this little girl's life, and never sat in San Francisco, who now lives in San Francisco and now speak today?
The story is not over yet.
It's a puzzle that's still put together.
I want to tell you about some of the puzzles.
Imagine the first piece: a man who burns his life.
He's a poet, a writer, a man, whose whole life of the simple hope of unity and freedom of his home.
Just hold it in a squid of the community in Saigon, as he must be standing up, that his life had been a single waste.
The words, as long as his friends, now spot his friends.
He moved back to silence.
He died, broken through the story.
He's my grandfather.
I never met him personally.
But our lives are so much more than our memories.
My grandmother never forgotten me his life.
I had to make it not been free, and it was my job to learn that the story was trying to break us, but we were over.
The next puzzle shows how a boat is going to go in the early morning red in the sea.
My mother May was 18, when her father died -- already in a arrogated marriage, with two little girls.
For her life, she had a job: the escape of her family and her life in Australia.
It was completely re-eyed that it could fail.
After a four-year-old and filmed Saga, a boat sounded still on the sea as a fish boat.
All adults were aware of the risks.
The biggest fear was in front of pirates, rape and death.
As most adults wore on the boat, my mother wore a little poison bottle.
In a prison, first my sister and I, they would have drunk and my grandmother.
My first memory is from this boat -- the always Tucker of the engine, the class of any wave on the bug, the far and empty horizon.
I don't remember the pirates that many times came, but the death of the men on our boat were sat down on our boat, or the engine that didn't want to start six hours.
But I remember the lights of the oil platform before the mammalian coast, and the young man who broke together and died the end of the journey, and on the very end of the journey, and on the front of the first apple that gave me one of the men on the platform.
No apple ever resembled again.
After three months in a refugee camp, we ended up in Melbourne.
And the next piece is about four women in three generations that build together a new life.
We've been in Footscray, one of the laborers who were in a business class, whose population is made out of migrant layer.
In other words, when I was in the old middle class class class, the existence of me was completely unknown, there was no rescrascrascray.
The strands from the store came from the rest of the world.
And the fecal Englishs were re-eyed in between people who had one thing in common: they started re-eating.
My mother worked on farm, then on a fish line in a car factory, six days, twice.
It was sort of finding her time to get English and IT.
We were poor.
Every dollar was shared, and was thrown into English and math, no matter what we had to do, and most of the time, the new things that came out of the hand.
Two couples for school, each one to cover the holes in the other.
A school form up to the crows, because it had to get six years to get it.
And there were rare C listeners of "Thelitza mammals," and there were wall times, "Asia, go home."
After home, where?
Something sat in me.
There was a meeting for sonation, and a quiet voice said, "I'm going to go out of the way."
My mother, my sister and I sat in the same bed.
My mother was a sawam, but we told each other of our day, and we heard the movements of our grandmother's house.
My mother was snuck by the boat.
And it was my job to stay awake every night until her nightmares came to make her come up.
She opened a computer business, then she took a copying education and opened a business.
And the women came with their stories about men who didn't have the change, angry and incredibly flexible, and re-eating children, trapped between two worlds.
We were looking for a resemblance.
They were built centers.
I lived in parallel worlds.
In one of the classic Asian students, the unresolved demands of itself.
In the other hand, I was able to live in insecure life, the tragic extinction of violence, of drug abuse and the naive life.
But so many of them got help for years.
And that's why I was last year of the law school, when I was a young Australia from the year.
And I was thrown from a puzzle to the next, and the edges didn't fit together.
Tan Le, anonymous residents of Footscray, now Tan Le, refuge Le, refugee, and social activist, who was invited to talks to places she never heard of, and in the home that she could never have imagined.
I was not familiar with the esobs.
I didn't know how to use the best.
I didn't know how to talk about wine.
I didn't know how to talk about anything.
I wanted to go back to the routine and the sequence of life of an unknown life -- a grandmother, a mother and two daughters who decided to take her 20 years away from each other by telling the stories of their day and flies, we still flies in the same bed.
I told my mother, I wouldn't do that.
She remembered me that I was as old as they had gotten the boat back when we got the boat.
No, no one had never been a way.
"Tell it," she said. "You're not what you are not."
So I spoke about youthlessness and education, and the re-intentioned of the Marginalized and pre-moment.
And the more I talked, the more I should tell.
I met people in all the life, so many of them did what they loved, lived on the limits of the M.
And although I had gotten my degree, I realized I couldn't find myself in a career in law.
There had to be another piece of puzzles.
And I realized at the same time that it's okay to be an outsider, a new resemblance, new in the picture -- not just okay, but something that you need to be grateful for, maybe a gift of the boat.
Because listening to that, it can easily lead to a collapse of horizon, so easy to mean that you accept the assumptions of the environment.
I've gone through enough of my resemblance to know that yes, the world is a little bit apart, but not the way you sat.
The possibilities that wouldn't have been allowed were largely enlightenment.
There was an energy, an unsustainable optimism, a strange mix of denial and a sludge.
So I followed my gut feeling.
I collected a small team of people around me, not the shoe bubble, which was an unrethinkable challenge.
For a year, we didn't have a cents.
At the end of a day, I cook a huge top soup that we shared.
We worked late at night.
Most of our ideas were crazy, but it was a very brilliant one, and we managed to do the breakthrough.
I met the decision to go to the U.S.
It's just a journey there.
My gut feeling again.
Three months later, I was moved and adventure went on.
Before I leave the talk, I want to tell you about my grandmother.
She grew up at a time whenfuzialism was the social norm and local Mandarin the most important person.
Life had not changed since centuries.
Her father died just after her birth.
Her mother moved her alone.
She was taken to the second woman's Mandarin, whose mother was sat.
Without their man's support, she was worried for a Sensation by brought him to court and an ecstatic in her own case, and a greater Sensation than she won.
"Don't" seem to be a shit.
I just sat in a hotel room in Sydney when she died, 1,000 miles away in Melbourne.
I looked through the shower and I saw it stand on the other side.
I knew she had come to imitate.
My mother called me a few minutes after that.
A few days later, we went to a Buddhist temple in Footscray and sat around her Sarg.
We told her stories, and I told her that we were still in her.
In the afternoon, the monks came and said he would close the squid.
My mother asked us to touch her hand.
She asked the monks, "Why is her hand so warm and the rest of her?"
"Because you've been holding it for this morning," he said.
"You didn't get rid of them."
If there's a band in our family, it goes through women.
You see who we were, and how life shaped us, we can now see that the men who might have come to our lives, would have come to the re-eyed.
The Netherlands would have been too simple.
Now I would like to have my own children, and I think I would have the boat.
Who would ever wish for one?
Yes, I'm afraid of privilege, of importance, of law-making.
Can I give you a bug in their lives that despite every wave that despite the unirrational, always the motor, the far horizon that doesn't matter?
I don't know.
But if I could give this and bring it safe, I would.
And also, Tan's mother is here in the fourth or five row.
I'm here to share my photography with you.
Is it more photography?
Because, of course, this is a picture you can't take with your camera.
But even though my interest started in photography when I got my first digital camera, at age 15.
I combined it with my former pre-elie, but it was a little bit different, because the camera was much more planning in planning.
And if you take a picture with a camera, the process is if you put it on the sphere.
So for me, it seemed more like the photography seemed to be at the right place at the right time.
I believed everybody could do that.
So I wanted to create something else, something that starts when the process is re-ederated.
So photographs like this: a building instead of driving a lot along a street.
But it has an unexpected creature.
And yet, a real level is a real.
Or photos like this -- dark and frozen at the same time, but all with the targets, keep a realistic level.
When I say reality, I mean photo reality.
Because, of course, it's not something you can really catch, but I want to always look like they could have done this on a picture.
So, photos that you have to think about for a moment, to find out the trick.
So it's more about bringing an idea than really a moment.
But what's the trick that makes it real?
Is it going around the details or the colors?
Does it go around the light?
What creates the illusion?
Sometimes the illusion is the illusion.
But the end thing is how we interpret the world, and how it can be made on a two-dimensional surface.
It's not about what is realistic, but what we think is realistic.
So I think the basic ones are very simple.
I think of them as a puzzle of reality where you can take different pieces and put them together to create an alternative reality.
And let me show you a simple example.
We've got three perfect physical objects here, with which we all identify in a three-dimensional world.
But in a certain way, they can create something that looks three-dimensional, as if it could exist.
But at the same time, we know that this is not possible.
So we're talking about a lot of our brains because our brains just don't accept it doesn't really make sense.
And I see the same process in compelled photos.
It's really just about putting different realities together.
So the things that make a picture real, I think, are the things we don't think about, the things around us in our everyday life.
But if we combine photos, it's really important to think about it, because otherwise they just look kind of wrong.
So I would say there are three simple rules to be able to achieve a real result.
As you can see, these are not three special images.
But they can combine something special about how this works.
So the first rule is that combined photos should have the same perspective.
Second, photos should have the same lighting.
And these two pictures are putting these two demands -- made out of the same altitude, and the same lighting.
Third, it's about making it impossible to make different ways of starting the individual images and end up putting them up close.
Make it impossible to say how the photo was actually put together.
So, in a color, a contrast and a lightness on the edges, photographing the individual images, photographing the fields, like field deep, squid colors and disorders, we re-seping the boundaries between the different images and let them look like a single photo, even though a picture of levels can be essentially able to have hundreds of levels.
Here's another example.
You might think that this is just a landscape, and the lower part was manipulated.
But this picture is actually completely re-educated, made of photos of different places.
I personally think it's easier to create a place than finding a place, because you don't have to go to compromise with ideas in your head.
But it requires a lot of planning.
And when I had this idea in the winter, I knew I needed to plan for months to find different places for the piece of the puzzle.
For example, fish had been taken on a fish flight.
The submersible is from a different place.
The underwater eil is from a rock.
And yes, I even put the house on the top of the island to make it sexy.
So to reach a real-time result, it's all seen from me to planning.
I always start with a Sketch, an idea.
And then it's about the combination of the different images.
And here's every piece very good at all.
And if you make good pictures, the result is pretty beautiful, and also quite real.
So, it's all the tools there, and the only thing that's based on us is our imagination.
Thank you very much.
I'd like to talk to you about why so many electronic health projects are missing.
And I think the most important thing about this is that we stopped talking to our patients.
And one of the things we've done on the wheelboud University was to make a major listener.
It's not very much scientific -- it's a cup of coffee or tea, and the patient, family, relatives, "How are you going to?
How can we help you?"
And we think we want to think that this is one of the main problems of why everyone -- maybe most of the electronic health projects -- because we've stopped listening.
This is my wireless, a very simple thing.
It has a button, an ep.
And every morning I jump on that.
And yes, I have a task, as you might recognize.
I put my job at 95 pounds.
It just works very simple: every time I jump into the scale, it sends my data to Google Health.
And they're also called by my general doctor, so that he can see where my weight is, not only in the moment I'm putting technology support or something, but also looking at the past.
But there's something else.
Maybe you've known this, I've got over 4,000 Followers on Twitter.
So every morning, I jump on my wireless squid, and people are talking to me before I sit in the car, "Sorry with lunch rather than just a little Salat,  Lucien."
But that's the most net thing that can happen because this is the group forced groups to help people, because that could be used against obesity, or it could be used to patients.
But it could also be used to get people out of their chairs, and to play them together, to do some kind of game to control their health better.
The next week comes to the market.
There will be this little blood pressure device that you'll put on an iPhone or something like that.
And it will allow people to measure from home pressure to their physician, to share it with other people, for example, for something more than 100 dollars.
At this point, the patient comes into play, and not only can you take control of control, but you can also help us to help us move from health care, the challenges that are in front of us, and the cost of health care, twice as well as the demand, and so on.
Do techniques that are easy to use, and start putting it on, putting patients in the team.
And you can do that by creating these kinds of ways, but also by crowdsourcing.
And one of the things that we did is I want to share with you a quick video.
We have all the navigation systems in our cars.
Maybe in our mobile phones.
We know exactly where all the moneys are around Maastriches.
We know one more thing where all the gas stations are.
And we can find fast food chain.
But where would the next AED be to help this patient?
We asked them, and nobody knew it.
No one knew where the next living AED was at that moment.
So what did we do? We did crowdsourcing in the Netherlands.
We've created a website and we asked people, "If you see an AED, please share us with where he's on," because sometimes he's closed during business hours, of course.
And over 10,000 AEDs have been signed in the Netherlands.
The next step was to find the apps for this.
And we've created an iPad app.
We've developed an app for Layar, augmented reality to find this AED.
And if you're in a city like Maastricht and somebody sat down, you can use your iPhone, and within the next couple of weeks, your Microsoftandy to find the next AED that can save lives.
And we want to do this today not just as AED4U, as the product calls itself, but as AED4US.
And we want to bring this to a global level.
And we ask our colleagues around the world, from other universities, to help us behave like nodes to try to crowdsource these AEDs around the world.
And if you're in vacation and somebody sat down, your own business or anyone else, you can find an AED.
The other thing that we want to ask is that companies around the world help us with this EDs.
This might be a curator service, or technology, for example, to make sure that the eED is still on its place.
Please help us do this, and try to improve health not just a little bit, but take it into your hand.
Thank you very much.
Today, I'm going to tell you about unexpected discoveries.
I work in solar technology.
And my little center wants us to force ourselves to the environmentalist by...
... it's putting the crowdsourcing...
Here's a quick video about what we do.
Oh. A moment.
It may take us until it's a re-edolescence.
Now -- we can just pick this up -- I'm just going to jump into the video.
No.
That's not...
Okay.
Solar technology is...
Oh, my time is over?
Okay. Thank you.
So a few years ago, I started a program to get the stars in technology and design to take a year and work in an environment that's pretty much all they hate, and we've actually got them working in the government.
The program is called "Code for America," and it's a little bit like peacecorps for computer-resation.
We choose a few Fellows every year, and we let them work with urban areas every year.
Instead of sending them to the third world, we send them to advice.
And they developed great apps, working with urban employees.
But what they really do is show what is possible today with technology.
So you meet Al.
Al is a fireant in the city of Boston.
Here it looks like it's looking for a date, but what it really looks like is someone who's looking for him when they're infected, because he knows he's not very good at squid when he's a meter of snow.
How did he get to look for this particular way of aid?
We had a team of Fellows in Boston last year, the "Code for America."
They were there in February, and it had a lot of failed.
And they realized that the city never looked out these fire cliffs.
But a certain Fellow, a man named Erik Michaels-Ober, noticed something else, and that was that the people were looking out the most free, right before these parts.
So he did what everyone would do, he wrote an app.
It's a nice little app where you can adopt a fire cliff.
You're going to look at him in the face when it's going to go.
If you do that, you can give him a name, and he called the first al.
If you don't do that, someone can take away.
So there's a nice little game dynamics.
This is a very modest little app.
It's probably the smallest of the 21 app that written the Fellows in the last year.
But she does something that no other government technology does.
It spreads out very quickly.
There's this guy in the I.T. distribution of Honolulu who's seen that he could use this app, not for snow, but to adopt the citizens of tsunamis.
It's very important that these tsunamis work, but people steal the batteries.
So he got the citizens to check them.
And then Seattle decided to use the app to get the citizens to get the sex guerllys.
And Chicago just led them to look at the snucks so that people would look out the sneops, when they would suck.
We now know nine cities that are planning to use this app.
And it has reclaimd, organic, of course.
If you know about government technology, you know it's not going to happen.
The creation of software takes a few years to be in rule.
We had a team that worked on a project last year in Boston for three and a half.
It was about a way of able to figure out what parents are doing right now for their children.
We've been told later that if it had to go over the normal channels, it took over two years, and it would have gotten over two million dollars.
And that's not even anything.
There's a project in the California Just the tax number of billion dollars right now, and it doesn't work.
And there are projects like this on every level of government.
So an app that is written in a few days, and then spread from strange is a kind of shoe to the bug on the institution of government.
It shows how government could work better -- no longer like a private company, how many people think it should be.
And not even like a technology company, but rather like the Internet itself.
And that means free access, which means open and productive.
And that's important.
But more importantly, it represents a new generation that enables the problem of government -- not as the problem of a snaive institution, but as a collective action problem.
And this is a very good news, because it turns out we're very good at collective action with digital technology.
Now there's a big community of people who make the tools that we need to put things together in common.
It's not just for America's Fellows, there are hundreds of people all over the country who are writing and writing government app, every day in their own communities.
They didn't give up the government.
They're more frustrated with theirs, but they don't complain about it, they repair it.
And these people know something that we lost from the eyes.
And that's when you're all putting your feelings on politics and the snake of the work and all the other things that we really get excited about, government, is at the core, in the words of Tim O'Reilly, "What we can't do together."
Today, a lot of people have given the government to you.
And if you're one of the people, please ask you that you're going to change things.
The politics doesn't change; the government is in change.
And because the government finally sat down and sat down -- "We are going to give you the people?" -- how do we think about how this change is going to happen?
I didn't know much about government when I started this program.
And as many people, I thought it was mainly about bringing people into an amte.
Now after two years, I came to the conclusion that it was all about prey, prey.
This is the call center for service and information.
You're usually out there when you call in your city three-11ed town.
If you've ever had the opportunity to work in your urban call center, as our Fellow Scott Silverman as part of the program -- in fact, they do all -- we see that the people who call the government for many different problems, including that a prey in their house is in their house.
So Scott gets this call.
He types "the rat" into the official database.
And he didn't really have an idea. He starts with the animal.
And finally, he says, "Look, can you open all the doors in your house and play very loud music and see if the livestock sucks?"
And that worked. It was a lot of applause for Scott.
But that wasn't the end of the thylacine.
Boston has not only a call center.
It has an app, a web and cell phone app called "Citizens connect."
We didn't write this app.
This is a very smart work that people in the office of the New urban mechanics are in Boston.
One day -- this is a actual report -- came in: "Don't be able to tell me whether it's dead.
How do I get them removed?"
But what happened to "Citizens connect" is different.
Scott was unable to get away from human to human.
But on "Citizens connect" is all public, so that everyone can see it.
And in this case, a neighbor looked at it.
And the next one we got was, "I went over there, the garbage was behind the house.
Do you have thylacines? Yes. Life? Yap.
The waste was putting the waste on the page. Ging home.
Good night, sweet thylacines."
It's easy.
That's great. Here's the digital thing.
And it's also a good example of how government is getting into the crowdsourcing.
But it's also a great example of government as a platform.
And I don't necessarily mean a technical definition of the platform.
I'm more talking about a platform for people, helping themselves and helping others.
A citizen helped another citizen, but the government played a central role here.
They were bringing these two people.
And you could have gotten them together with state services if they needed it, but a neighbor is a much better and cheaper alternative to state services.
If a neighbor helps others, we squeak our communities.
Let's call the animal a lot of money.
One of the most important things is that we have to think about it is that government is not the same as politics.
And most people understand that, but they think that's one of the inputs of the other.
That's our contribution to the system.
How many times have we elected a political leaders -- and sometimes we use a lot of energy to choose a new political leaders -- and then we sit back and we expect the government to reflected our values and then haven't changed much?
That's because the government is like another ocean and politics, and that's the top 15thest.
And what's below is what we call bureaucracy.
And we use that word with such a resemblance.
But it's this re-eyed thing that we own, and for which we pay, something that makes us work against us, something else, and then we degrade ourselves.
People seem to think, politics is sexy.
If we want these institutions to work for us, we need to make office democracy sexy.
Because that's where the government works.
We need to let the machine go to the government.
So OccupytheEC movement did it.
Do you see these guys?
It's a group of worried citizens who wrote a very detailed 325 report that is an answer to the SECo of laws over the financial form.
This is not the political active thing, and that's bureaucratic.
Well, for those of us who have given the government, it's time we think about the world we want to leave our children.
You have to imagine the tremendous challenges that they have to be doing.
Do we really believe that we need to achieve what we need to achieve without a institution that can act in the name of all of us?
A government is absolutely necessary, but it has to become more efficient.
The good news is that technology is possible to make the function fundamentally fundamentally fundamentally fundamentally fundamentally in a way that can actually achieve something by bringing society.
And there's a generation that grew up with the Internet, and the one who knows that it's not so hard to do things together, you have to build the only real systems.
So the average age of our Fellow is 28,, unfortunately, almost one generation older than most of them.
This is a generation that grew up with seeing her voice as a matter of course.
They don't fight those fights that we all fight, which is why they can talk; they all have to speak.
They can be extremely, at every cane, at every time, and they can.
So, if you're faced with the problem of government, they don't care so much about using their voices.
They use their hands.
They use their hands to write applications that improve the work of government.
And this app is what we're using to make our hands better for our communities.
This could be to look at a fire wing, to weed, to turn a coin with a prey rat.
And sure enough, we could have released these fire sks all the time, and many people would do that.
But these apps are like small digital memories that we are not just consumers, and we are not just consumers of government pay and putting tax devices.
We're more than that, we're citizens.
And we're not going to improve government until we improve the civil civil civil society.
So the question I have for all of you here: If it's about the big, important things that we have to do together, all together, will we be a lot of voices, or will we be a lot of hands?
Thank you.
Usually, my role in trying to explain how wonderful people are the new technologies that are coming, and I thought, well, I'm here with friends, I'd tell you what I really think I'm going to do, and also to try to look back and understand what's going on with these incredible savsse on the front of us that we can't really be able to stop.
I'm going to start by showing you a single, boring slide.
If you're a little bit of a slide, please show up.
This is a slide that I chose to get out of my place.
It's not about the details of the slide, but it's a lot of the general shape.
This slide shows data from an analysis of us about the performance of RISC processors compared to the performance of a Local region.
And what's interesting here is that this slide, as you're doing, is you're often putting in our field, is a kind of a semi-ologist curve.
In other words, every step here is a potential in the performance.
And this is a new thing that we have to use this guy on semi-logal curve in the area of technology.
Something very strange happens here.
This is basically what I'm going to talk about here.
So if you could put the lights back in, please.
Another bright thing, because I'm going to draw something on paper here.
Now, why do we draw graphs in the technology of semi-ologists in semi-ologist curves?
The reason for that is, if I were to draw it on a normal curve, where, say, this is the years, so this is a kind of mass of technology, which I want to put in with a graph, then the graph will be a silly graph.
And then they look like this.
And that doesn't tell us a lot.
Now, if I want to draw a different technology, let's say, a transportation technology, that would be very inevitable on the semi-log scale, in a form of flat line.
But if something like this happens, then it changes qualitative circumstances.
So if transportation was going to be as fast as the microprocessor technology, then we could go across a taxi and we would be in Tokyo for 30 seconds.
But it's not that fast.
This has never been around in history before, this kind of re-resolution growth, which is the size of exponentially increased every few years.
Now, the question I want to ask you is, if you look at this exponential curve, you can see they don't go on forever.
It's not possible that everything is focused on forever and eternally so fast as we now have.
There are two ways.
Either it will either be a classic S-Kveve like this, until something completely new comes up, or it will happen here.
It's about it.
Well, I'm an optimist, so I think something like this is going to happen.
Is that really like that, then that means we're in the middle of a transition right now.
We're here in this line, in a transition from the world to a new kind of world.
So the question I want to ask and I often ask myself is, how is this new world going to be?
What's this new state that the world is slowly taking?
Because the transition seems very, very confused when you're in the middle of it.
When I was a kid, there was the future somewhere in 2000, and people often talked about what would happen in the year 2000.
Now we have a conference here where people talk about the future, and you realize the future is still in 2000.
We don't stop.
So in other words, the future has been around a year since I was on this world.
I think the reason for that is because we realize that something is in the gang.
The transition is happening. We can all feel it.
And we know that it's just not going to make sense to try and look 30 or 50 years into the future because everything will be so different, that a simple high calculation of what we're doing now is not making sense.
Now I want to talk about what this might be, this transition that we're at right now.
To do this, I'm going to talk about some other things that really have nothing to do with technology or computers.
Because I really believe that in order to understand this, we need to step back and look at the thing on a longer period of time.
And that's what I want to look at at the scale of life on Earth.
I think the big picture makes sense when you put it in a few billion-dollar system.
So let's go back, and that's two billion years. The Earth was a big, sterile rocks with lots of a lot of chemicals on it.
Now, if you look at the way these chemicals organized, then we have a pretty good picture of how they do it.
I also believe there are theories that are beginning to understand how everything started with RNA, but I'm going to tell you a very RNA-like story about which, at that time, that small oil-sobsh, which were different kinds of receptors for chemicals.
Some of these oil strands were a special combination of chemicals that allowed them to integrate other chemicals from their own.
All of those were like this, they started to divide.
These little oil-sixeds were the most primitive cells.
But these oil-levels weren't living in the sense of today because every single one of them was just a small, random recipe of chemicals.
And every time it shared, it spreads in a lot of chemicals in that.
So each taps was a little different.
In fact, the tas grew up putting a re-edolescence that had more than others and integrated more and more chemicals from the dung and shared faster.
So these strands were a little bit longer to survive, and they were slowed down into larger smutilation.
So this is just a very simple chemical form of life, but it becomes more interesting when those feces learned a trick about abstraction.
In some way that we don't quite understand yet, these temings have learned the ability to write information.
They've learned to store the receptor of the cell as information, and that is in a certain chemical form that we call DNA.
In other words, they found an evolutionary way to write down, to write down, to where they were able to get stored and copy that information.
The amazing thing about this is that this kind of information has been able to store over the time of two and a half billion years, where it's gone.
In fact, the recipe for us, which is our genes, is exactly the same code and same creation.
And each living thing uses exactly the same letter and the same code.
We're so far that we can only write, in this code, write things in the code.
And I've got 100 micrograms of a female sanding pulse that I try to keep in flight space from security class.
And so what I did is I took this code -- the code is made of normal letters that we use to symbolize my business card and I wrote it to a piece of DNA and it's a 10 erupting.
So if somebody wants to have a hundred million copies of my business card, I have enough for everyone in this room and even everyone in the world, and it's right here.
If I had been a egoist, I would have written it to a virus and put it in the room.
So what's the next step?
The Netherlands writing of DNA was an interesting step.
And that was what these cells were doing -- that made them happy for another billion years.
But then another very interesting step that was completely different, and that was when these cells started to communicate and to exchange information, so that communities of cells have come together.
I don't know if you knew this, but bacteria can actually connect their DNA.
That's why, for example, the success of antibiotics grow.
Some bacteria have found out how to stay away from penicillin, and have this information together with other bacteria in the DNA, and now we have a lot of bacteria that are resistant to penicillin because the bacteria communicate.
These communication now allowed the reasons of communities that were in some sense in the same boat; they were synergeti.
So they either survived, or they went together, and that meant that if a community was successful, all individuals were re-eyed and re-edolated and re-edolescenced in a more often than evolution.
The transitional station is now where these communities gathered together so close that they decided to write the recipe for the whole community into a sign of DNA.
And the next interesting phase took about another billion years.
And at that point, we have more cellular communities, communities of many cellular types, which together as individual organisms.
In fact, we're also such a more cellular community.
We have many cells that are not alone.
Your skin cells are useless without heart cells, muscle cells, brain cells and so on.
So these communities started to continue to develop, so that the level of evolution was not the single cell, but all the cells that we call organisms.
The next step happened within these communities.
The cells started to break down information.
And they developed special structures that didn't make anything else than process information within the organism.
And these are neural structures.
So the neurons are the information processing system that these cells have built.
They started to train specialists within the community, special structures, which were responsible for learning, understanding and bringing information.
And this was the brain, and the nervous system of these communities.
This gave them an evolutionary advantage.
Because at that point, an individual -- learning happened within the time of life, a single organism, instead of that evolutionary period.
So an organism could learn, for example, to eat a particular fruit, because she did bad tastes and she made sick, the last time he ate her.
This could happen within the lifetime of a single organism, whereas hundreds of thousands of years before that, because this information had to be learned by the individuals who died because of this fruit structure, because of this information structure.
So the nervous system has the evolution process with this particular information structure, because evolution could now happen within an individual.
It could happen within a time-lapse learning.
What happened after that was that the individual organisms found a way to communicate among each other.
For example, the most powerful version of this communication is human language.
But it's a pretty amazing invention when you think about it.
I have a very complicated, a sludge and confused idea in my head.
I'm sitting here, and I'm basically a sludge of myself, essentially, putting in hope into a similar idea in your head that has a certain kind of similar idea to my original idea.
So we take something very complicated, turn it into sound, a sequence of sound, and produce something very complicated in the heads of others.
So this allows us to work as a re-evolving organism.
And what we actually did is we started to disseminate humanity.
We go through the same stage that have been through more-scale, more abstractions -- the abstraction of our methods, as we're putting data on.
For example, the invention of language was a small step in this direction.
phoneie, computers, video change, CD-ROMs and so on, all of our specialized mechanisms that we built in our community to be able to make this information a little bit of.
And it connects us all together to something that's much bigger, and it's also capable of developing faster than we have been.
So today evolution can happen in the time period of microseconds.
You've also seen Ty's little evolution game where he showed a little evolution in theConvolution program, right in front of you.
So now we've re-shaped the scale again.
The first step in history that I told you was a billion years per piece.
The next step, like the nervous system and the brain, took a few hundred million years.
Then the next step, like language and so on, did less than a million years.
And these next steps, like electronics, seem to be a few decades.
The process is re-eyed by itself, so I think auto- catalyticly is the word for it -- if something changes its change.
The more it changes, the faster it changes.
And I think that's what we're seeing here in this explosion curve.
We see the process that's based on itself.
I live from the building of computers, and I know that I use the mechanism that I could build to build computers, not use, without the recently made progress in computer technology.
My current activity is to design objects with such a high complexity that it's impossible for me to design this traditional sense.
I don't know what every single transistor does in the connection machine.
It has billions of them.
What I do instead, and what designers do is we think in a certain abstract level, we give up this machine and the machine something that goes far beyond our skills, better and faster than we could ever do it.
And it makes partly partly with methods that we don't even understand.
One way that is particularly interesting, and which I've been using in the last few times is evolution itself.
And we're putting an evolution process in which is going on in the microseconds.
To give you an example of what's most extreme cases, we can create a program that evolved from randomness.
We say, "Comeer, please create a hundred million random sequences of infection.
Now, please take all of these randomness, put all the programs out, and ultimately the ones that I'm going to end up with are the next one."
So in other words, I first define what I want.
Let's say I want numbers, that would be a simple example of what I've used for.
So Find programs that can sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of
Of course, the opportunity to randomness is very small that they're putting random numbers on random numbers, so I don't think they're going to do this.
But one of them may be lucky with two numbers in the right order.
Now I say, "Comeer, now the 10 percent of the sequences that have come to my next record.
And memory goes down, and then you can see the rest.
Now, all the rest of the one that left the numbers have best stayed.
And that is, with a method of re-educated analogy."
Take two programs and they produce children through exchange of their subroutines, and the kids die the features of subroutines from the two programs.
So I've got a new generation of programs that have come up with combinations of programs that have come closer to the Earth than others.
Tell me, "Please repeat this process."
They're going to keep them back.
Maybe some mutations will be a little mutations.
And I'm going to try again with another generation.
All of these generations need few milliseconds.
And so I can run evolution over millions of years in the computer, in less than a few minutes, or more complicated cases, for hours.
And finally, I get programs that can perfectly sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort of sort
In fact, these programs are so much more efficient than any program I could have writing from hand.
And if I look at these programs, I can't tell you how they work.
I tried to understand her.
They're thrown and weird programs.
But they do the job.
I know and I'm sure they're doing the job because they come from a series of hundreds of thousands of programs that have done the job.
Because their lives if they did the job right.
I once sat down at a 747 with Marvin Minsky, and he's going to take a map and say, "Oh, look at that. Look at that.
There's a plane that's made up of hundreds of thousands of little pieces of little pieces that work together to make your flight safe.'t you make that easier?"
We know that a process of development is not optimal if it becomes complicated.
So we start to leave computer, for a process which is very different from classical engineering.
It allows us things to do with a much higher complexity than to allow the normal methods to produce.
And yet, we don't really understand the possibilities of it yet.
So we're a little bit more re-eyed to technology.
We're now using these programs to make the computer much faster so that we can do these processes even faster.
So it's a feedback.
It's going to be faster and faster, and I think that's why it seems so confused.
Because all these new technologies today are going to feed themselves.
We're going to pick up.
We've come to a point where the analog is at the time when individuals who have evolved to be more than a single-fifth-the-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-sea-soa-seismes.
So we're the ants, and we can't quite get out of what the hell we're actually at the end of this.
We're in the middle of this transition.
But I really think that something else comes from us.
I think it's very sophisticated to say that we are the end product of evolution.
And I think we're all here part of creation of what comes next.
Now, lunch is before I hear I'm going to go out before I go out.
My story starts right here in Rajasthan, about two years ago.
I was under the star sky in the desert with Sufi magazine Mukhtiar Ali.
We talked about that nothing has changed since the age of ancient Indian Epos, "Mahabharata."
If we were to travel to Indians then we would get into a car and sat in the sky.
Now we're going to do this with airplanes.
At the time, when the great Indian War fiction had Arjuna Durst, he took a bow, shot in the ground and the water.
Now we're going to do this with drills and machines.
We came to the conclusion that magic and magic were replaced by machines.
And that really made me sad.
I was scared of technology.
It was afraid that I could lose the ability to enjoy the sun without a camera and without tweet to my friends.
I found technology should be able to do magic and not kill.
When I was a little girl, my grandfather gave me his little slamey keyboard.
This piece of 50-year-old technology became the most magical thing for me.
It became a golden access to a world of pirates and a sludge ship and images in my mind.
I came to see it as though our clocks were sending us our clocks and cameras off.
They were inspired to be inspired by this.
And so I went to the world of technology to see how I could use magic instead of killing.
With 16 I started putting books on.
When I saw the iPad, I saw it as a device to tell the story, to connect readers around the world.
It can know how we hold it.
It can know where we are.
It brings images together and text, and animation, sounds and touch.
The storytellers needed more and more senses.
But what are we doing with this?
I'm just going to Khoya, an interactive iPad app.
Here's, "Let your fingers on any light."
And so -- here's "The box..." I write my name.
And I'm going to have a character in the book.
And again, a letter to me -- and the iPad knows by GPS where I live -- which is rightly enlightening to me.
The child in me is really excited about these possibilities.
I talked a lot about magic.
I mean, not magic and wire, but the magic of childhood, the ideas we all had as children.
I found myself in a glass glass, I always found exciting.
So you have to swam the iPad here and leave the light flies out.
And the way it's going through the rest of the book.
Another idea that fascinated me as a child is that a whole galaxy can put into a single Murmel.
And so every book here, and every world, I'm going to take a little Murmel that I'm going to take over here to the magic device.
And this opens up a map.
Fantasy books have always had maps, but these maps were static.
This map grows and goes up and goes into the rest of the book.
It also shows you about other places of the book.
I'm going in here.
It's also important for me to create something that is in fact very time.
These are the Apsaras.
We've all heard of Feen and Nymphen, but how many people outside India know their Indian colleagues, the Apsarasaras?
The poor Apsaras were caught thousands of years indras chambers in an old-grandd book.
And we bring them back, in a time-class story for children.
A story that's based on new issues like the environment crisis.
The issue of environmental crisis, a big problem of the last 10 years is that kids are sitting in their room, on their computers, without putting out.
But now with mobile technology, we can take our children into the natural world with their technology.
In an interaction of the book, you're sent to search. You have to go out and collect cameras of the iPad of natural objects.
When I had a kid, I had collection of hives, stone, Kiesel and museums.
Somehow, kids don't do that anymore.
This childhood is brought back. You have to go out to make a photograph of a flower.
In another chapter, you have to squirt and mark a piece of tree rinds.
So you actually create a digital collection of photos you can put online.
A kid in London shows the picture of a flies and says, "Oh, today I've seen a flies."
A child in India says, "I've seen a monkey today."
This creates a kind of social network around a digital collection of photos that you actually did.
There's a lot of opportunities to connect the world and technology together.
The next book we're planning to do is use an interaction where you use the video of the iPad and see reality a animation of Elfen that's coming in from a plant in front of the house.
On a spot, the screen is a screen with leaves.
You have to make the sound of the wind, you have to suck away and read the rest of the book.
We all move to a world where nature is closer to the technology of the technology and the magic and technology can be able to get closer.
We use the energy of the Sun.
We bring our kids and we get closer to the natural world and the magic, fun and the love of our childhood through the simple medium of a story.
Thank you very much.
This is really an extraordinary honor for me.
I spend most of my time in research on people's prisons or death cells.
I spend most of my time growing socially growing up in socialized and places where there's a lot of hopelessness.
This is at TED to be here, to see and hear how stimulated that has given me a lot of power.
In the short time here, I realized one: TED has an identity.
You can say things here that have influence worldwide.
And sometimes when something comes across TED, it gets a meaning and power that it wouldn't have.
I say that because I think identity is very important.
We've seen some fantastic presentations.
I think we've learned that the words of a teacher meaning, but the words of a very euthanized teacher are particularly meaningless.
But as a doctor, you can do good. It's a more good doctor than you can do.
And so I want to talk about the power of identity.
I didn't learn that in my work as a lawyer.
I learned this from my grandmother.
I was dominated in a family, a traditional African American household who was dominated by a matriarch, and this matriarch was my grandmother.
She was a taffe, strong woman, she had impact.
She had the last word in every family.
It was also the beginning of a lot of argument in our family.
She was the daughter of a slave family.
Their parents were born in the 1840s in Virginia as slaves.
She was born in 1880, and the experience of slavery was very strong.
My grandmother was strong, but she was also loving.
When I met her as a young boy, she came up to me and he drew me.
She was so threw me so hard that I could barely breathe, and then she let me go.
One or two hours later, when I meet her, she came to me and said, "Bryan, do you feel my re-intentione?"
And when I said no, he drew me again. If I said, "Yes, let me go.
And she was something that was always trying to be near her.
The only problem was that she had 10 children.
My mother was the youngest of her 10 children.
Sometimes I wanted to spend time with her, it was hard to get their attention.
My cousins went around everywhere.
I remember, I have to have been eight or nine that I woke up one morning and went to the living room all my cousins.
My grandmother was sitting at the end of the room, and died of me.
First of all, I thought that was a game.
I looked at her and I sat down, but she looked very serious.
That went like this 15 or 20 minutes, and she stood up and came over to me, and she took me over and she said, "Come, Bryan. You and I, we have to talk."
I remember it yesterday.
I will never forget it.
She took me outside and said, "Bryan, I'll tell you something, but you have to promise you don't let it go."
I said, "Sorry, grandmother."
She said, "Are you saying, "It's a minute."
She sat down and looked at me. She said, "I want you to know I've seen you."
She said, "I think you're special."
She said, "I think you can do anything you want to do."
I'll never forget that.
And she said, "You just have to promise me three things, Bryan."
I said, "OK, Oma."
She said, "Well, first of all, you'll always love your mom."
She said, "It's my baby, and you have to promise you're always going to take care of her."
I taught my mother, so I said, "Yeah, Oma, I'll do that."
Then she said, "Well, next thing I'm saying is that you always do the right thing." And even though it's hard to do the right thing to do."
I thought about it and I said, "Yes, Oma. I promise."
And finally she said, "That last thing you've got to promise is you've never drink alcohol."
Well, I was nine years old, and so I said, "Yeah, Oma. I promise."
I grew up in the country, in the old, rural South, and I have a brother, who is a year older and a year younger sister.
When I was about 14 or 15 years old, my brother came home and brought this Sixth beer with my sister and went and went to the forest.
We just sat around there as much as we did.
And then he took a shammer and he offered my sister one of my sister and took them, and then they offered me one.
I said, "No, no, no. Right. Just do. I don't want beer."
My brother said, "Well, we're doing it now, you're doing anything else we do.
I had what, your sister had, go, drink a beer."
I said, "I don't want to. Don't want it. You just do it."
My brother died.
He said, "What's going on with you? Well, what's going on."
And then he looked at me in my face and he said, "Oh no, you're not still crazy because of the conversation with grandmother?"
I said, "What are you talking about?"
He said, "Oma, all the grandchildren tell them they're special."
I was destroyed.
I'm going to give you a little bit.
I should probably not.
This may be a public sphere.
I'm a 52 year old, and I'm a slambled that I've never done a drop of alcohol.
I'm not saying that because I think it's a liarable. I say that because identity means power.
If we can create the right kind of identity, we can tell people about things they don't believe.
We can get them to do things that they thought they couldn't.
Of course, my grandmother would say all their grandchildren, they're special.
My grandfather was in jail during the prison.
My uncle died of alkoded diseases.
And she believed that this was the issues that we needed to care about.
I tried to say something about our re-eyed system.
This country is different than 40 years ago.
In 1972,000 people were in prison and prison.
Today, it's 2.3 million.
The United States today has the highest inedgency of the world.
Seven million people are enlightened or re-educated with a punishment.
And I think that massity has fundamentally changed our world.
In social and black parts of the population, despair and hopelessness, because of these changes.
One of three male blacks between 18 and 30 is in prison, in prison, in prison, or with a re-educated punishment.
In urban communities everywhere in the country -- from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, Baltimore to Washington -- 50 to 60 percent of all the black men either sat in prison, in prison, in prison, putting in a prisoner's prison or re-engineering punishment.
But our system is not only shaped by questions that have to do with race, it's also driven by poverty.
We have a Just-in-the-shelf system that you treat much better when you're rich and guilty than poor and innocent.
Okay, not debt, affects the outcome.
But anyway, we seem to be very happy with this.
A politics of fear and trains has convinced us that these problems are not our problems.
We lost contact.
I think that's interesting.
There are some highly re-educated development.
My home state of Alabama will be a permanent choice if you're convicted of.
Here and in Alabama today, 34 percent of the male black population lost their right choices.
We're a re-eyed that in 10 years, the re-educated of the citizen rights will be as high as the resemblance of choice.
The silence is sexy.
I sat down kids.
Many of my clients are very young.
The United States of America is the only country in the world that convicted three-year-old children to death in jail.
In this country, there are a living room for children's living in a re-semblance of criminals.
We've already got a lot of process going on.
The only country in the world.
I'm putting people in death cells.
The question of death penalty is an interesting question.
We think because we've taught us that the real question is, does a human being make, a human being, began to die from him?
That's a very sensitive question.
But you can also think differently about how we see our identity.
The other way to think about it is not that somebody deserves a crime, but is it that we made it to kill it?
I think that's fascinating.
The death penalty in America is defined by racial.
On nine people we've been building, one that we've invented for innocent people who've been thrown out of death.
A amazing mistake rate. One of nine innocent mistakes.
I think that's fascinating.
We would never let somebody fly on an airplane if we could take a nine airplanes that would pick up one.
But somehow, we're able to get away from this problem.
It's not our problem.
It's not our reseade.
It's not our struggle.
I'm talking a lot about these questions.
I'm talking about race and the question of whether we're right to kill.
And it's exciting because I'm talking about African-American history. I'm talking about slavery.
I'm talking about terrorism, the time against the end of the rice, up to the beginning of World War II.
We don't really know a lot about it.
But for African-Americans in this country, it was a time of terror.
In many areas, people had to fear of Lynchmos.
or bombs.
It was the fear of terror that resemblanced their lives.
These older people come to me now and say, "Mr, Stevenson, you talk, you think people are supposed to stop saying that for the first time in our nation's history, we're going to do it with terrorism: After 9/11."
They say, "No -- you tell people we grew up with it."
And after terrorism, of course, the lawns came and decades of the savanna and apartheid.
And yet, in our country there is a dynamic -- we don't like to talk about our problems.
We don't like to talk about our story.
And so we don't really understand what meaning our actions have in the historical context.
We're constantly putting together.
We're always creating new tensions and conflict.
It's hard to talk about race, and I think that's because we don't want to be closer to the process of truth and son.
In South Africa, people understood that the racial is not too saped without the willingness to truth and son.
Even after the genocide in Rwanda, there was this willingness, but not in this country.
I've been holding some talks in Germany about death penalty.
It was fascinating because one of the scientists stood up after my talk and said, "You know, it's profound to listen to this."
He said, "In Germany, there is no death penalty.
And of course, they can never give it to Germany."
It was silent. Then a woman said, "Look, our story is impossible that we've ever been talking to the systematic daughters of people.
It would be a certain amount of us to add conscious and specifically people."
I thought about it.
As it would feel, in a world where German state walked into people, especially if they were a lot of Jews.
It would be unsustainable.
It would be certain.
And yet, here in this country, in the States of the old South, we're putting people in -- here's the risk of being convicted of death, 11 times higher than the victim is, 22 times higher than when the Angeklagte black is black and the victim knows -- in the same state, in which the body sucks people's body.
And yet, there's this mental retaliation.
I think our identity is threatened.
If we don't deal with it, with these difficult issues, the positive and wonderful things are also affected.
We love innovation.
We love technology and creativity.
We love entertainment.
But eventually, these realities become a rat of suffering, abuse, yeast, mutilation.
I think it's important to suck both.
Because ultimately, we're talking about getting more hope, more engagement, more commitment to the world in a complex world.
For me, it means bringing time to think and to talk about the poor who will never be at TED.
But thinking in ways that are integrated in our own lives.
We all have to believe in the end things we can't see.
We do that. So rationally, we estimate Intelleks.
innovation, creativity, development, are not just coming out of our heads.
They come from ideas that are driven by the beliefs in our hearts.
It's this head-Here model that I believe is moving to us not only be open to all the bright and euding things, but also for dark and problematic.
"The vacuumclav Havel, the great politicians, once said it.
"Well, in East Europe, we fought the understatedment, we wanted everything we needed, but what we needed most was hope, a mental orientation, the willingness to be sometimes hopeless and stuff."
This mental illness is the core of what I believe is also the TED community that we have to get involved in.
There is no re-education to technology and design that allows us to be fully human, as long as we don't have eyes and ears for poverty, rethinking and injustice.
I want to warn you. This kind of identity requires a lot more of us than if we didn't care about it.
It's going to touch you deep.
As a young lawyer, I've been able to meet Rosa Parks.
Woman Park came back to Montgomerys, where she met two of her oldest friends, and these older women, Johnnie Carrnie Carrt, who had organized the Montgomerysboykot -- an incredible African-American -- and Virginia Durr, a white husband, Clifford Durr, Dr. King.
So these women were just sitting there, and they were just sitting there.
And then, on and on and on and on, "Bryan, woman's coming into the city. We want to stop.
Do you want to come and listen to it?"
And I said, "Yeah, very much."
She said, "And what are you going to do if you're here?"
I said, "I'm going to listen."
And I went over and I just heard.
It was always so inspiring, so re-semblance.
One day I sat there, and I heard this woman turn to me for a few hours, and a woman turned to me, parks said, "Well, you tell me what the fears of the same rights is.
What are you trying to do?"
I started my usual talk.
I said, "We're trying to deal with injustice.
Wr want to help people who were convicted of innocent people.
We want to fight pre-degradation and dissipate in the punishment system.
We want to make life-changing prisons without a machine machine for children.
We want to do something about death penalty.
We want to take the number of strands.
We want to be able to create mass based."
I kept my usual talk, and after that, she looked at me and said, "Mmm. Mhmm."
She said, "That's going to be very, very tired."
Then woman Carr walked in front of me, put a finger on my face and said, "And that's why you have to be very, very brave."
And so I think that's why I think the TED community should be brave.
We need to find ways to get this challenge: these problems, this suffering.
Because ultimately, our humanity depends on our whole humanity.
I've learned very simple things in my work.
I learned some very simple things.
We're all more than the worst thing we've ever done.
I think that's true for every human on the planet.
If someone is happy, it's not just a lie.
If somebody takes something that doesn't hear him, it's not just one.
Even who kills someone is not just a murderer.
And because that's because there's a fundamental human dignity that needs to respect the law.
I also believe that in many parts of this country, and certainly in many parts of the world, the opposite of poverty is not wealth.
I don't think so.
I think that in many places the opposite of poverty is the opposite.
And finally, I believe that even though it's so dramatic, so inspiring and so inspiring, we're not measured at the end of our technology, not in the things we develop, not in our intellect and mind.
Finally, a society is not measured by how they treat their rich and powerful and privilege, but how they deal with the poor, the judges.
Because in this context, we start to understand the really amazing things that make us feel like we're doing.
Sometimes I lose the balance, a story to the end.
Sometimes I get too late.
I'm going to be tired of how we all do.
Sometimes these ideas come from thinking, in a very important way.
I sat down these kids who were convicted too hard to see.
I go to the study and the visit was to have a client that may be 13 or 14 years old, and that's supposed to be an adult.
Then I ask myself, how could this happen?
How can a judge turn into something that it's not?
The judge looks at him as adults, but I see a child.
One night I stayed up too long, and I thought, "Well, if a judge can turn us into something else, he has to have magic forces."
Right, Bryan, the judge has magic forces.
You should also want to know.
And because it was late, and I couldn't really think I started working on a desktop.
I had a 14-year-old poor black boy as a client.
And I started with this desktop. The magazine read, "An tragic, my poor, 14-year-old black-olds, were privileged to treat white, 75-year-old top-old top-olds."
I explained in my business that the state-of-the-art behavior of state and police and the process of re-eating equipment.
There was a crazy line of it that in this country, nothing is right is that there are only mismatch.
The next morning, I woke up and I didn't know if I had just dreamed this crazy adversity or actually written it.
And to my duck, I didn't just write it, I sent it to the court.
A few months ago, I had just forgotten everything.
But finally, I decided, my God, I have to wear this crazy case.
I got into the car, and I was really overwhelmed -- overwhelming.
So I went to the court.
And I thought that's going to be so hard, so painful.
After all, I got out of my car and I went up the staircase to the court.
When I went up to the court, there was an older man, black man, the janitors in the court.
When he saw me, he came over to me and said, "Who are you?"
I said, "I'm a lawyer." He said, "You're lawyer?" I said, "Yes."
He came to me and he drew me.
Then he sat in my ear.
He said, "I'm so proud of you."
And I have to say, there was power.
It touched something quite deep in me, identity, the ability to contribute every single one, to a community, to a perspective of hope.
Well, I look at the court.
Once the judge saw me, I saw it.
He said, "Mr Stevenson, did you put this crazy thing?"
I said, "Yes." And then we started to discuss.
Every time people came in, they just got angry.
I had written these crazy things.
policeam came in and slamed state and bureaucracy.
In the hand, the court was full of people who knew that we were talking about color, about poverty, about inequality.
I saw my eyes's janitor and go down.
He'd ever see it over and over again through the window, and he could hear the whole death oowh.
He went up and down.
And finally, this older black man came to a very worried face in the court, and sat right behind me, almost on defense bank.
Ten minutes later, the judge gave a break.
While the savanna came in, the janitor was destroyed, the janitor was in the court.
This Deputyed over to the older black ones.
He said, "Jimmy, what do you do in the court?"
The older black man stood up. He looked at me, and he looked at me, and he said, "I came here to tell this young man you don't forget about the goal. Don't give up."
I came to TED because I think many of you have understood that the moral pendulum of the universe is far, but that it's the justice.
That we are not completely developed as human rights as we do not care about human rights and basic things.
That our survival of survival is linked to each one of us.
That we have to connect our visions of technology and design, entertainment and creativity, to humanity, compassion and justice.
And most of all, I want to share with you the ones that look the same as you, just say, don't leave the goal out of your eyes. Don't give up.
You've seen this audience, this community, a obvious wish, and you've heard to help you and do something.
What else can we do?
Bryan Stevenson: Well, there's possibilities everywhere.
If you live in California, there's a folk-level state in this spring where it's actually about doing a effort to actually take something from the money that's going on in politics.
Here, in California, for example, you'll spend a billion dollars on death penalty for the death penalty, a billion dollars.
And yet, 46 percent of all daughters don't end up with a squatter.
56 percent of all rape accidents don't come in front of the court.
There's the chance to do something.
This reference is going to be able to suggest the money in more security forces and security.
I think there's opportunities everywhere.
Over the last three decades, crimes rate in America is slowed down.
This fact is often re-conductated in a context of the increased inefathers.
What would you say to somebody who believes that?
Well, in fact, the number of violence has not changed very much.
Most of the mass extinctions in this country didn't really find the in-profit of violence.
It was the mismatch against drugs.
So the dramatic numbers come in to jail.
We've sat down from the ghetuous punishment.
Now we have "The laws that people bring back to Gitia for a bicycle sludge, for the squid good, rather than the things you force.
I think we need to do more to help people who have become a better one, not less.
And I think that our current philosophical philosophically, no one helps.
I think that's what we need to change.
Bryan, you really brought a site to the vibration.
They're a inspiring personality.
Thank you for being at TED. Thank you.
Narrator: Bin Laden's death brings up a increased risk of risk.
Narrator 2: famine in Somalia. Narrator 3: ptomray of police.
Narrator 4: Böst Kart. Narrator 5: expert-like intersections.
Narrator: Those who are more likely to be seven: 65 deaths.
Narrator: tsunami. 9: Cyber-Atad.
Narrator: drug wars. mass destruction. tornado.
recession. Soomsday. Egypt. Syria.
Krise. Tod. disaster.
Oh my God.
So these are just a few of the clips that I've collected over the last six months -- but it could have been the last six days. Or the last six years.
The fact is that the media prefers us to show negative issues, because our minds are a lot of these issues.
And there's also a very good reason for that.
Every second day, our senses can start to work much more information than our brains ever can.
And because we're not more important than our survival, the first stop for all of this information is part of our pace lobe, the amygdala.
So the amygdala is our early-warning system, our danger.
It sort of snucks and sat down the entire information in our environment, looking for any more euthane of danger in our environment.
So if we see the news before we see it, we prefer to look for negative news.
And the old saying, "If it's a question, demand is very true."
Now, with all our digital devices that are seven days a week, 24 hours a day to make all this negative news, it's not a miracle that we're embarrassing.
It's not a miracle that everybody thinks it's going to be worse and worse.
But maybe that's not the case.
Normally, that's the reality.
Maybe the enormous progress that we've been doing in the last century have been doing in a series of forces so much that it will be possible for us in the next three decades to create a world of influence.
Well, I'm not saying we don't have big problems -- climate crisis, species, water and energy problems -- we already have.
And as humans, we're much better at seeing problems in a very long way, but eventually they're too close to the problem.
Let's see what we've reached the last century to look at the development of the past century.
Over the last hundred years, average life expectancy has doubled more than doubled the inflation of the world's population.
Kids mortality has gotten a tenth of child mortality.
And that comes to diet, electricity and communication costs have gotten a lot more re-ed.
Steve Pinker showed us that we are now living in a very peaceful time of human history.
And according to Charles Kenny is the alphabet rate of the age of 25 percent in the past 130 years.
We live in a really extraordinary time.
And a lot of people forget this.
And we keep putting our expectations all the time.
In fact, we've defined poverty.
You think that a big percentage of Americans living under poverty, access to electricity, water, toilets, refrigerators, mobile phones, climate plants and cars.
The richest capitalists in the last century, the erotics of Earth, would never have dreamed of such luxury.
The foundation for many of these technologies, and these growing exponal.
My good friend Ray Kurzweil has shown us that every tool that is going to be made to the information technology, on the curve of Moore's Law, and the price performance performance is doubled all 12 to 24 months.
That's why the mobile phone costs about a million times less, and a thousand times faster than a supercomputer from the '70s.
Now look at this curve.
This is Moore's Law last hundred years.
Watch two things about this curve.
First, as it's going on -- in good times, war or peace, recession, depression and high-resolution.
This is the result of faster computers building faster computers.
It slows down for no big problems.
And also, despite their logarithmic squid on the left, it's going forward.
So growth rate goes up.
And on this curve, on the back of Moore's Law, we find a series of extraordinary technologies that are available to all of us.
"Cloud-Coming," something that my friends call "the friends in autodesk" sensors and networks, robots, 3D printers, which allow personal production to democraticize our planet, synthetic biology, fuels, vaccines and food, digital medicine, nano-recliches and artificial intelligence.
How many of you have seen the victory of IBM's supercomputer Watson in "Ris risk."
That was great.
I've looked through the newspapers and looked for the best headlines I could find.
I love this: "What doods human enemy."
"Ris risk" is not a simple game.
It's about understanding the  Nuances of language.
Imagine that this artificial intelligence will be available to every owner of a mobile phone.
Four years ago, Ray Kurzweil and I started a new university called "Singularity University."
We bring our students to all these technologies, with special focus on how these can be used to solve the big challenges of humanity.
And every year, we ask the students to create companies and services that can be able to affect the lives of millards of people.
Think about it, a group of students today can influence life by billions of people.
30 years ago, this would have stopped ridiculous.
Today, we can prove dozens of companies that have done exactly this.
If I think of creating a powerful way, I don't mean life full of luxury for everyone on this planet, it's about creating a life of possibilities.
It's about creating goods from just a few.
Because if you're a context, and technology is a free force.
Here's an example.
This is the story of Napoleon III in the middle of the 18th century.
He's the guy on the left.
He invited the king of Siam to dinner.
Napoleons soldiers got silvereck, Napoleon himself got gold slams.
But the king of Siam was getting aluminum kings.
aluminum was at that time the most valuable metal on the planet, valuable than gold andlatin.
This is why the dome of Washington was pushed out of aluminum.
Although aluminum 8,3 percent of the Earth's mass is not going to be a metal.
It's connected by oxygen and seven.
But then the technology of the electrolyse and made aluminum more cheap, so we use it with our pathogens.
And then let's make this analogy a little bit of analogy.
We're thinking about energy savannas today.
Ladies and gentlemen, we live on a planet with 5,000 times more energy than we use every year.
16 terawatts of energy are putting up all 88 minutes on the surface of the Earth.
It's not about a sacrocodile, it's a train.
And there's good news.
In this year, for the first time, you've managed to reduce solar power in India 50 percent of the same same -- 8,000 rupees compared to 17 rupees.
The cost of solar power has been in the last year by 50 percent.
Last month, MIT published a study showing that until the end of this decade, in the United States, there's six cents per truck, compared to 15 cents compared to 15 cents on average.
And if we have a little bit of energy, then we'll have water over time.
Let's talk about water squids.
Remember when Carl Sagan turned the Voyager vehicles in 1990, when it was on Saturn, back to Earth?
He took a famous photograph. How did it mean?
"A Pale Blue Dot."
Because we live on a water plan.
We live on a planet that's covered in 70 percent of water.
Yes, it's 97, 97 percent salt water, two percent are ecated, and we fight.5 percent of the water on the planet, but there's hope.
And there are new technologies, not in 10 or 20 years, but now.
It's new nanotechnology on the way, nano-Mizens.
And from a conversation today with Dean Kaman, who is one of the innovators of the Do Yourself, I want to share with you -- he gave me the permission -- his technoatgie, the "Slingshot" -- and many of you may have heard about it. It's the size of a refrigerator in the student.
It can create a thousand liters of clean drinking water a day of different sources -- whether saltwater, polluted water, salmon -- and all of that for less than two cents a liters per liter.
The pre-Cola in Coca-Cola has just been able to start a big test project with hundreds of units in developing countries.
And if everything is going well, and I'm very confident, Coca-Cola is going to apply this technology to 206 countries all over the planet.
This is technology-driven innovation that are available today.
And we've seen this in mobile phones.
You mean God, we're going to reach the 70 percent reduction of mobile phones in developing countries to the end of 2013.
Just think that a mass sairah-diger with a cell phone in the middle of Kenya has a better cell phone than President Reagan 25 years ago.
And when they're looking for Google on the smartphone, they have more access to knowledge and information than President Clinton 15 years ago.
They live in a world that has information and communications in the way that no one could have imagined.
And it's better than that, the things that you and I spent several thousand dollars -- GPS, HD video and photo, library of books and music, technology to medical school -- are literally becoming a cheaper material, and cheaper in your cell phone.
And the best thing that we can do is possibly what we expect in health.
I've been able to make pleasure last month, with the Qualcomm Foundation, to produce the "$10 million fusion Tricorder X Prize."
We challenge teams around the world to connect all these technologies to each other in a cell phone so that you can talk to the device because it's a AI, you can test your blood vessels or test your blood vessels.
And to win, the device has to make a better diagnosis than a team of highly adolescence.
Imagine this device. In the middle of a developing country where there are no doctors, but 25 percent of the disease levels and 1.3 percent of the employees of health care.
If this device has sequenced RNA or DNA virus that is not known, it's called the health care agency and sa pandemic from its RNA.
But now, the largest force that's going to lead us to a world of flow.
I call them "the billions."
The white lines are for population.
We've just gotten over seven billion market sites.
And just by the way, the biggest effort against a population explosion is a better education and diet in the world.
In 2010, we had just connected it to two billion people online.
By 2020, we're going to go from two billion Internet users.
Three billion new heads we've never heard of before will join the global communication.
What do these people need?
What will they consume? What will they teach?
And instead of economic silence, I see one of the biggest economic ecstatics in history.
These people represent several trillion dollars that are going to be a global economy.
And they're going to be able to get a healthier use of the Tricoder, and they're going to be trained by the Khan-Akade, and by doing so they're going to have the opportunity to define 3D printers and "Intid Computing" and "In-the-sh" as much productive as they ever before.
So what can three billion growing, healthy, productive members of people bring us to the community?
How about a sentence new, never heard voices before.
How about making the underside wherever they are, to give a voice to stay up and create change for the first time?
What will these three billion people bring?
How about the contributions we can't predict even before?
One of the things that I learned through X Prize is that small teams that are enlightened and focus can create extraordinary things that big companies and governments could only create in the past.
I want to close with a story that really excited me.
There's a program that some might know.
It's a game called the Foldit.
It was developed in Seattle at the University of Washington.
And it's a game where people can take a sequence of Amino acids to study how the protein is going to develop.
But after his behavior, we can predict the structure and function.
And this is very important in medicine research.
And so far, this was a problem for supercomputers.
And this game was played by university professors and so on.
And it's now hundreds of thousands of people who've played the game online.
And it showed that today, human patterns are better folds the proteins than the best supercomputers.
And when these people came and looked at who was the best protein in the world, this was not MIT professor, it was not a CalTechd, it was somebody from England, Manchester, a woman who worked as an assistant in the day of the business lines in a ricelini, and aftert, this was the best protein line of the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, what I'm a lot of trust in our future is the fact that we have more power today than individuals to make the great challenges of our planet.
We have access to exponential technology.
We have the passion of an DIY innovativeator.
We have the capital of Technoanthropy.
And we have three billion new heads that we can work online to rise the new challenges and do what it needs.
We expect a couple of extraordinary decades.
Thank you.
I think we need to do something about a very different piece of medical culture.
And I think it starts with a medical medical, and I'm.
And maybe I'm long enough in business when I allow myself to give a piece of my own wrong Pres to allow this to happen.
But before I get to the actual topic of my talk, let's start with a little baseball.
Hey, why not?
We're close to the season and moving to the World Cup.
We all love baseball, right?
baseball is full of great statistics.
And there are hundreds of them.
"Moneyball" is soon, and it turns around statistics and to use this great baseball team.
I'm going to go to a statistic that I hope most of you have heard of.
It's the average power of the battle.
We talk about a 300, if a sludge is 300.
That means that the player is safe to have three of the 10 stagging.
That means the ball is based on the outside, it's coming up, it's not going to be trapped, and who's trying to throw the First Base, it didn't do it in time, and the octtle was safety.
Three from 10.
You know how to call a 300-dollar 300 in Major League baseball?
Well, really good, maybe a space-Star.
You know how to call a 400-dollar stack?
This is somebody who is at the end of the way, by the way, is probably four.
legends -- like Ted Williams legend -- the last Major League baseball player who met during a rainy season over 400 times.
Let's take a look back into my world of medicine that I feel more likely or maybe a little less well-being that I talked to you about.
So imagine that you have a blind delusion, and you're a surgery that's a very expensive thing to do, whose average power of 400 in terms of blind delusions.
It doesn't work, right?
If you live in a particular remote area, and you've loved a squid man with a squid heart rate, and your home team squids over a squid, the average power of prison is 200.
But, you know what?
It's much better this year. It's on the rising Ast.
And she's a two-57.
It doesn't work.
But I'm going to ask you a question.
What do you think the average power of a plight or a nurse or a orthopedic, should be a sexor, a rescue?
1,000, very good.
The truth is that no one in medicine knows what a good surgeon or doctor should be or rescue bombs.
But what we do is we all do it to me, including me, to be a perfect world.
Never make a mistake, but nobody is thinking about the details of how this should be suck.
And that's the message that I took in medicine.
I was a sludge student.
In high school, a fellow named Brian Goldmann would learn a blood test for a blood test.
And so it was.
And I learned in my little roof in the sisters at the Toronto General Hospital, unsustainable from here.
I learned everything from them.
In my anatomy, I learned the origins and the way each muscle, every two of a kind of matter that's putting away from the Aorta, obsesse and ordinary differentialnos.
In fact, the Different defy knew that we could make renal tubule azi can.
And all the time, I collected more and more.
And I was good, I decided to go down with cum laud.
And I left medical school with the impression that I knew if I knew everything, and I knew everything, or at least as much as possible, as close as I could to the power of mistakes.
And it was working for a while until I met women pressures.
I traveled to a teaching home here in Toronto as a woman printing press to me to the hospital department.
At this point, I was a re-educated layer in thekarating service.
And it was my mission to look for the emergency room in a way that was looking for the emergency patient.
And then, back to my op-ed speech.
I studied women's printing, and she was in breathnots.
And when I heard her, she made a sawam of sound.
And when I heard her chest off the spox, I could hear a swathy sound on both sides that said that she had a shit of heart failure.
This is a state where the heart says, instead of pumping the whole blood, a part of the blood in the lung, and then re-informed all that kind of a little bit, so the shortness came.
And that was not a hard diagnosis.
I put it, and I made it to treatment.
I gave her an inspiring device. I gave her medicine to take the pressure from the heart.
I gave her medicine that we call dictatorship, water cold, so that it's a liquid.
And over one and a half to two hours, she started feeling better.
I felt really good.
And I made my first mistake; I sent her home.
Actually, I made two mistakes.
I sent her home without talking to my high school.
I didn't take the listening, and I did what I should have been a call at my upper dream to tell him that he had a chance to do a picture.
And he knew that he was able to control extra information in her.
Maybe I did it with good reason.
Maybe I didn't want to be the help needy doctor.
Maybe I wanted to be so successful and so able to take responsibility that I was about, and I would be able to make my patients not have to be able to go on it without having to.
My second mistake was worse.
And so I sent them home, I sat down, I sat down a blank voice, trying to tell me, "Goldman, no good idea. Tue is not."
In fact, it's so missing to me that self-resolution, I asked the nurse who cared about woman printing, "Do you believe it's okay when she's going home?"
And the nurse thought about it and said, "Sird, I think it'll go well."
I remember it yesterday.
So I signed the re-eyed paper and a hospitals and rescue and brought them home.
And I went back to work.
The rest of the day, the evening I had this ecstatic feeling in my stomach.
But I kept working.
And at the end of the day, I was putting my things, left the hospital and went to the parking lot to go home with the car when I did something I didn't do.
I went home through the emergency department on my way home.
And there was another nurse, not the sister who saw the printing press, but another three words to me and those three words that I know most of the notes I know.
Other medicines are also afraid of this, but the need for medicine is especially because we see the patients just this way.
The three words are: Do you remember?
"Are you going to send your patient home?"
And the nurse asked the nurse.
"Aso she's back," she said in that particular tone.
So she was back.
She was back and dying.
About an hour after she got home, after I walked home, she drew you and the family called 911. The rescue brought them back to the emergency station with a blood pressure of 50, which is a dangerous shock.
They were not at all hardly going blue.
The emergency room moved all the strands.
They gave her blood pressure.
She decided to go to the beat machine.
I was shocked, and I was shocked to the inside.
And I lived through this axis because she came to the intensive care station and I hope she would get a go.
And after two, three days, you realized that you would never wake up.
She didn't have a more re-seyed brain.
Their family gathered.
And over the next eight or nine days, they gave themselves the resemblance.
The day they made them -- woman printing, woman, a mother and grandmother.
You say you never forget the names of the people who die.
And that was the first time I learned this.
The next few weeks, I was doing a squeezing, and I learned for the first time, the unrecanny shame that exists in our medical culture -- I felt alone, not the kind of healthy shame you feel, because you can't talk to the colleagues about it.
You all know the healthy shame when you give a secret to the best friends, although that one gets a weaker and you get a weaker and you a friend, and the best friend leads you to it, and my terrible discussion is, if you take the bad conscience at the end, and you keep a weak mistake that you never do that again.
If you do re-constructive and you never do the mistakes again.
That's the kind of a re-eyed shame.
The unintended way I'm talking about is that makes you sick inside of the world.
It's the one who says that not what you've done, but you're bad for yourself.
And that was what I felt.
And it wasn't on the bottom of my doctors, he was very loved.
He talked to the family, and I'm sure he was going to sleep the clouds and make sure I wouldn't be able to get there.
But I kept asking those questions.
Why didn't I ask the poop? Why did I send her home?
And then in my worst moments: How could I make such a stupid mistake?
Why did I go to medicine?
But long ago it sounded safe.
I started feeling better.
And then on a sata day, there was a hole in the clouds, and the sun broke, and I might say, "I feel better again."
And I was with myself that if I double my efforts to Perma and never went back to a mistake that the voice could eat.
And she did.
And I kept working.
And then it happened again.
Two years later, I had service in the emergency station in a strange hospital of Toronto, and I was watching a 25-year-old man with a slambled grid.
It was a lot of it, and I was in Eile.
He always showed up here.
I looked in the hyena, and it was a little pink.
And I gave him a prescription for penicillin and sent him down.
And yet, when he went out of the door, he showed up his tad.
Two days later, I came to my next emergency service, and my boss asked me to talk to her about a conversation.
And she said the three words: Do you remember?
"Do you remember the patient with the hyenah mucking rocket?"
It turns out he was a strawepticism.
He had a potential life-changing disease called epiglottitis.
You can google that, but it's not an inflection of the grid, it's the upper breath, and it's a re-educated view of the breath.
And luckily he didn't die.
He got intraven antibotica, and he got a few days later.
And I went back through the same gate of sand and self-resolution, felt liberated and walked out of work until it happened again and again.
In an emergency room, I have two blind re-dolescences.
There's some things that are already happening, especially if you think that you work in a hospital that's only had 14 patients per night.
In both cases, I didn't send her home, and I probably didn't have a Mängel in their treatment.
I thought he had kidney rocks.
I'm a X-ray of the kidney, and when that was without any kind of re-resolution, my colleague re-intentioned in the patient was re-educated in the lower right sector, and I called the operation.
The other one had a strong diarrhea.
I'm a sludge to try and get my colleagues also suck it.
And he did, and when he found a slam in the right sector, he called the operation expensive.
In both cases, surgery was a good job, and they were doing well.
Both cases sat down on me, sat down.
And I would be happy to tell you that my worst mistake was only happening in the first five years, which is a lot of my colleagues, but is totally unintentioned.
You've been putting my arrows in the last five years.
All right, scream and no support.
Here's the problem: If I can't close my mistakes and talk to them, if I tell the istribute voice that really tells me what really happened, what can't I share with my colleagues?
How can I teach them my mistakes so they don't do the same?
If I went to a room -- like right now, I have no idea what you're thinking about me.
When did they hear the last time someone heard about mismatcheration?
Oh yeah, they go to a cocktail party and there's some other doctor, but you don't hear somebody talking about your mistakes.
If I went to a room full of colleagues and asked her immediately support, and started telling them what I just told you, I wouldn't be very likely to do the end of the second story before they really take a joke, they would change the subject and forget the rest.
And in fact, if I or my colleagues knew that a orthopedic in my hospital would have taken off the wrong leg, I would think they would have trouble looking at him in the eyes.
That's the system we live in.
It's a totally pleasure of mistakes.
It's a system in which there are two fundamental positions -- those who make mistakes and those who don't do, those who make sleep, and those who are a limited one, and the ones who are not a constraints, the results with bad results and the results.
It's almost a ideological response like antibodies that attack a human.
And there's the idea that if we can make those who make mistakes out of medicine, we'll have a safe system.
But there are two problems with this.
In my 20 years of medical show and journalism, I have a personal medical trial, and I made false treatments for me to make everything I could for one of my first articles I wrote to my show called the Toronto Coat, Black Art.
And what I learned is that mistakes are absolutely unsustainable.
We're working in a system where every day a 10 drug is either a fold or a wrong thing, where hospital infections are always going to be able to do and cause many, or a dead one.
In this state, about two4,000 canntads die in the tinkering error.
In the United States, the Institute for medicine is 200,000 in the number of world.
Both are strong underworld because we don't look at the problem as we should.
And it's the Crux.
In a hospital system where the medical knowledge is doubled all two to three years, we can't stop.
The sleep is ubiquitous.
We can't get rid of it.
We have a cognitive mistake so that we can take a perfect disease for a patient with breast painful.
And then I take the same patient with breast pain, I'm going to sweat it, and I'm going to give it a little bit more alkocated breath, and suddenly the history is sucked down.
I don't take the same walk.
I'm not a robot; I don't always do things the same.
And my patients are not cars; they tell me their symptoms don't always do the same way.
All of these are a mistakenly inevitable.
So if you take the system like this, as I've been taught, and all the sadolescent health education, there's no left at the end.
And do you know about people who don't want to talk about their worst cases?
In my program, "White Coat, Black Art," I have the habit of saying, "I'm going to say that's my worst mistake from the rescue rescue to the head of the squid, "The mistake is my bad mistake," blah, blah, blah, blah, "What about your blah?" And then I'll show him the microphone.
And then their arrows expand, they're thrown in front of their head, they look down and swallows, and they start telling their stories.
You want to tell your stories. You want to share your stories.
They want to be able to say, "Look, don't do the same mistakes I eat."
What they need is an environment that is able to do it.
What they need is a new medical culture.
And it starts with a doctor.
The re-in-law doctor is a human, white to accept his humanity, is not proud of making mistakes, but re-seming everything from them, so that it can be passed on.
She's giving her experience to others.
They supported when others talk about their mistakes.
And it shows others of the mistakes, not just to make it, but in a loving, support way that everybody benefits.
And she works in a medical culture that recognizes people fill the system with life, and if that's how people do mistakes of time too.
So the system that's developing to make it easier for people to make mistakes easier and make it more comfortable and also create loving spaces that any of which health care can actually address things that are potential, and that's actually worth rewarded for people like me, that should make mistakes and for the motivation of these things.
My name is Brian Goldman.
I'm the new doctor.
I'm a human. I'm making mistakes.
I'm aure. But I'm trying to learn best from learning to give it another way.
I don't know what you're holding me, but I can live with it.
Let me close with three of my own words: I remember.
I'm going to talk about a tiny, little idea.
It's about changing norms.
And because you can explain this idea in a minute, I'll tell you three stories before to use time.
The first story is Charles Darwin, one of my heroes.
You know, he was here 1835.
You might think it's a Finn, but it's not true.
Actually, he collected fish.
He wrote one of them as a very unusual.
It was a fence.
Until he was in the '80s, he was thrown in big style.
Now it's at the Red list of species.
This story is a lot of times we've heard about the Galapagos, or other places, it's not very special.
But yet, we still get to the Galapagos.
We still think they're first.
They still describe bread as a saber.
What happened here?
The second story is to create another concept that changes the re-engineering.
Because I experienced it when I studied a Lagune in West Africa.
I went there because I grew up in Europe, and later I wanted to work in Africa.
I thought I could integrate myself.
And I got a bad sun free, and I was convinced I really wasn't from there.
It was my first sun free.
As you can see, the larvae of Palmen and some mangroves were shited.
There were Buncious squids of about 20 centimeters, blackkinnmaulb, an underside of Buntable savables.
The fisheries of these savannas were very tragic and the fish lived well and made them good in Ghana, on average.
When I returned 27 years later, the fish walked around half of his size.
They grow five centimeters.
They were genetically emailed.
It was still fish.
People were still happy.
And the fish also had the lucky one to be there.
So it didn't change, and yet everything changed.
My third little story is telling me about the introduction of the savanna squids in South Asia.
In the '70s -- rather at the beginning of the '60s -- Europe created a lot of development projects.
It was fisheries, and it was a world that had 150,000 fisheries, the industrial fisheries, which is pretty ugly, called mutationiara 4.
I went to this, and we were doing a big South China in the South Sea, and especially in Java Sea.
We didn't have words for what we started there.
I know now it was the reason that it was sea.
90 percent of our eyes were famine, other animals that are connected to the bottom.
The biggest part of the fish that are small dots there on the top of the tears, the coral reefs.
Basically, the bottom of the ocean came to ceiling and then re-eyed back.
These images are extraordinary because the transition goes very fast.
Within a year, you take a re-eyed fisheries and then you start re-eyed fisheries.
The reason is changed. It's because -- in this case -- a hard reason or soft coral is shited.
This is a dead turtle.
They were not obsessed, they were gone because they were dead.
We started a life.
She was not drunk yet.
Then they wanted to kill them, because you could eat them well.
In fact, this mountain of tears is collected by fishing every time they drive, in areas that have never been thrown.
It's not being documented.
We change the world, but we don't remember it.
We fit our norms to the new level, and we don't call ourselves in memory, which was there.
If you generalize it, this is what happens.
On the y-axis, there are some good things: biodivers, number of orca, the green of your country, the water before.
It changes over time. It changes because for people, their actions are natural.
Every generation looks at the images that they take at the beginning of their aware of life when standard and everything is going to be able to take off.
The difference is then taken as a loss.
But they don't take the loss of loss.
There can be a series of changes.
And at the end you just want to get the ecstatic overheart.
That's exactly what our goal is now.
We want to get things that are gone, or things that aren't as much as they were.
Now you might think that the problem of people who certainly lived in the saberable society, killed animals and were only aware of some generations that they had done.
Because obviously, an animal that was very common about this, once again, before it sucks.
So you don't lose a lot of animals.
You're always lose rare animals.
And that's why it's not taken as a big loss.
We're focused on the big animals and in the oceans that are the big fish.
They're rarely going to get more rare because we catch them.
With time, there's a little bit of fish left over and we think that's the norm worth.
The question is why people accept it.
Well, because they don't know it was different.
Of course, a lot of people, scientists, are a lot of people, a lot of people, a lot of them are a little bit different.
They're going to be a lot of the best, because the evidence that they're in an earlier form are not as though they'd like to be able to demonstrate the evidence.
There are, for example, the report that the report of a captain who has been watching big fisheries in this area cannot be used, or fishing scientists are not used by the fisheries, because it's not a scientific paper.
So we have the situation that people don't know the past, although we live in educated societies, because they don't trust the sources of the past.
This shows the huge role that a marine area can play.
Because, by the sea protection, we're basically re-shaping the past.
We're putting the past again that people can't understand because the norms have changed and are very low.
So people who can see a sea level area and benefit from the insight that allows them to put their norms back.
What about the people who aren't that possible, because they don't have access to it -- people in the Western Westerners, for example?
Here, I think, art and film may fill the gap, and simulations.
This is the simulation of Chesapeake Bay.
A long time ago, there were gray whales there -- 500 years ago.
And the color and thechatas may remember "Avatar."
If you think about "Avatar", if you think about why people were touched by this -- from the poetrycahontas story, why were they so touched by the images?
Because it's something that's been lost in some way.
So my ownEmpfehlung, the only ones I'm going to give, is to Cameron, so he's going to turn "Avatar II."
Thank you very much.
In the '80s, in the Middle East, if you had to have a machine that was a squid, you had to run it in government.
They also had to use a piece of paper with this machine.
The reason for that is that the government could follow back where a text came from.
They could find an article with false thoughts, and they could detect the copyrights of this thought.
And we couldn't understand how anybody could do something like this, and how much that would enlighten the speech.
In our own countries, we would never do anything like this.
But if you buy a new color bottle in 2011, today, buying laser pressures from the leading laser pressures and print one side, then the bright yellow sphere on each side is a pattern that makes the page clearly follow up and follow your printers.
That's what's happening today.
And nobody seems to be able to join us.
And this was an example of what our own governments are doing to us, the citizens, use it.
And this is one of the three main sources of the existing online problems.
Let's see what's really happening in the world: we can divide the attacks in categories.
We have three main groups.
There's online dating.
For example, this is Mr. Dimitry Golubow from Kiew in Ukraine.
And the motivating of online sarciss are very easy to understand.
These people make money.
They use online datings to make a lot of money, a huge bunch of money.
There are several known cases of online trillions, multi-million-dollar people who have made their money through attacks.
This is Wladimir Tststu in Estland.
This is Alfred Gonzalez.
Stephen watts.
Sundin.
These are Matthew Anderson, Tariq Al-Daour and so on and so forth.
These people have come online, but they have gone illegally by using a poop to clapping money from our bankers while we've done our online bankers, or Keyloggers who collected our creatures on the board of the keyboard while we bought a computer online.
The U.S. intelligence intelligence service two months ago, the Swiss continent of Mr. Sam Jain, who was here, and on this continent, 14,9 million dollars was frozen when it was frozen.
Mr. Jain himself is on free foot, which is unknown.
And I'm saying that today it's more likely that we will become victims of an online crime than one crime in the real world.
And it's very obvious that this is only going to get worse.
In the future, most crime will be able to play online.
The second largest gang group we can see today is not motivated by money.
They're motivated by something else -- protical, about an opinion, or through their audience.
So, groups like Anonymous have been up over the last 12 months and have become one of the main things that we've been doing in the field of online reefs.
So these are the three main groups: criminals, the money it's doing because of the money, hackings like Anonymous, who are doing it, but the last group of nations, governments that are putting the attacks.
We're in the case of the DigiNotar.
It shows what happens when governments reach their own citizens.
DigiNotar is a full-fifth from the Netherlands -- or it was.
And last fall, it had to be a re-educated in the last fall, because Digi was hacked.
Somebody was broken and had hacked the system green.
And last week, I asked one of the foreign government-in-lawsty government-to-faces of the group to ask if he could make it possible for the re-offoff people died.
And his answer was "Yes."
Now, how do people die in a consequence of such hackers?
DigiNotar is a sneoification.
They sell cartoons.
What do you do with the cartoons?
Well, a cartoon needs when you have a website with HTTP service, for example, Gmail.
Now, we all use, or Gmail, or a lot of us, but these services are particularly common in totalitarian states like Iran, where Iran's identical sites are using foreign Anbieters, because they know that they can trust more than local Anbieterers and that they are enlightened to local government that can't be able to take place in their conversation.
But if they're in a foreign position, they can.
He's a hacking hacking and a stifer.
And that's what happened in the case of DigiNotar.
How about the Arab Spring and the things that happened in Egypt?
Now, in Egypt, the in April of 2011, the main radiomine of the Egyptian secrets, and they found a lot of accents.
In these academics, a OrFINSHER was called "FINSHER."
And in this place, emergencyizens had sold in Germany to a local company that the Egyptian government sold a few programs that they had -- in very large-scale communication of Egyptian citizens.
They had sold this program for 400,000 Euros to the Egyptian government.
The company company is exactly right here.
So Western governments are totally re-seming governments with aid to make them go against their own citizens.
But Western governments also help themselves.
For example, in Germany, just a few weeks ago, the state ofstrojans found a Trojaner who was used by German government to re-e their own citizens.
If you're snuck in a criminal, you're pretty euthanized to your phone.
But today we're far beyond that.
You're putting your Internet connection.
You use tools like the United Statesjaner to play your computer with a Trojaner that allows them to wake up your entire communications, to listen to your online tinkering.
So if we think about things like this, then the obvious answer to people is, "Okay, that sounds bad, but it doesn't matter because I'm a brave citizen.
I don't have to worry.
I have nothing to hide."
And that argument doesn't make sense.
privacy needs to be given.
It doesn't have privacy.
It's not a decision between privacy and security.
It's a decision between freedom and control.
And as we like today, in 2011, our governments are trusting our governments, but every right that we're putting away is always true.
And do we trust, do we blindly trust any government, a government that we may have in five years?
These are the questions that we have to deal with for the next 50 years.
It may seem weird, but I'm a big fan of concrete block blocks.
The first concrete block blocks were made in 1868, and they were made by a simple idea: Module from cement to a squeacles that fit together.
concrete blocks were very quickly used the most of the building blocks in the world.
They put us in a position to build things that were bigger than we, buildings, bridges, one stone after another.
Basically, concrete blocks had become building blocks of our time.
Almost a hundred years later, in 1947, LEGO came out with this.
It was called the "The Tempeic Stein."
And within a few years, self moved into each household.
It's estimated that over 400 billion rocks were produced -- or 75 rocks for each person on this planet.
They don't have to be an engineer to create beautiful houses, beautiful bridges or beautiful buildings.
LEGO made it possible for everyone.
LEGO basically has the concrete building blocks, building blocks of the world, taken out a building block to our imagination.
In the meantime, at the same year Bell Labs, the next revolution, was a building block.
The transistor was a small plastic unit that would give us a world of statistical, squid building blocks to a world where everything was interactive.
Like the concrete block, the transistor allows us to build much larger, more complex circles, one rock after another.
But there's a major difference: transistor was just experts.
I personally don't accept that the building blocks of our time are conservative, and so I decided to change that.
I was eight years ago at the Media Lab, and I started to explore this idea of how to put power in engineers' power and designers.
A few years ago, I started developing littleBits.
Let me show you how they work.
LittleBits are electronic sawn function.
They're finished, light, sound, motor and sensors.
And the best part is they connect with magnets.
That's how you can't put them together.
The stone is color-bcod.
Green is copy, blue is electricity, Pink is a copy and orange is cable.
So all you have to do is connect a blue and a green and make them a very quickly larger cycle.
They put a blue on a green, and they can make light.
You can put a switch in between, and so they created a little dris.
Take the switch out to a pulse shaming, this is to put it in, and you made a little sludge.
You add that Buzz to an extra effect, and you made a noise machine.
I'm going to stop that.
Over the simple game, littleBits is actually quite powerful.
Instead of being able to program you, wire or eat, littleBits allows you to program intuitively intuitively.
So to accelerate the sad, or slow down, just turn it on this button and make the pulse faster or slow.
The idea behind littleBits is that it's a growing library.
We want to bring every single interaction in the world into a use of stone.
Lights, sound, solar elements, motors -- all should be available.
We have littleBits of kids, and they're playing with it.
And it was an incredible experience.
The most beautiful thing is how they start to do electronics that they're in everyday life, and they don't learn in school.
Like, for example, a night light works, or why the door of the elevators are open, or how an iPod responds to touch.
We also brought a little bit of a design school.
So, for example, we had designers with no experience in electronic things that began playing with little things as materials.
Here we see, with filters, paper and water bottle, like genocide...
A few weeks ago, we brought little little to RISD, and we gave them some designers that didn't have any technical experience -- just a box, wood and paper -- and they said, "My thing."
Here's an example of a project they did, a movement-changing fat.
But wait, this is really my favorite project.
It's a humor made out of a savanna fear in darkness.
For those non-profit engineers, little materials became another material, electronics just became another material.
And we want to make this material available for everyone.
So, littleBits source is open-source.
You can go to the website, download all design down and make them yourself.
We want to encourage the world of a sawademic, the inventor, the lunches, because this world we live in, this interactive world, belongs to us.
So, go and start to invent.
Thank you very much.
When I was 11 years old, I was thrown off the sound of bright joy.
My father stopped on his little gray radio, gray radio show on the BBC.
He looked very happy at what was quite unusual then because most of the news was depressed.
He called, "The Taliban are gone!"
I didn't know what that meant, but it was obviously my father, obviously, very happy.
"You can go to a right school," he said.
I'll never forget this morning.
A real school.
The Taliban understood the power in Afghanistan when I was six and understood it to go to school.
So I sat down for five years as a boy and sat down my older sister who couldn't go alone to a secret school.
Only we could go to school both.
Every day we took a different way, so no one could guess where we went.
We hidden our books in shopping so we could just buy it like we would just buy one.
We were a house in a house, over 100 girls in a small living room.
In winter, it was incredibly hot, but in the summer it was incredibly hot.
We all knew that we risk our lives: teachers, students and our parents.
Again, the class had to come out of class all the time for a week because the Taliban had sat down.
We were never sure how much they knew about us.
Are they following us?
Did they know where we live?
We were scared, but we still wanted to go to school.
I had been very lucky to grow up in a family where education was important and daughters.
My grandfather was far ahead of his time.
A outside province from a remote province of Afghanistan, who was on it, his daughter -- my mother -- to school, and was thrown away from his father.
But my mother was educated, but she was a teacher.
That's her.
Two years ago, she went to the rest of the day, just to turn our house into a school for girls and women's neighborhood.
And my father -- to see here -- was the first one in his family who had ever been given a school education.
For him, it was always clear that his kids would get education, even his daughters, despite the Taliban, despite all risks.
He saw it as a much greater risk of sending his children to school.
I remember, in the years, I was so frustrated by our life, by the fear and the respectlessness that I was so frustrated by.
I had good spaces to give up, but my father said, "You hear me. You can lose everything in your life.
Your money can be stolen. You can be sat in the war from your house.
But one thing will always stay in you, which is what's in here, and even if we pay with our blood flow for your schools, we will do that.
So -- do you want to spend on your own?"
Today I am 22 years old.
I grew up in a country that had been destroyed by decades of war.
Because when I was six percent of women's age, my age degree has higher education than the silk, and if my family didn't have used so much for my school education, I would have one of these women.
Instead, I stand here today as proud eming the Middlebury College.
When I returned to Afghanistan, my grandfather, who was sat down by his family, because he was so excited to send his daughters to school, one of the first congratulates.
He's not just a high school student, but he's also a woman who's sitting in front of him, who's sitting in Kabul.
My family believes me.
I have big dreams, but my family has bigger dreams for me.
So I'm global messages for 10x10, a global campaign for women's education.
So I helped to start SOLA, the first and perhaps the only interesting thing for girls in Afghanistan, a country where the school visit for girls is still risky.
It's wonderful to see how the school school I'm going to perceive with great honor all of them are interested in.
And to see their parents and fathers stand for them, as well as my parents did for me, despite all the sexy conditions.
As Ahmed. This isn't his real name, and I can't show his face, but Ahmed is the father of one of my school.
About a month ago, his daughter and he was on the way home from SOLA in her village, and they were death from a bombing on the streets just a few minutes ago.
When he arrived at home, the phone sat down and he threatened a voice if he sent his daughter to school, she would try again.
And he said, "Well, if you want to, but I'm not going to put my daughter on the future because of your old and overheard ideas."
What Afghanistan thinks is something that I've seen in the West often come out of the West: the back of most of us who have success, is a father who recognizes the value of his daughter and realizes that their success is also their success.
This is not to say that our mothers don't play an important role in our success.
Often, they are often the ones who start a lot more promising future of their daughters, but in a society like Afghanistan, the support of men is inevitable.
After the Taliban, a few hundred girls were going to school -- because it was illegal.
But today in Afghanistan, over three million girls are a banker.
Afghanistan seems to be considered by America, so different.
The Americans recognize how unreites these changes are.
I'm afraid that the changes are not re-evolving and again changing with the U.S. government.
But when I'm in Afghanistan, when I see the school in my school, and her parents who are using them to teach them, I see a lot of promise and a school change.
Afghanistan for me is a country of hope and the unrewasembly possibilities, and remembering me every day, the girls visit SOLA.
Just like me, they have big dreams.
Thank you very much.
All I do, also a lot of my life -- was taken by seven years of work in Africa as a young man.
from 1971 to 1977 -- I look young, but I'm not -- -- I've worked in Zambia, Kenya, Elia, alwa, ala and Somalia on the technical collaboration with African countries.
I worked for an Italian NGO, and every single project we put on the legs, suck.
I was desperate.
I, 21 years, thought we're good people and doing good work in Africa.
Instead, we killed everything we did.
Our first project, which inspired my first book "Ripples the Zambe, was one where we wanted to show Italy to people how food is built.
We came to Italian savages in Southambia, and this is what leads to seedbesiluss, and we taught the local population of Italian tomatochin and...
Of course, the people who were absolutely not interested in this, so we paid them for work, and sometimes they were defing them.
We were amazed that there was no Ilist valley in such a road.
But instead of asking why they didn't build anything, we just said, "God is we are here!"
"We're still in time to save the people of the crime."
Of course, everything is wonderful in Africa.
We had these ecstatic tomatos, and in Italy, they were so big in Zambia.
We couldn't believe it and said to the Sambiern, "Look, how easy agriculture is."
When the tomato were reacted and red, about 200 octle came out of the river and ate everything.
We said to the Sambiern, "Oh God, the Niliphex!"
And they said, "Yes, that's why we don't have agriculture here."
"Why didn't you tell us?" "You never asked us."
I just thought we were so great in Italy, but then I saw what the American people did, what the Frenchs did, what I saw, after I saw, I became quite proud of our project in Zambia.
We at least suck the neoil.
You should see the ineground -- -- you should see the inesem that we have explorerd the non-violent African people.
They should read the book "Dead Aid," from Dambisa Moyo, and it's aambiin-in-law.
The book was published in 2009.
We've given the African continent 1.5 trillion dollars in the last 50 years.
I'm not going to tell you what this money has done.
Just read your book.
Think about an African, which we've been able to read.
We are Western people, Imperialists, colonists, missionares, and there are only two ways we deal with people. We are interacting with them or we are patriarchal.
Both words are from the Latin roots "pater," which means "Vater."
But they have two different meanings.
Patriarchal: I act every other culture as if they were my kids, "I love you so much."
Patronize: I'm a different culture, as if they were mynerd.
That's why white people in Africa are called "bwana," boss.
I was woken up when I read the book "Sl isolated" by shoes, and he said, especially in the economy, if people don't want help, they'll let it go.
This should be the first principle of help.
The first principle of aid is respect.
The gentleman who opened this conference, atab on the ground, said, "Can you imagine a city that is not neoded?"
When I was 27 years old, I decided to respond to people and he was a system called business promotion, where never being created anything, someone will never be motivated, but you will be the cellular passion of the local people who have the dream to become a better person.
What you do -- you think your mouth is.
You never get a community with ideas, you put yourself together with the local community.
We don't work from office.
We meet in cafes. We're in a baripen.
We don't have infrastructure.
We conclude friendships and find out what the person wants.
The most important thing is passion.
You can give someone an idea.
If this person doesn't like this, what do you want to do?
The passion for your growth is the most important thing.
The passion for your own guards is the most important thing for humanity.
We help them find the knowledge, because nobody can be successful alone.
The person with the idea may not have the knowledge, but it's available.
Many years ago, I had this incident: Why not come to a community and tell people what to do, why don't we listen to them? But not in communities.
Let me tell you a secret.
There's a problem with community spiders.
entrepreneurship never have a part, and they will never say public what they want to do with their money, what opportunities they see.
planning has this blind spot.
The most artificial people in the community don't know because they never seem to appear to public meeting.
We're working to do one thing to do, and it has to be made a social infrastructure that doesn't exist.
A new job needs to be created.
This is the business school of the company, the business school of the business school, who sits with you in the house, in your kitchen table, and in the cafe, helps you find the tools to transform your passion in a way that is to transform life.
I tried this in a savanna West Australia.
I was a fourth one at the time, trying to get away from the sadolescence where we tell others what to do to get away.
And so, I went through the streets just the first year, and I had three days in my first client, and I helped him, and he helped fish in a garage, and I helped him sell a restaurant in Perth, and I helped organize, and then came to fish and said, "You've helped the ma theory. Can you help us?"
I helped these five fishermen work together and sell these wonderful tuna in Albany for 60 cents/Kilo, but after Japanese for Sushio, for 15 dollars, the farmers came to me and said, "Hey, you've helped them do this?"
I had 27 projects in a year. The government came to ask me, "How do you do that?
How do you do -- I said, "I'm doing something very, very tailing.
I'm going to hold your mouth and hear them."
So -- -- the government says, "Myex you again."
We did it in 300 communities worldwide.
We helped 40,000 companies to the founding founding.
There's a new generation of companies that go to a re-educated.
Peter printing, one of the best business class of history, died with 96 years ago.
Peter printing was philosophy professor before he was involved with companies. Peter printinger said, "Well, planning is really unrethinkable with an entrepreneurial society and the economy."
planning is the entrepreneur's death.
So you build Christchurch to know what the most artificial person in the world is trying to do with their money and their energy.
You have to learn how to get that up.
You have to offer them dissiption and privacy. You have to be great in helping them, and they're going to be a bad way.
In a community of 10,000 people, we get 200 customers.
Can you imagine a community of 20,000 people who are intelligence and passion?
What kind of presentation do you have most applauded in the morning?
Their, passionate people. These have applauded.
I want to say that entrepreneurship is the right way.
We're at the end of the first industrial revolution -- not renewable fossil fuels, manufacturing manufacturing -- and suddenly there are systems that are not sustainable.
The vertical machine is not sustainable.
The strangers in mind are not sustainable.
We need to look at how we feed seven billion people in a sustainable way, form, transport, and interact with them.
The technologies don't exist.
Who will invent this technology for the green revolution? universities?
Government? Forget it!
It'll be entrepreneurs. And they're already doing it now.
I read a wonderful story in a futuristic magazine many years ago.
There was a group of experts who were invited to talk about the future of New York in 1860.
They came together in 1860 and speculatively, which would happen in New York, in the city of New York, and the conclusion was, the city of New York was a hundred years, that New York was no longer existed in 100 years.
Why? They looked at the curve, and they said, if the population grows in this pace, they needed six million horses to promote people, and it would be impossible to deal with the dung of six million horses.
Because they were already under a crap.
1860, you see the dirty technology that sat out of New York.
What happens? 40 years later, 1900, there were 100-minute automobiles in the United States, 10 states.
The idea of finding another technology had done the race. There was tiny factories in the back of the country.
Dearborn, Michigan. Henry Ford.
There's a secret to work with entrepreneurs.
First of all, they have to be offered to them dispersants.
They don't come and talk to you.
Next, you have to offer them absolute, dedicated service.
Then you have to tell them the absolute truth about entrepreneurship.
From the smallest to the biggest company, all of them must be able to do three things: to sell product grand, the market has to be great and the financial law must be massive.
Do you know?
We never met one person who can produce something at the same time, sell and take care of money.
It doesn't exist.
This person never was born.
We've done research, we've looked at the world's 100 percent companies -- Carnegie, Westinghouse, Edison, Ford, the new companies, Google, Yahoo.
There's only one thing that all successful companies in the world have been a one: no one has been founded by one person.
Now we teach 16-year-old Ireland in Northumberland, and we start giving them the first two sides of Richard Branson's car, and the task of 16 Branson is to go to the first two sides of Richard Branson to the carbiography to undertom, how often the word "we" and how often the word "we" is "we."
Never "I" and 32 times "we."
He wasn't alone when he started.
Nobody started a company alone. No one.
So we can create a community where the board, the smallest a syringed background, sit in cafes and Bars, and your dedicated tinids, who are going to do what someone has done for this gentleman who talks about this Epos. Somebody who will say to you, "What do you need?
What can you do? Can you make it?
Okay, can you sell it? Can you pay attention to the money?"
"Oh, no, I can't." "Do you think I'm going to find somebody for you?"
We activate communities.
We have groups of volunteers who support the corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate corporates in helping them do the means and help people, and we've found that the wonders of intelligence is going to change the culture and the economy of this community can only be changed by the passion, energy and imagination of their people.
Thank you.
Five years ago, I learned how to be Alice in the wonders.
Penn State University asked me -- a dose of communication -- to share engineering education in communication.
I was scared.
Right fear. Obviously, with these big brains, with their big books and their large books, not familiar with their big words.
But when the conversation developed, it went like Alice, when she walked down to the canoe and saw a door to a whole new world.
And I felt like I was talking to the students, and I was amazed by the thought they had, and I wanted others to find this miracle.
I think to open this door, it needs great communication.
We need great communication from our scientists and engineers to change the world.
Because our scientists and engineers are the ones that are the biggest problems we have, like energy, environment and health, and if we don't know anything about it, then I don't think it's in our responsibility as non-lethals to look for those conversations.
But these great conversations don't come when our scientists and engineers don't put us in their wonder.
So scientists and engineers, please, let's go.
I want to show you a couple of approaches, as you can imagine, that we can see that science and technology that you're busy with, sexy and exciting.
The first question you'd have to answer is: "What's it?"
Let's tell you why your scientific area is so relevant to us.
Not only do you think you're looking at the sex marriage, but tells us that their sex, the sexy, the sexylacines, study the mammal structure in our bone, because it's important to understand East and treat Easteoporosis.
And if you describe what you do, then you suck the subject.
The words are a obstacles to understand your mind.
Certainly, you could use "Sty and time," but why don't you just say "Raum and time," which is much more understandable for us?
We don't understand how to make your mind understand it, is not the same as you're suck down.
Like Einstein already said, "My thing as simple as possible -- but not easier."
You can tell us something about your scientific area without having to go through compromise.
Some things are too careful about this: examples, stories and analogies, and in this way, you can pull us into your ban.
And if you can make your work, then you'll let the points go away.
Have you ever wondered why it's called "Steed point."
What happens when someone is being sucked? Another thing that happens to you, and with those points you're the first person to put your audience.
A slide like this is not only boring, but also sat down too much on the process of talking parts of our brain, and so we're fast asking.
This example of genesvieve Brown is much more impact. It shows that the special structure of the sex is so stable that it was even the inspiration for the unique design of the egg Tower.
The trick here is to use a single, simple sentence that the audience can lose once, orient the fiber can, orient images and graphics that will also help us to address our other senses, and create a deeper understanding of what you describe.
These are just a few approaches that can help us open up this door and see the miracleland that science and technology can help us.
Because the engineers I taught, they taught me, they taught me, "No way of putting me together," I want to deal with an equation.
You know, from your science, your dictionary, and your subject, you share that through the relevance, so the audience says what's important, and multiplyed the whole thing about your incredible work: And from that, you're incredibly unimaginable interactions that are full of new insights.
So scientists and engineers, if you solved this equation, I'm just going to tell you.
Thank you very much.
Hi. That's my phone.
A cell phone can change a life and give a personal freedom.
With a cell phone, you can film a crime on humanity in Syria.
With a cell phone, you can start a message and start a protest in Egypt.
And with a cell phone, you can take a song, put it up in soundCloud and famous.
All of this is possible with a cell phone.
I'm at 1984 and I live in Berlin.
Let's go back to that period in this city.
You can see there, there are hundreds of thousands of people going on the street and putting it in.
We're in 1989, and we imagine that all these people who were standing up and asking change, had a cell phone in the pocket.
Who in the room has a cell phone on it?
Just stop it up.
Just stop your phone, hold it up.
Just stop it. A Android, a Blackberry, wow.
That's a lot. Almost everybody has a cell phone today.
But today, I want to talk about myself and my cell phone and how it changed my life.
And I'm going to talk about this.
These are 35.830 Zeilities full of information.
raw data.
And why are this information there?
Because in 2006, the E.U. emissions has put a policy.
This policy is called the policy policy to the pre-death data.
This policy says that every phone company in Europe, every Internet master in Europe, has to store a bandwidth of user information.
Who calls who's going to send an email?
Who sent a text?
And when you use a cell phone, where you are.
All of this information is stored for at least six months by your telephone society or your Internet lunch.
And all over Europe, people were standing up and said, "That's not what we want."
They said we don't want to store these square data.
We want self-resolution in the digital age, and we don't want the telephone companies and the Internet agencies to store all of this information about us.
There were lawyers, journalists, priests, who said, "That's not what we want."
And here you can see tens of thousands of people sat down on the streets of Berlin and said, "Please, instead of fear."
And some people even said this could be the Stasi 2.0.
The Stasi was the secret police in Eastdeutschland.
And I also wonder if that really works.
Can this really store all this information about us?
Every time I use my phone?
So I asked my phone company, the Germantelecommunications, who was the largest phone company in Germany, and I asked her, I sent all the information that you've been sending over me.
And I asked them once and I asked them again, and I couldn't get the answer. Just empty bubbles.
But then I said, I want to have this information because it's my life that loses your proton.
So I decided to put a court back against them because I wanted to have that information.
But the Deutschet said, no, we're not going to give you that information.
At the end of it came to a comparison with them.
I'm going to go back to the idea of what they all got to send me all the information.
Because in the meantime, the federal government decided that the introduction of E.U. policy was a German rights policy.
So I got this ugly brown shift with a CD.
And on the CD, this was the case.
35.830 tels are a information.
First of all, I saw it, and I said, well, it's a huge file. My reason is.
But then I realized after a while, that's my life.
That's six months of my life in this file.
So I was a little skeptical, what should I start with that?
Because you see where I am, where I'm sleep, what I do.
But then I said, "I want to go to the public with this information."
I want to make it a little bit more than that.
Because I want to show people what the pre-siption data means.
So, with time online and open data City, I did this.
This is a visualization of six months of my life.
You can zoom in and zoom out, you can zoom in and you can go back and forth.
You can take every step I do, follow.
And you can even see how I'm going from Frankfurt to a train to a train, and how many phone calls I'm going to go.
All of this information is possible.
That makes a little fear.
But it's not just about me.
It's all about us.
First of all, it's just like, I call my wife, and she calls me, and we talk a few times.
And then they call me a few friends, and they call each other.
And after a while, call you up, call you, and we call it this huge network.
But you can see how people communicate with each other, what times they call each other when they go to bed.
You can see it all.
You can see the central figures, about who the leaders are.
If you have access to that information, you can see what society does.
If you have access to that information, you can control society.
This is a blueprint for countries like China and Iran.
This is the perfect design of how you can wake up a society, because you know who's going to send an email, all that is possible when you have access to that information.
And this information is stored for at least six months in Europe to two years.
As I said earlier, let's imagine that all these people in the streets of 1989's fall in their pocket.
And the peni would have known who was in the demonstration, and if the pen had been conscious, who had been the leader, it would have never happened.
The case of Berlin Wall might not have happened.
And then, not the case of the ecstatic ecstatic.
Because today, state agencies and companies want to store as many information as they can get over us online and offline.
They want to have the opportunity to follow our lives, and they want to store it all long.
But self-resolution and life in the digital age are not a contradiction.
But you have to fight for self-beasembly today.
They have to fight for it every day.
So if you go home, say your friends, that privacy is a value of the 21st century, and that's not old-fashioned.
If you go home, say your squids, just because companies and state places have the ability to store certain information, you don't have to do it for a long time.
And if you don't believe me, ask your phone company about the information that they've been able to get over you.
So, in the future, every time you use your cell phone, remember that you have to fight the self-organization in the digital age.
Thank you.
I live in South Central.
This is South Central: Spirituose, speed-up, Brazil.
So the city planners meet and re-eyed to change the name South Central so he's going to change for something else, and they changed him in South Los Angeles as if something changes in the city wrong.
This is South Los Angeles.
Spirits, speed-up, Brazil.
As 26,5 million other Americans live in the food desert of South Central Los Angeles, home of the Driverus and the Drive-by-by-by-by-Wo.
The serious thing is that the Drive-thrus kills more people than the Drive-bys.
People die in South Central Los Angeles in a stavable disease.
For example, obesity rate in my neighborhood is higher than about five times more than Beverly Hills, which is about 15 kilometers away.
I couldn't see that anymore.
And I wondered, what would you feel like if you didn't have access to healthy food if you go out of the house every time you see the negative effects that the existing food system has on your neighborhood.
I'm a very eudicating chairs and sold to use use car.
I see Dialysez centers called Starbucks.
And I realized that must stop.
I understood that the problem is the solution.
food is the problem and food is the solution.
And I didn't really feel like I had no more 45-minute press to get an apple that is not covered with pesticides.
So I took a food-like food from my house.
It's a piece of land that we call parks.
It's about 45 feet in about 3,000 feet.
The thing is, it's the city.
But you have to care.
So I think, "Cool. I can do what I want, because it's my responsibility and I have to keep it in."
And I decided to keep it that way.
So I came up and my group, the L.A. Green Grounds, and we started putting together my food type, and fruit trees, and so the whole program, vegetables.
We're a kind of a power group, squid from all the social layers and from all the city, it's completely free, and everything we do is free.
And the garden is beautiful.
But then someone goes down.
The city came up to me and he basically shared me a precipice and said I have to get my garden to get the charge of the front of an extraordinary future.
And I thought, "Come on, really?
A rich agenda because of food, on a piece of land that doesn't matter to you?"
And I thought, "Cool. Hers with it."
Because this time it wouldn't go.
L.A. Times got wind from it. Steve Lopez, he made a story about it, and talked to the city of Green Ground, and they sat down a petition on Change.org, and we were successful with 900 unders.
We kept the victory in the hands.
In fact, my city square called it, and she said they support it and love what we do.
So really, why shouldn't they do that?
L.A. has most Brazil in the United States.
They have 4,000 miles of Brazil.
That's 20 Central Parks.
This is enough area to plant seven25 million tomato plants.
Why the hell should they not find that OK?
By building a plant, you get 1,000 -- 10,000 seeds.
With green Bose value of a dollar, you get fruit and vegetables in 75 dollars.
It's my healing, and I say people should build their own food.
It's to build your own food, like being able to print your own money.
You see, I have a legacy in South Central.
I grew up there. I put my sons there.
And I'm a part of this emailed reality that was made by other people, and I'm putting electricity on my own.
You see, I'm an artist.
I'm a garden work. I'm doing my art.
Just like a graffiti artist, the walls are slowed down, I'm a slammed and parking plants.
I use the garden, the Earth, like a piece of stuff, and the plants and the trees are my re-engineer for this stuff.
You would be surprised to use what the ground can do if you use it as a canvas.
You can't imagine how amazing a solar blood is, and how it touched people.
So what happened?
I've experienced how my garden became an instrument for education and the transformation of my neighborhood.
To change the community, you have to change the composition of the ground.
We're the ground.
You would wonder how children are being influenced by it.
And the therapist is the therapist and artificial act you can do, especially in the middle of the city.
And you get Earth-like.
I remember this time, when this mother and her daughter came to failure, it was about 10:30 aftert, and they were in my garden, and I came out and they looked so embarrassed.
I felt really bad because they were there, and I told them, "You know, you don't have to do that.
The garden is not without the ground."
I was so afraid when I saw people who were so close and hungry, and this just sat me in doing this, people asked me, "Well, you don't fear that people will steal your food."
And I said, "Seosh, no, I don't fear they're clapping.
But it's on the street.
That's the idea.
I want you to take it, but at the same time I want you to take your health back."
At another time, I put a garden in this homeless home in L.A.
These are the guys who helped me to defe the burden.
It was cool, and they shared their stories about how it was influenced and how she was influenced and how she was a mother and her grandmother, and it was great to see her change, even if she had just a moment.
Green Grounds has gotten about 20 gallons.
Our graze actions came up with 50 people, and they did all volunteer.
When kids grow coal, they eat coal.
When they grow tomatos, they eat tomato.
But if they're not offered anything, if they don't show how food mind and body affects them, they're blinded whatever they put in.
I see young people who want to work, but they're in this thing -- I see color kids who are right on the path that's free for them, and that leads them somewhere.
The glooming I see as an opportunity where we can train these kids to take care of their communities to live a sustainable life.
And if we do that, who knows?
We could bring up the next George Washington Carver.
But if we don't change the ground ground, we will never do that.
So this is one of my plans. I want to do that.
I want to plant a whole housing block of light where people can share food in the same block.
I want to take ship capitalists and turn them into healthy cafes.
So, don't get me wrong.
I'm not talking about free shit, because free is not sustainable.
The compass of sustainability is that you have to stop them.
I'm talking about giving people work, and getting kids from the streets, and putting them the joy, and bringing the pride and the honor when you build your own food, and when you open farmers.
So, what I want to do here is do this sexy.
I want us to become ecological rebels, gangsters, gangsters.
We need to turn the image of gang star around.
If you're not a gang, you're not a gangster.
You're going to be a gang-in-law, right?
And let that be your choice.
If you want to meet me, don't call me, if you want to sit in comfortable chairs and make a meeting where you're talking about doing anything.
If you want to meet me, come in with your backyard, so we can plant any shit.
Peace. Thank you.
Thank you.
One of my favorite words in Oxford English dictionary is "snollygoster."
Because it sounds so beautiful.
And "snollygoster" means "adolly politicians."
Although a newspaper in the 19th century, a better definition of definition is "A snollygoster is someone who is a amber, independent of parties, programmers, and his success, through the pure power of monumental hypothesis."
I have no idea what " languageral" is.
Something about words, I think.
But it's very important that words are in the center of politics, and all politicians know they have to try to control language.
About 1771, for example, according to the British parliament, newspapers were not allowed to deliver exactly the same word of debath.
And that actually went back to the courage of a man called Brass Crosby, who was a parliament.
They walked into the Tower of London and he drew him, but he was brave enough, he was brave enough to break up, and eventually he had so much support in London that he won.
And just a few years later, we find the first reacted for the sentence "so strong" -- many people think.
Brassally re-engineering on the English word for re-educated.
But that's not true. It's coming back to a more serious press freedom.
But to show you how words and politics are, I want to take you to the United States at that point when it's just reached independence.
You saw the question of how to call George Washington, the state of state.
You didn't know.
How do you call the leader of an Republican nation?
In Congress, it was essentially depressed.
And there were all kinds of adolescent suggestions.
I mean, some people wanted to call him Gouver Washington, and others, his honeybees George Washington, and others, and re-eyed freedom of the United States of America.
Not that pregency.
Some people just wanted to call it king.
They thought that was a problem.
They weren't monarchists; they wanted to choose the king for a particular period of time.
It could have worked.
But everybody was in uncomfortable because that debate was three weeks ago.
I read the book of a Senator book that's constantly writing, "It's the same topic."
The reason for denial and the long bored was that the re-efecation home was against the Senat.
The resembly house didn't want Washington to be curious. They didn't want him.
king call him, and perhaps bringing him to ideas of his neighbors.
They wanted to give him the most vulnerable, poorest title they loved.
This title was " President."
President. They didn't invented the title. He existed before, but he just meant that someone has a collection.
It's something like the law of a Jury.
He had no longer been size, as the term "sease," or "sere."
Sometimes presidents had smaller onialer community and government groups, but it was really an unrethinkable title.
That's why the mustard sat down.
They said, "That's ridiculous, you can't call him President.
This guy has to sign up and meet foreign squid.
Who will take him seriously if he has a stupid title like President of the United States of America?"
And also, after three weeks of debate, the Senate didn't go to the reather.
Instead, you get a title of using presidents, but they wanted to make sure that they were absolutely clear that they weren't a respectable respect for their opinion and methods, whether it was a civil society or a Moon or a moon, where the office of the state is a respectable title -- not damned by other nations, who don't seem to be able to look like the resilience of the United States, that we don't want to look like damned by the sadolescent Idolescent Ido.
You can learn three interesting things about it.
First of all, I think best -- I don't know if the Senate has ever gotten formal the title.
Barack Obama, President Obama, only he waited for the Senat to get active.
Second, you can learn that if a government says something is temporal -- -- you'll wait two23 years later.
Third, and that's really important, is that the title of the United States is not that oblivious to America today, isn't it?
This has to do with something more than 5,000 nuclear weapons he has and the largest economy in the world and a fleet of drones and all this stuff.
We actually gave history the title of size.
And so the mustard won the end.
They got a respectable title.
And the other concern of the mustard, the seemingly by property -- well, it was.
But you know how many nations have a president?
147.
Because they all want to sound like the guy with the 5,000 nuclear warheads and so forth.
So at the end of the mustard, the reather lost, because nobody feels raped when you say you're the president of the United States now.
And that's the most important thing you can take, and I'm a part of it.
politicians are trying to use words to shape reality and control reality, but actually changes the reality of words much more than words could ever change reality.
Thank you very much.
So I came to a truck with about 50 rebels at the battle of Dseabad -- a 19-year-old, vegetar surfers from Jacksonville, Florida.
I sat down my black-and-a-half-half-half foot foot against a pair of brown leather and fire a rocket in the governmentpan that I couldn't even see.
This was the first time I was in Afghanistan.
I had become a big deal with the war, but by the way, Pyjama party and football games and Fausts fighting South Asia with a non-smun-state demos, who were living with communism and long agony, and squeaks before I even knew what that meant.
But that's the geography of self.
And so I'm here, I'm a general Afghan, South states of God Gnaden, an atheist, and a radical policing artist who has lived in Afghanistan for the last nine years and created.
So, there are many great things in Afghanistan that you could do about art, but personally I don't like rains, and I want to make art that takes the personality through each other and authority and rethink the reality and even using a kind of fantastic kind of of genocide to try and understand the world that we live in.
I want to spend a day in life of a jihad -- jihad against communist Bling, using religious armed and political corruption to get involved.
And what else can make the jihad jihad as if to run for parliament and make a choice with the slogan: "When I do! I'm jihad and I'm rich."
And trying to use this campaign to defiosiosis as a National hero.
I want to go to the corruption in Afghanistan with a project called "Right," where you spend a policeman who is a false control control on the streets of Kabul and bribes, but instead of taking money from them, bribes and putting money on the name of Kabul police on them, and hope they take 100 Afghans of us.
I want to look at how conflict in Afghanistan has become the "modical conflict."
The war and the alien views that came with him had created a new environment for Style and fashion that you could only capture by putting a fashion for soldiers and suicide bombers in the feminaffly with a protection of Afghan fish or a multiple interiors in an eo-trajecto-traal ea.
And I would like to see a simple shoes from Kabul's app of Kipling's app, which looks like 1899 to create a dialogue about how today's roots in the past a tadolescent Rhek of "The White Man" to protect the brown man from himself and perhaps even a bit of civilians.
But for all these things, you can come into jail, they can be emitted, misunderstood.
But I do it because I have to, because the geography of the self needs to.
That's my truck. What's your truck?
Thank you.
Hi. My name is Cameron Russell, and for a while I've been working as a model.
For 10 years, exactly what happened.
I feel like I've now built a really rethinking tension in this room, because I should not have a dress.
Fortunately, I have something to do with it.
This is the first time someone is putting up on the TED stage, so you can appreciate it happy to see that.
If some women were really excited when I came out, you don't need me to say this now, I'll read it later on Twitter.
I also realize that I'm pretty privileged, because I can change 10 seconds in a very short way, which you think of me.
Not everybody has the opportunity.
These approaches are very unquema, it's good that I didn't want to wear them anyway.
The most difficult part is to pull the sweater over my head, because then you'll all make me a little bit of a sex, so you don't do anything as long as it's over my head.
All right.
Why did I do this?
That was embarrassing.
Well, it was not as embarrassing as this picture.
A image is powerful, but an image is also a top.
I just changed your mind in six seconds.
And in this picture -- I never had a friend of mine.
I felt very uncomfortable, and the photographer told me to put my backs on the back and touch my hand in the hair.
And from surgery or the wrong way that I would think of the work two days ago, there are very few ways to change our aliens, and our aliens has -- although it's upper and unreviewed -- a big impact on our lives.
To be fearless, for me, to be honest today.
And I stand on this stage because I'm a model.
I stand on this stage because I'm a nice, white woman, and in my industry we call this a sexy girl.
I'm going to answer the questions that people always ask me, but in the honest way.
The first question is, "How do you get a model?"
I always say, "Oh, I've discovered," but that doesn't mean anything.
The real reason I became a model is a profit in genetic lottery and an important legacy, and maybe you ask yourself what this legacy is made of.
Now, in the last few centuries, we have gotten beauty not only as healthy and young and symmetrical, but we're also biologically programmed, but also as large, symbiotic and bright.
This legacy was created for me, and it's an legacy that's paid for me.
I know there are people in the audience who are skeptical about this point, and maybe some fashion squids like, "Stop. Naomia. Joan Smalls. Liu Wen."
And first, I'm going to get your model sucking. Very impressive.
But unfortunately, I have to tell you that in 2007, a very ambitious doctor in NYU has told all the models that weregebucht every single one that was given, and that six77 has only given it 27 or less than four percent.
The next question I'm always asking is, "Can I become a model when I grow up?"
And first I said, "I don't know, that's not my responsibility."
But the second answer that I really want to give to this little girl is, "Why?
You know what? You can get everything.
You can become president of the U.S., or the inventor of the next Internet or a nja surgeon, which would be totally wrong, because then you're the first one."
When they say after this amazing narrative, "No, no, Cameron, I want to be a model," I say, "When my boss is."
Because I have no responsibility for nothing, and you can be the head of American Vogue or the CEO of H&M or the next Steven Meisel.
To say that later you want to be a model, it's like saying you want to win the user in the lottery.
You can't affect it, and it's fantastic, and it's not a career away.
Now I want to show you 10 years of a balloon model, because unlike heart disease, it only has a heart attack.
If there's a photographer there, and the light is right there, and the customer says, "Cameron, we want a photo in the course," well, the leg goes on, beautiful and long, this arm goes backwards, that arm is on the back three-fifth, and you just move forward and back, and you can see yourimagining friends, 300, 400 times.
It looks something like this.
Hopefully less strange than that in the middle.
That was -- I don't know what happened there.
If you end up with school and you've done a life cycle, and you can't say much more, and if you want to say president of the United States, you're going to be the president of the United States, but it's like, "10 years of underwear," you're going to be a weird model.
The next question that I often ask is, "Who is a picture sucking all the photographs?"
And yes, pretty much all photos are resed, but that's just a small part of the resemblance.
This is the very first picture I did, and it was the very first time I had a Bikini. I didn't even have my period back then.
I know this will become quite personal now, but I was a young girl.
So I just saw a few months before, with my grandmother.
That's me on the day of this Shootings.
My friend had to come out.
This is me on a Pyjama party a few days ago, a Shooting for French Vogue.
This is me with the football team and the V- magazine.
And that's me today.
And I hope you can see these pictures are not images of me.
They're constructions, and they're constructions of a group of professionalstylisten and Makesty-ups and photographer and photographer and all their assistants and their neighborhoods, and their neighborhoods, they're not me.
Okay, next thing people always ask me is, "Can you do things for free?"
Yes, I have too many 20-cmimic gloves that I can never wear, except for the things I get free, things that I get in real life and we don't like to talk about.
I grew up in Cambridge, and one day I went to a store, and I forgot my money, and you gave me the dress for free.
When I was a teenager, I was driving to my friend, a terrible driver, and she was driving over a red light, and of course we were sat there, and of course we were just going, "Sorry, Mr.meister," and we could continue.
I got these free things because of my look, and not because of my personality and there are people paying for their heads, not because of their personality.
I live in New York, and from 1404,000 teenagers who were sat in the last year and sat in the last year, 85 percent of black and Latinos and most young men.
It's only 8,000 young people living in New York, male black and Latinos, who don't ask the question, "Who am I holding?"
It's like, "How often do I get suck? When am I going to stop?"
And I found that at this talk, I found 53 percent of all 13-year-old girls in the United States don't like their bodies, and that number is up 78 percent if they become 17.
The last question I said is, "How is it to be a model?"
And I think they expect this answer: "If you're a little thin and you've got a little bit of thin hair, you feel very happy and fabulous."
And backstage, we give an answer that might be able to understand that impression.
We say, "It's really great to travel so much, and it's great to work with creative, passionate people."
All of this is true, but it's only half of the story, because what we never say before the camera, what I never said before the camera is, "I feel unfinished."
And I feel uncomfortable because I have to think about my look every day.
And if you ever ask yourself, "How do I make a happy if I had thin legs and a sexy hair?"
Then you should hit a few models, because they have the most thin legs and the most sexy hair and the coolest grade, and they're probably the first to see us on the planet.
When I was prepared this talk, it seemed very difficult to pull me up a very honest Bile, because one thing I felt very uncomfortable to do here and say, "I got all the benefits from a stack that was being emailed out of my Guns," and it didn't feel very good to say, "And that doesn't always make me happy."
It was largely difficult, a legacy of underwear and race when I'm one of the biggest sex, of course.
But I'm also happy and I'm afraid to stand here, and I think it's great that I've managed to do this before I've been able to do it for 10 or 30 years, and my career is filled out, because I probably wouldn't tell my first job, or I might not be telling you how I paid college what's so important.
If you take something out of this talk, hopefully we all recognize the power of image in our own success and the failures more.
Thank you.
I never forgotten the words of my grandmother's grandmother, who came to the exile, "Son, Gaddafi resistance does it.
But never, ever to do something like a Gaddafi revolution."
It's been almost two years since theliby revolution has been broken by the waves of mass-free and the Tunisia Revolution.
I was a lot of other dragonyerns, within and outside Libya to challenge a day of Zorn and start a revolution against the tyrann regime.
And there she was, a big revolution.
Boy, libyn women and men were in the first row, he asked the end of the regime, he gave Slogans of freedom, dignity and social justice in the air.
They've shown you that they've shown the game-making courage by putting up the brutal dictatorship Gaddafis.
They have shown a strong sense of Solidity, from the far east to the distant West, until the south.
Finally, after a period of six months of brutal wars and nearly 50,000 tons, it made us free our country and tylacine.
But Gaddafi has a great tini, a legacy of tyranny, of corruption and the basis of course.
Over four decades, Gaddafis tyranns regime has both destroyed infrastructure and culture and moral structure of thelybable society.
The elip and the challenges I knew, how many other women are re-eyed to build the civil society Lybiens, and we took a certain and just transition to democracy and national equipment.
Well, 200 organizations were founded, and yet, Gaddafis was founded in Benghazi, almost 300 in Tripolis.
After 33 years of exile, I came back to poetry, and with unique enthusiasm, I started to organize the issues of capacity to organize human development and leadership skills.
With a wonderful group of women, I started the peace platform for women, Libya, a movement of women, of leaders from different areas of life, of the goals that are so able to stand up for women's political mortality and for our rights at the same level of democracy and peace.
I met the election in a very difficult environment, a environment that was always more and more polarized, a environment that was a selfish politics of dominent and a polarized environment.
I was a initiative of peace platform for women to reach a best choice, a law law that would give every citizen, no matter what background should be, and mainly to choose and to connect to political parties between male and female candidates and horizontally create a shit.
At the end of this, our initiative was taken and successful.
Women won 17,5 percent of the National Congress in 52 years.
But for sure, the eudaption had made the ephoenment of choice and the whole revolution -- because every day we woke up to new news of violence.
We woke up to the era of a morning to the eradication of mosques and Sufi community.
On another morning, we got news about the murdererian messages on the American message and attack on the message.
Again, another morning, the remorse of openness were rethinked.
And we wake up every day under the military's military and their re-eyed people's rights prisoners and their abuse of rules and laws.
Our society, re-eyed mind, polarized, removed from the ideals and principles -- freedom, dignity, social justice -- that they sat down.
Tenstlers, acoustic, and a puzzle were given to the icons of the [Fol] revolution.
I'm not here today to inspire you to the success story of our shit and the elections.
In fact, I'm here to say that as a nation, we made false choices and the wrong decisions.
We've got our priorities wrong.
Because the elections didn't bring peace or stability or security in Ly.
Did the shit and the change between female and male peace and national sons?
No, it didn't.
What is it then?
Why is our society still polarized and dominated by even more polar politics and the end of the dorma and the sign, both of men and women?
Maybe the women weren't the only thing that was mistrust, but the female values of compassion, the Gnade and the degree.
Our society needs a national dialogue and a constant education more than they needed the election that only polarization and deprived the deforestation.
Our society needs qualitative era, more than it takes the re-eyed, quantitative emicrobial, quantitative race.
We need to stop working in the name of the anger and challenge a day of the revenge.
We need to start working on the name of compassion and the Gnade.
We need to develop a female distance that doesn't just make the following values but also snade, instead of a thing, collaboration, rather than competition.
These are the ideals that need a snuck from war to achieve peace.
Because peace has an almatician and in this alcheestah is about the rethinking of the feminine and masks.
That's the real shit.
And we need to do that in order to exist before we do it the political way.
After a failure from the Koran "Salam" -- peace -- "ist the word of God, raped."
The word "raheem" again, which is known in all of thebraic traditions, has the same Arab root as the word "rahem" -- and mother-blated -- and symbolicizing the whole humankind that makes the male and the female, all the tribes and all the peoples.
And just like the mother's embryo that grows in him, completely reseated the basic compassion of all existence.
So we said, "My Gnade has been suck all things."
So we said, "My Gnade has been a squirt before my control."
We all get a superconductord by the Gnade.
Thank you very much.
When I was little, I thought my country was the best in the world, and I grew up with the song "Nichich."
And I was very proud.
In school, we were a story of Kim IlSunge, but we didn't learn much about the world out there, except America, South Korea and Japan are our enemies.
Although I often wondered how the outside world I thought I would spend all my life in North Korea all the time.
At seven years old, I first saw a public process, but I thought my life was normal in North Korea.
My family wasn't poor, and I never had to suffer hunger.
But in 1995, my mother brought a letter from the sister to a colleague.
And she said, "If you read this, our five family members will not be on this planet because we've ate nothing for two weeks.
We're together on the ground, and our bodies are so weak that we're dying soon."
I was so shocked.
I heard about it for the first time that people were in my country.
And I went by the station and saw something terrible that I can't eat out of my memory.
A empty woman was on the ground, and a sawam child in her arm was looking helpless at his mother's face.
But nobody helped them because they were so busy taking care of themselves and their families.
In the mid-1990s, there was a huge famine in North Korea.
At the end, more than a million North Korea had been famine to the victim, and many more survived because they had grass, beetles and tree rinds.
The power is often a lot more and more often, so after it sat down, everything sat down to me, except the lights of China on the other side of the submersible that we were living on.
I always wondered why they had light in there, and we didn't.
This is a satellite image of North Korea, and his neighbors at night.
This is the river of Amrok, which is part as part of the border between North Korea and China.
As you can see, the river can be very strange and enables North Korea to escape.
But a lot of die.
Sometimes I saw Ley in the river sometimes.
I can't tell you a lot about how I left North Korea, but I can say that during the famine years, I was sent to the famines of famine to China.
I just thought I was going to be separated for a short period of time from my family.
I never thought it would take us 14 years to live back together.
In China, it was very hard to live as a young girl without family.
I had no idea how life would be as North Korea, but soon I learned that it's not just extremely difficult, but also very dangerous, because North Korea will be seen in China as illegal migrant.
So I was living in all the time, fear that my real identity could fly, and you would go back to a terrible destiny to North Korea.
One day my greatest nightmare was actually caught by the Chinese police and the police station.
Somebody fought me to be North Korea, so they tested my Chinese insight and asked me a lot of questions.
I was scared like that, I thought my heart would explode.
If anything seems unrewathous, I could be thrown down and re-ed.
I thought that would be the end of my life, but I made it to control my feelings and answer the questions.
After they finished asking the question, a officials to the other said, "That was a syep.
She's not a North Korea."
And they let me go. It was a miracle.
Some North Korea study in China at foreign messages, but many of the Chinese police are thrown off and down.
These girls were very lucky.
Even though they were thrown, they were finally released because of immense international pressures.
This North Korea, they didn't have so much happiness.
Every year, a lot of North Korea is thrown out in China and re-eyed to North Korea where they're elated or emailed or re-edd.
Although I was lucky for my feces, many other North Korea did not do that.
It's tragic that North Korea needs to fight their identity and fight hard to survive.
And after they've learned a new language and work, their world can be put into a moment on their heads.
After 10 years of scream, I decided to go to South Korea, and again, I started a new life.
I was able to let myself go in South Korea, and I was a bigger challenge than I thought it was.
English was so important in South Korea that I had to start learning my third language.
And I've taken the big difference between North and South Korea.
We're all Koreans, but inside, we've been very excited about 67 years from 67 years.
I flies through an identity crisis.
Am I South Korea or North Korea?
Where do I come from? Who am I?
Suddenly there was no country that my home could have been.
Although I didn't really feel easy about the south life of the city, I had a plan.
I was ready for the recording recording at the University.
Just as I used to my new life, I got a shocked call.
The North Korean authorities started the money I sent to my family, and as a punishment, my family was forced to a remote place on the land.
They had to fly as quickly as possible, so I started to plan their flies.
North Korea must put an incredible distance on its way to freedom.
It's almost impossible to cross the border between North and South Korea, and ironically, I took a flight back to China and made me go to the North Korea.
Because my family didn't speak Chinese, I had to run them up to more than 2,000 miles across China and then to South Asia.
The bus bus took a week, and we got almost a lot of time.
Once, when the bus was thrown, a Chinese police came in.
He took the wises of everyone and started asking questions.
I didn't understand a Chinese family, and I thought they were going to be taken away.
When the Chinese officials talked to my family, I was determined and told him that they were defy, and I was their inecency.
He looked at me in a way, but fortunately he believed me.
We made it to the latitude, but I had to almost use all my money to best control of laughter.
But even after we had the border over time, my family was thrown into more illegal frontier.
After I met money and a slam money, my family was released within a month, but I was re-eyed to the capital of Laos's capital.
That was one of the biggest backs of my life.
I had done everything to help my family freedom, and we were so close, but my family was arrested just before the Jewish messages.
I went down and forth between the re-educated and the police station, and tried to free my family, but I didn't have enough money to pay back a sludge or pay money.
I lost all my hope.
And then the voice of a man asked me, "What's going on?"
I was completely surprised to be a stranger.
In English and with a dictionary, I explained my situation and I went to a bankomat, and I paid the money for my family and two more North Korea to get it out of jail.
I thank him all of my hearts and I said, "Why do you help me?"
"I don't help you," he answered.
"I help the North Korea."
I realized that this was a symbolic moment in my life.
The extinction symbolic for me was a new hope that the North Korea needed so much, and he showed me the kindness of strangers and support of international communities as the hope that the North Korea needs.
Finally, after our long journey, my family and I were back in South Korea, but freedom is just one step.
Many North Korea are separated from their families, and once they come in a new country, they start with little or no money at all.
The international community can help us with education, English, the professional education and many more.
We can also be the bridge between people in North Korea and the outside world, because many of us still stay in contact with families, and we send them information and money to transform North Korea.
I was so lucky to have so much help and inspiration in my life that I hope I would like to help the North Korea to help with international support.
I'm sure you'll see a lot more successful North Korea all over the world, also on stage of TED.
Thank you very much.
I have one request today.
Please don't tell me I'm normal.
So I want to introduce you to my brothers now.
Remi is 22, big and very good.
He can't speak, but he communicates joy in a way that some of the best speakers could not.
Remi knows what love is.
He gives them unfinished, and he shares them unfinished.
He's not curious. He's not watching the skin color.
He doesn't care about religious differences, and imagine that he never told a lie.
When he singing songs from our childhood, words are trying not even to remember me, he reminds me of one thing: how little we know about the mind and how wonderful the unknown must be.
Samuel is 16. He's big. He's very good.
He's got an absolutely unrecable memory.
He also has a ultimate.
He can't remember if he had stolen my chocolate, but he remembers the years of the impact on every song that we had when he was four in the first teletubbee to have sat on my arm and Lady Gagas birthday.
Do they listen to incredible?
But a lot of people don't agree.
And in fact, because their mind doesn't fit in social version of normal, they often get a lot wrong.
But what my heart sat down and reclaims my soul was that, although this was the case, although they were not seen as ordinary, this was only one thing that they were extraordinary -- is authentic and extraordinary.
Now, for those of you who are not so familiar with the term "Atism" -- it's a complex function of the brain that affects social communication, learning and sometimes physical skills.
It's extremely different in every individual, so Remi is different than seeds.
And in the world, every 20 minutes in a new person's new autism is discovered and although it's one of the fastest growing development disorders in the world, there's no known cause or cure.
And I can't remember the first time I'm a autism, but I can't remember it without any day.
I was just three years old when my brother was born, and I was so excited that I had a new creature in my life.
And after a few months, I realized he was different.
He sat very much.
He didn't want to play the way the other babies did, and in fact he didn't really care about being very interested in me.
Remi lived and he walked in his own world with his own rules, and he found joy of the smallest things, like putting cars in a series of space, putting the washing machine and eating everything that he sat down below.
And as he became older, he became different and the differences became more visible.
But behind the anger and the frustration, and the never endless hyperactivity was something really unique: a pure and innocent nature, a boy who saw the world without a judge, had a human who never had a yellow.
It's extraordinary.
Well, I can't teach that there were some challenging moments in my family, moments that I wish they were just like me.
But I go back to the thought that they taught me about individuality, communication and love, and I understand that these are things that I wouldn't want to exchange against normality.
Unlike the beauty that give us differences, and the fact that we are different is not that one of us is wrong.
It just means there's a different kind of right.
And if I could only say one thing to Remi and to Sam and to you, it would be that you don't have to be normal.
You can be extraordinary.
Because, autistic or non-violent, the differences we have -- we have a gift! Every one of us has a gift in it, and in all of us, the pursuit of normal is the ultimate victims of potential.
The chance of scale, progress and change is going to be in the moment we're trying to be someone else's way.
Please -- don't tell me I'm normal.
Thank you.
Doc Edgerton has been able to deal with us with awe and curiosity, with this photograph on a project, a apple sboh and with just a millions of years of just a millions of times.
But now 50 years later, we're a million times faster, and we see the world not with a million or a billion or a trillion images per second.
I'm going to show you a new kind of photography that  Femtomy, a new view of engineering, which is so fast that it can create time-lapse period of light in motion.
And so we can build cameras that look at the way we look around the corner or look around a X-ray image in our bodies, and actually ask what we mean by "Cameral."
Now, if I take a laserpoint and put it in a billionth of a second -- these are several  Femtoseconds -- I'm a package of photons that's barely a millimeter wide, and this photon package, this project will move on to light, and -- as I said, a million times faster than a normal project.
So, if you take this project, this photon package and put it in that bottle, how are these photons going to break in the bottle?
What does light look like in time?
So, this whole event.
So, think of it, the whole event actually takes less than a nanoscale -- so long the light takes to get back this route -- but I slow this video around 10 billion so you can see the light in motion.
No, Coca-Cola didn't fund this research.
So, in this film, a lot happens, so let me analyze this and show you what happens.
The pulse, our project, goes into the bottle with a photonologist that starts moving through and then eventually goes inside.
Part of the light is going outside the table, and you see these squids of waves.
Many of the photons finally reach the bottle and explode in different directions.
As you can see, there's a bubble there that's going around in the bottle.
As the waves are out on the table, and because of the re-conducting of the top, you're seeing the resemblance at the end of the bottle after some images.
Now if you take a common project, and you put it back the same distance, and slow the video back 10 billion, you know how long you have to sit here to see the movie?
A day, a week? No, one year.
That would be a very boring film -- from a slow, normal project in motion.
And what about silence life-like life?
You can see these waves re-educated the table, the tomato and the wall in the background.
It's like if you put a stone in a pond.
I appeared like nature was a picture like this, at least a  Femtomtod, but of course, our eye is putting together a single picture.
But if you look at this tomato again, you'll see that if the lights are squid, the lights are going to keep going. It's not dark.
Why is that? Because Tom is resate and the light jumps around in it and comes out for a few billions of seconds.
So, in the future, if this  Femtom ameral is built in your camera, it could be possible that you could go into a supermarket and see if there's a fruit that's not even touch at all.
So how did my team at MIT build this camera?
So, as a photographer, you know, if you make a photographer with short-term time, you have very little light, but we light a billion times faster than your shortest-time, so you don't get any light at all.
So what we're doing is we're sending this project, this photon package, a million times, and we're putting it back up and re-re-intentioning it back up with very clever synchrony data, and we're re-re-ssembling this re-abyte computer to create this temto-d video that I showed you.
And we can take all these raw data and make very interesting things.
So, Superman can fly.
Other heroes can make us invisible, but how about a new superpower for a future superhero, can we see around corner?
The idea is that we're putting a light on the door.
It's going to be able to go down into space, a part of it will be re-educated back to the door, and eventually back to the camera, and we could use these more times more of the light.
And this is not science fiction. We've actually built it.
On the left you see our  Femtomamer.
The wall is hidden in the wall, and we'll let the light on the door.
After our paper published in the gay Communications, it was created by Nature.com, and they created this animation.
We're going to fire these light projects, and they're going to meet them on this wall, and this photon package will be sat down in all directions, and some of the photons will reach our hidden puzzlings that will break the light, and then the door will reflect a part of the broken light and then a tiny fraction of the photon will come back to the camera, but most interesting is, they will all come to a little different moment.
And because we have a camera that's so fast -- our  Femto-meral skills has some unique abilities.
It has a very good resolution, and it can look at the world at speed of light.
And of course, we know the distance to the door, but also the hidden objects, but we don't know which point is what distance is.
By putting a laser on the one, we can take a raw sphere that -- as you see on the screen -- not really sense, but if we take a lot of these images, dozens of these images, and we put them together, and try to analyze the different light-like object, then we can see the hidden object?
Can we see it in 3D?
So this is our building.
We have a few more to do before we can put that in practice, we could avoid cars that are able to avoid cars that are able to avoid and recognize what's behind the curve, or we can look for dangerous larvaes by looking for light to be able to reflect on open windows, or we can build endosis, the deepest in the body, and also see ocyososcopes around the body.
But because of the blood and tissue, of course, that's very challenging, which is why this is really a call for scientists, now thinking about Femtomy, because a new image of medical problem could actually solve the next generation of medical education.
So, like Doc Edgerton, even a scientist, is an art of ultra-seacity, an art of ultra-sel photography, and I realized that all of this gigabytes we collect are using, not just the scientific processing of the computer processing, but we can also create a new form of computerography and color re-eyed color, and we can look at these waves, and we can't eat the time between each of these waves is just a few seconds.
But it also happens something fun here.
If you look at those waves under the bottle, you'll see the waves are moving away from us.
The waves should move towards us.
What's going on here?
It turns out we're going to take it out because we almost sat in the speed of light, strange effects, and Einstein would like to see this picture incredibly.
The order of events in the world seem to be happening in reverse order in order to use the camera, so by using the relationship of space and time, we can actually correct that re-engineer.
So whether it's for photography or building a new image of medicine or new form of medicine, since we've made all of our data and details on our website, and hope that the creations and the research community show us that we should stop putting ourselves on the megapixel cameras -- and start focusing on the next dimension of representation.
It's about time. Thank you.
There are many ways that our people can improve our lives.
We don't meet every neighbors on the street so many wisdoms don't continue to be passed, but we use the same public places.
I've been trying to share more with my neighbors and using things like a resemblance and sex silk.
The projects came from my questions, how much rent would you pay my neighbors?
How can we borrow more things without putting each other?
How can we share our memories of the ages and understand the landscapes better?
And how can we share our hopes for empty houses so that our communities are reflected our needs and dreams?
I live in New Orleans, and I love New Orleans.
My soul is based on huge eggs that have been able to saped for hundreds of years, drunk and dreams, and I'm putting a city in which there's always music.
I think every time somebody's sat down, there's a squid in New Orleans.
In this city, some of the most beautiful buildings in the world are, but it's also the city with most left property in America.
I live near this house, and I thought, how can I make it more serious, and also I thought about something that changed my life forever.
In 2009, I lost somebody I loved.
Her name was Joan, and she was like a mother for me. She suddenly came and unexpected.
I thought a lot about death, and I felt a great gratefulness for my life, and it made me feel clarity about the things that I'm important now in life.
But it's hard for me to keep this view of view every day.
It's easy to lose and forget what's really important.
With the help of old and new friends, I turned a side of the house into a giant keyboard, and I wrote a slone with a sloney, "Because I want to ster, I want to... everybody who comes by, can take a piece of creation, think about his life and share his hope in this public place.
I wasn't sure what I could expect to do with the experiment, but the next day was completely filled with the wall, and it grew up.
I want to share some sentences with you that were written by the people on the wall.
"I want to sterile, I want to be fuck for pirates."
"I want to be a fuck, I want to stand beyond the International date line."
"I want to sterile, I want to sing for millions of people."
"I want to sterile, I want to plant a tree."
"I want to live," "I want to live "noing independence."
"I want to sterile it again."
"I want to be a stad, I want to be somebody's cavalry."
"I want to be sterile, I want to be myself."
This sat in a sense of a place, and the hopes and dreams of people brought me to laugh, to wine and open me during the hard times.
It's about knowing that you're not alone.
It's about understanding our neighbors, in a new way, in a new way.
It's about creating space for legs and thinking and remembering what's most important to us as we grow and change.
I did this last year, and I got hundreds of messages from passionate people who wanted to build a wall with their community, so my colleagues and I have been building a construction and now became a global building in countries like Kasachstan, South Africa, Australia, Argentina and other walls.
We've shown how much power we have when we have the opportunity to pick our voices up and share more with others.
Two of the most valuable things we have is time and relationships to other people.
In a world of increasingly distractions, it's more important than ever to look at things with the right view and think that life is short and sensitive.
We're often sat down to talk about death or even thinking about death, but I realized that the preparation is one of the things that is most forming us.
The thought about death is a life that's a life that's a good thing.
Our common places are best showing us as individuals and as communities, and with more opportunities to share our hopes, fears and stories that people can't help us make better places, they can help us live better.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, I'm a very excited math, a particular problem for anyone who's been involved with math is that we are like business researchers.
Nobody knows what we're doing.
So today I'm going to try and explain to you what I do.
dance is one of the most human activity.
We're a look at the janial ballet and a squirt male that you're going to see.
For ballet, an extraordinary amount of knowledge and skills, and possibly a fundamental shift that could have a genetic component.
Interestingly enough, neural disorders like Parkinson's disease are slowly putting this extraordinary ability, and that's what makes them like in my fe Jan Stripling, who was a ballet virtuose.
Over the years, you've done a lot of progress in treatment.
Despite the world, there are 2.3 million people who suffer from this disease, and they need to be able to live with the uncable symptoms like thresholds, narciss, naiveness and other people who are living these diseases, and so we need objective means to discover the disease before it's too late.
We need to measure the squid objective, and ultimately, the only way to really know whether there is healing if we have an objective measure that can answer that question.
In trouble, it's for Parkinson's and other movements that don't have biomarkers, so you can't do a simple blood analysis, and the best thing that you have is that 20-minute test for neuron.
You have to do it in the clinic. It's very expensive, and that means outside clinical trials that never will do it.
But what if patients could do this test at home?
That would save a more difficult tour in the hospital. What if patients could do this test itself?
It wouldn't be a expensive hospital class.
It costs 300 dollars to look at neurologic distribution.
So I want to suggest to you an unrethinkable method that we're trying to do, because we're all at least in a sense,  Virtualose like my racial Jan Strip.
Here's a video of vibrating squids.
This is what happens in the healthy state when someone is creating speech, and we can look at as a sawamful ballet dancer, because we have to coordinate all these squids, if we create sound, and we all have the genes for this. FoxP2,.
And as ballet takes a huge amount of practice.
Think about how long a child needs to learn until it's learning.
And by the way, we can determine the position of vibrating limbs, and the way the limbs are also affected by Parkinson's organs.
You can see an example of unintended tissue in the lower record.
We always see the same symptoms.
Stmor, tail, Stesity.
The language is even sawn, and it's an example of symptom of that.
This impact can be minimal, sometimes, but with digital microfinance and precision software, combined with new machine learning that's now very advanced, we can now find where someone is in a sadolescent between disease and health, just because of the argument.
How can these tests measure with clinical trials? Well, they're both non-vasive. The test with neurologists?
It's just a little bit as few. The infrastructure is already there.
You don't have to build new clinics for it.
And both of them are exactly right. They're not done the test for experts.
So you can be done by yourself.
They're very fast, maximum 30 seconds.
They're very cheap, and we know what that means.
If something is extremely cheap, you can also use it in a big scale.
And we can now reach this amazing goal.
We can reduce logical difficulty for patients.
They don't have to do routine control in the clinic.
We can do objective data through common observation.
We can do low-cost mass-level studies for clinical trials first, and let's make a study for the whole population more realistic.
We have the opportunity now to look for biomarkers for the disease before it's too late.
Today, we're going to take the first step in this direction, we're going to start Parkinson's-s-s-so-sumness.
With Aculab and PatientslikeMe, we want to take a very high number of voices around the world to own enough data for the richness of these goals.
We have a tinid tinisphere that's a billion people on this planet.
Everybody with or without Parkinson can call cheap to leave pictures for a few cents. I'm sure we've reached six percent of our goals in just eight hours.
Thank you.
If you're samples, say, 10,000 people, you can say, who is healthy and who isn't?
What are you going to do with all these samples?
What's happened is the patient needs to give up the call, whether this person's suffering from Parkinson's or not. OK.
Some of them may not be able to end it up.
But we collect a huge database of, under different circumstances, which is interesting, and these circumstances are important because we're able to figure out what the real brand is for Parkinson's.
Right now, their 86 percent is 86 percent accuracy?
It's much better.
My students Thanasis -- I have to do it because he's done so amazing work -- has now shown that it's also worked on the mobile network, which allows this project to be 99 percent accuracy.
I call this an improvement.
That means that people can call -- people can call them the phone and make the test, and people could call it Parkinson's voice, so that their doctor can check the progress of the disease.
Right.
Thank you. Max Little, ladies and gentlemen!
Thank you Tom.
Here I live. I live in Kenya at the southern edge of Nairobi National Parks.
In the background, you see the cows of my father and behind the cow is Nairobi National Park.
The Nairobi National Park is just a little bit resemblance in the South, which means that wild animals can leave the park at any time.
The predators, the lions, follow them. And they do this.
They kill our livestock.
This is one of our cows killed aftert, and I woke up in the morning and found it dead. It was terrible. It was our only bulls.
My tribe, the tribe of the massai, believes that we with our animals and the Weiland from the sky, and so our animals are so much.
I was learning to hate lions as a child.
Our warriors are called murders. They protect our tribes and our herds. They also are based on this problem.
and kill the lions.
Here's one of six lions that were killed in Nairobi.
And I think that's why in Nairobi there are only so few lions.
In my tribe, a boy is responsible between six and nine years for the cow of his father, so it also took me.
I had to find a solution.
My first idea was fire. lions were afraid of fire.
But then I realized that this wasn't really going to help us, but to help the lions to see the cows better.
But I didn't give up. I kept going.
I had a second idea. I tried a bird-class idea.
I wanted the lions to think I was a angry next to the cow.
But lions are very smart animals.
They come, they come, they see the bird savannas and they go back again, but the next time they come and they say, this thing doesn't move, you know, that's still here.
And they attack, and they kill our livestock.
One night I woke up the squid. I walked around him, and this time, the lions didn't wake up.
The lions are afraid of light that moves.
I had an idea.
And I was working as a young boy all day in my room, and I even took the new radio apart my mom, and she got me almost around. But I had learned a lot about electronics.
I took an old car battery and I show a direction from a motor vehicle, and it shows whether you want to bend right or left. It's going to be blinking.
And I got a switch to turn the lights off.
This is a little Birne from a broken keyboard.
And then I built all of this together.
The solar squid the battery, the batteries put electricity on the direction, and I call it a transistor.
And the locals are squattering.
You can see that the Birns are out there because they're coming from there.
And this is what it looks like when they come.
The lights squid and the lions believe I'm going around the lungs, and I've been in bed all the time.
Thank you.
I've been able to install this at home, and since then, we have no more problems with lions.
And then our neighbors heard of it.
One of them was this grandmother.
She had lost a lot of her animals to lions, and she asked me if I could install her light.
And I said, "Yes."
I sat down the lights. You can see the lions in the background.
Since then, I've been worried about seven houses in the neighborhood, and they've been working really well.
My idea is now used in Kenya, also for other predators like hyena or leopards, and the lights also serve elephants from farms.
My invention gathered me to one of the best schools in Kenya, Brookhouse International School, and I'm really excited.
My new school is a design that helps donors and education.
I even brought my friends home, and we install the lights where there isn't yet, and I'm showing people how to use them.
I just took a boy out of the savanna sath that looked at his father's cow, and I looked at airplanes and I said, "I'm going to sit in one day!"
And here I am.
I was allowed to travel with an airplane, for my first TEDTalk.
If I'm big, I want to become an airplane engineer and pilot. That's my big dream.
I used to hate lions, but through my invention, I can save the cows of my father and save the lions, and we can live together, side-by-side, with the lions, without lions.
Ashê Olên. In my language, that means, thank you very much.
You don't know how exciting it is to hear a story like yours.
So you have this scholarship. Yeah.
You work on other electric inventions.
What's the next one on the list?
My next invention, well, I work on an electric fence. A electrozaon?
Yes, I know electrical ecologists are already invented long, but I want to have my own.
You've tried it once, not true -- yes, I've tried it before, but I've given it again because I got a stroke.
All the beginnings are hard. Richard Turere, you're a little bit special.
We're going to fire you in every step of your way, my friend.
Thank you. Thank you.
Since I've been old enough to keep a camera in my hand, photography is my passion, but today I want to share with you 15 of my favorite images, and no one of them made me.
There was no kind of Director, no styleists, no opportunity to shoot a picture, not even the lighting was made.
To be honest, most of them were shot by random tourists.
My story starts when I was a talk in New York, and my wife made this picture, which I think was my daughter on her first birthday on my arm, and we were at the corner of 57ster and 5ter.
And this is a year later, we were back in New York, and so we decided to shoot the same image again.
Well, you can see where this is going.
When the third birthday of my daughter told me, "Hey, why don't you want to lead Sabina to New York and make it a father-like ice cream to lead the ritual?"
At the time, we started asking tourists to make a picture of us.
You know, it's remarkable how universal the gesture is when you have a complete stranger to have your camera.
Nobody ever said no, and fortunately, somebody has never been able to do with our camera.
We didn't know how much of these journeys would change our lives.
This journey has become very sacred.
This was taken just weeks after 9/11, and I had to explain what happened on the day, so that a five-year-old can understand it.
These images are much more than just a strong moment, or a particular journey.
They're also a way for us to stop time in October a week and change over our time and how we change from year, not just physical but in everything.
Because while we're doing the same image, our perspective of Maling changed from time, as they're always able to achieve new miles, I can see life with their eyes, as they do with everything and see it.
This very intense time we spend together is something we estimate and expect every year.
Last, while one of our journeys, we went out and suddenly it remained like a threw it, it shows up on a red brand of a puppet that she had learned when she was a little kid, when she used to love travel.
And she told me about her feelings she had when she was five-year-olds at the exact exact same time.
She said she remembers her heart jumped out of the chest when she first saw the store for the first time.
And now she looks at school in New York because she's necessarily trying to study in New York.
And I realized that the most important thing we're all creating is memories.
And so I want to share with you the idea of taking an active role in conscious memory.
I don't know what it looks like to you, but from those 15 images, I'm hardly on a family photograph.
I'm always the one who does this picture.
I want to thank you every one of you today to come and not get you to ask someone, "Do you want to make a picture of us?"
Thank you very much.
When I was in my 20s, I had my first psychotherapy patient.
I was a Ph.D. student and studied clients in Berkeley.
She was a 26-year-old woman named Alex.
In Alex, she wore Jeans and a sulfided top. She fell into the couch in my office, sand sand sand, and she told me she was there to talk about men's problems.
And when I heard that, I was more difficult.
And my communitin, which was a fire pencil for the first patient.
And I got a woman in the 20s who wanted to talk about boys.
I got that, I thought.
But I didn't get it.
With the funny stories, Alex brought in the seat, it was easy for me to node my head as we sat down the problems.
"30 is the new 20," Alex and as far as I could appreciate that, she was right.
And work later, Heira came later, kids came later, even death came later.
People in the 20s like Alex and I had nothing more than time.
But soon, my brother reacted me to ask Alex's love life.
I thought about it.
I said, "Yes, she's true of her men under her level, she's saing head, but she's not going to marry him."
And my brother said, "No, maybe she'll marry the next one.
And also, the best time to work on Alex' marriage is to marry."
This is what psychologists call a hyoment.
That was the moment I realized that 30 are not the new 20.
Yes, people are incredibly excited about this, but that's what Alex's doing in the development of 20s.
That made Alex's 20th-time development, and we sat there and we used it.
And I realized that this kind of harmless a serious problem with real consequences, and only for Alex and her love, but for the career, families and view of all the people in the 20s.
At this point, there are 50 million people in the United States at the time.
We talk about about a hundred percent, or 100 percent of the population, if you think that none of the adults are getting to go through the 20s.
Now, if you're in your 20s.
I want to see a few of you.
Oh yeah! You're all incredible.
If you work with somebody in the 20s, you love, because of a sleep in the 20s, I want to see you -- O.C., great people in the 20s are really important.
My special area is people in the 20s, because I think every single one of those 50 million people should know what psychologists and narcissologists and fruitologists know, savageists are longest: the simplest and yet the most easy thing to do for the work that you can do for the love, for the happiness, maybe even for the world.
This is not my opinion. These are facts.
We know that 80 percent of the most pre-educated moments in time are happening to 35.
That means that eight of 10 decisions, experience and Aha-to-pes that make up your life, which is what it is until you are 30 in the middle.
Don't be pan-death if you're over 40.
This group is going to be fine, I think.
We know that the first 10 years of a profession have an exponential impact on how much money you're going to make.
We know that with 30 more than half of Americans, or that future partners, or has lived with a relationship.
We know that the brain is second and last big guards in the '50s and squids, and he snudges up for adult age, which means that whatever you want to change to you now is time to do that.
We know that the personality is more likely to change during the 20s than eventually in life, and that the fruitity of women are reached with 28 of their peak, and after 35, things are going to be complicated.
So in the 20s, you should go on and on through your body and your own possibilities.
When we think about the development of a child, we all know that the first five years of language and a attachment to the brain is critical.
It's time when the ordinary, everyday life has a impact on the future.
But we're not hearing a little bit about that there's such a thing as adults and our 20s are a proposal to it.
But people don't get it in the 20s.
The press talk about the time-making of growing.
Scientists call the 20s a sawaswasy puberty.
Journalists think of dumb nicknames for people like "Twixters," or "Kidults."
That's true.
When culture is a trivial, what we have now is the key decade for growing.
Leonard Bernstein said that big things are being done with a plan and a little bit of time.
Doesn't that matter?
So what happens when you put somebody in the '90s and you say, "You get 10 years extra to make something out of your life?"
Nothing.
This person has been a mashr and the marrow of Dr. and it doesn't happen at all.
And so every day, interesting people come to the 20s like you or your sons and daughters and my office and say something like, "I don't know, my friend doesn't count me good, but I'm just suggesting that time."
Or they say, "Well, as long as I did it for 30 years, I've been able to start my career, everything's good."
But later, it sounds like this: "My 20s are almost over and I have nothing to do with it.
I had a better life cycle when I was in college."
And then it sounds like, "In my 20s, partners were like the journey for Jerusalem."
All went around and had fun, but then, at 30, the music suddenly went out and everybody started to add up.
I didn't want to be the only one who stayed there, and I sometimes think I got married my husband because he was in my 30s of the next chair."
Where are people in the 20s here?
Don't do that.
OK, that's easy, but it doesn't make any mistakes, because it's a lot of things.
If many of these have been able to transmit in the '30s, there's a tremendous pressure there where the '30s quickly start a career, to choose a city, a partner and two or three children in a much shorter period of time.
Many of these things are inpatial and research results now just show tired and stressfully all at once in the '30s.
The post-conflictlife crisis is not to buy a red sports car.
It means you can make the career you want to do, not do.
And I think you can't have that child you want, or you can't give a siblings.
Many people in the '30s and '30s look at themselves and they're like, "What did I do about this? What did I do?"
I want to change what people do in the 20s.
This is a story showing how it can run.
It's the story of Emma.
Emma came to my office when she was 25 because she had a sense of how she had a identity crisis.
She said she would like to work in art or in Entertainment, but she didn't have decided that she would have been in the last few years.
Because that was cheaper, she lived with her friend who left his temple more than his mutilation.
And even though their 20s were hard, their years before they were much worse.
She often sat in the seat, but then she gathered and said, "You can't pick your family out, but your friends are already...
And one day Emma came very sat down and he was almost all the time for the next year.
She had bought a squid book, and she spent all of the morning bringing her lots of contact, but then she died in the empty place, which came to the words, "I'm asking you to do the right..."
She was almost hysterical when she looked at me and she said, "Who will be there for me when I have a car accident?
Who will be able to hide me when I have cancer?"
And I had to sat down at that moment to say, "I."
But Emma didn't need a therapist who really cared about her.
Emma needed a better life, and I knew that was their opportunity.
I've been learning for my first patient to do a lot to look only like Emma's spends a decade based on well-being.
In the next few weeks, and months, I gave Emma three advice that every 20-year-old, whether or woman should hear.
First, I told Emma, she wouldn't have identity crisis, she should be much more likely to take a identity capital.
And I said, "I want to look for something that would keep them going.
Make something that is an investment that's invested in something you want to be next.
I didn't know about Emma's professional transitions and nobody knows what the future of work looks like, but I know that identity is creating identity capital.
So now the time for these international job, this Prakum, this industry that you wanted to try.
I'm not a denial here to travel to the 20s, but the ones who don't count, by the way, are not discovery.
This is Prokastination.
I said to Emma: He's doing the work world, but do what wirelessly does.
Secondly, I said the urban Sisyest is over.
Good friends are great to come to the airport, but 20s who think about each other as they think are a good one, who know what they're describing, how they think and where they're working.
This new one, this new person, is mostly coming from outside of your own environment.
New things come out like this. "Didsuck," so from friends' friends' friends.
It's true, half of the 20s is a sawam, or not busy.
But the other half is not, and they've brought it to a weak tinker.
Half of the jobs have never been written out, so if you contact your neighbors' worth putting one out of the job.
This is not a set. That's how information spreads.
The last advice: Emma believed you couldn't choose the family, but the friends.
This was true for her when she grew up, but when she was 20 years old, she would soon choose her family if she was a partnership and started a family.
I told her the time to study a new family would be now.
You may think it's better to leave than 20 or 25, and I agree to you.
But some of you sleep with or teach in your life when everybody married Facebook is not progress.
The best time to plan your marriage is before you have one, and that means being in love as much as your labor study.
Your family means consciously consciously choose what you want, not because it works, or anyone who has just gotten you through time.
So what happened to Emma?
We went through her athea bus book, and she found the coherence of a cousin who worked in another state in a museum.
This weak band helped her get a job there.
This work worker gave her the reason for letting her friend live with.
Now, five years later, she's a event plan for museums.
She married a man who she had elected conscious.
She loves her new career, and her new family, and she sat in, and she stood up to me, "It's the line, 'I'm not going to apply you to the emergency."
Emmas story sounds like everything is simple, but that's what I love about 20-year-olds.
It's so easy to help them.
20-year-olds are like a re-old planes that are just leaving airport and surrounded somewhere in West.
And just after the start, a little course can change the difference if you landed in Alaska or in Fid.
It's the same for 21st-year-olds, 25 or 29-year-olds, a great vacation, a great vacation, a inspiring TEDTalk can have a huge impact on years and even coming through generations.
This is an idea that everybody should get to know.
It's as simple as what I said to Alex.
I've been able to share this 20-day privilege, like Emma, every day, the 30s are not the new 20s, so he's going to take you on, he's going to look for an identity capital, using your tongue for yourself.
Don't give you a frightened of what you don't know, or haven't done.
You just decide to your life right now.
Thank you very much.
In the entire computer history, it was always our goal to re-eminate the distance between us and digital information that would be able to squirt the gap between our physical world and the world of the screen where we can live our imagination.
And this one has become smaller, smaller and smaller, and smaller, and now it's smaller than a millimeter, the Dickene of a touch screen, and computers have become a single one.
But I wondered, how would it be if there were no border at all?
I've imagined what this would look like.
So first, I've developed this tool that's going into the digital world, so if you're putting it in the screen, it's turning the physical figure into pixel.
designers can actually re-informed their ideas into 3D materialize and surgeons in virtual organs under the screen.
So with this tool, the border was suck.
But our hands still remain outside the screen.
How can we go inside and interact with the digital information and use all of our hands?
I've been working on Microsoft Applied Sciences, with my mentor Cati Bou, the computer re-eltle and a small room on the keyboard in a digital workplace.
And so by doing this, a transparent screen and depths of finger and face are combined, you can now take your hands up from the keyboard, in the 3D sphere and pixel with your hands.
There's windows and files in the actual space, and you can choose them as easy as you can run a book from a shelf.
And then you can sat through this book and mark the lines and words, all of this on the virtual touchpad under the window.
architects can put their models directly with their two hands and red.
So in these two examples, we're going to go into the digital world.
But how would it be if we could turn it around and turn the digital information instead?
Certainly, many of you have already done experience with buying articles online and then give back to me.
But now you don't have to worry about it anymore.
Here I have a "Online-Anig-Anal-seath sylacinebine."
This view is based on a head, or by careful display, when the system understands the geometry of our body.
And this idea of going on, I started to think about the pixel not just in the room, but to make it physical, so that we can touch it and feel it.
What would that future look like?
In MIT Media Lab, I put together with my adviser Hirishi Ishii and my collaborator, a real pixel.
Now, in this case, this round magnet is like a three-dimensional pixel in our world, which means that both computers, and people can move this object everywhere -- at least within this little 3D sphere.
We've turned out the gravity and control the movement by putting magnetic Levitation, mechanical, and putting these kinds of technologies.
By putting the object in digital, we free it from the squids of space and time, it can now be taken out of human movements, rethinking and rethinking and re-engineering in the real world.
For example, choirs can be taught about far-fetched distances, or Michael Jordans can be re-eyed again and again in the real world.
It can use students to learn complex concepts like planet motion and physics, and unlike computers's screen or textbooks, this is a real and a physical experience that you can touch and feel, and it's very powerful.
And more exciting than just what we've now got at the computer, materializing it, is to imagine how the world's program is going to change our daily activities.
As you can see, digital information will not only show us anything but start to interact directly with us as part of our physical environment without burning ourselves from our real world.
Today, we started by talking about the boundaries, but if we remove the border, the only frontier of imagination is.
Thank you very much.
I was trained for two years to become a Turner in Hunan, China, in the 1970s.
When I was first grade, the government wanted to send me to a school for a ethical, paid all the cost of unimaginable government.
But my mother said, "No."
My parents wanted me to be an engineer like her.
After they survived the culture revolution, they believed that the only way to happiness is a safe and good job.
It's not important whether I like the job or not.
But my dream was to become a Chinese opera.
This is me playing on my computer computer.
A opera resemblance must start very early on with the academic microbial community, so I tried to go to opera schools.
I even wrote to school school district and I wrote on a radio show.
But the adults didn't like my idea.
The adults didn't believe it was serious to me.
Just my friends were able to support me, but they were also children, just as much as I do.
And I knew I was too old to start with training.
So my dream would never be true.
I was afraid that I was able to only hope to have a second choice for my life.
But that's so unintended.
So I put myself in my head to find another profession.
No one there to teach me something?
So I used books.
I kept kept on my hunger for the book with this writer and music music, ["Bid's family"] ["Bida's family, I found my model in an independent woman, while thefuzian tradition syream.] ["Janeyre"] ["Yeyre"] ["It's a efficient book I learned to be a more cheaply cheaper book.
["Sanmaos'"] ["Let history"] Nan Huaijin] In 1995 I came to the United States. And which books I read first?
Of course books that are understood in China.
"The good Earth" is about the life of Chinese farmers.
It just doesn't look like propaganda. I understood it.
The Bible is interesting, but strange.
But that's a topic for another time.
But the five commandment brought me a kind of a shit, "You should honor your father and your mother."
"Ehre," I thought, "Well, that's so different and much better than walking."
That was my way of putting me on thefuzian sense of being able to free and renewables.
By a new culture, I started to compare reading.
This gives you a lot of insight.
For example, I didn't really get this map right, because Chinese students are growing up here.
It never came to me that China doesn't have to be in the center of the world.
So a map says something about the personal perspective.
The reading is actually not new.
In academic world, it's a standard model.
There are even research areas like religion science and comparisons of literature.
compared to the contrary and the contrary to the complex understanding of a subject.
So I thought, if compares readings work in research, why not in the daily life?
So I began reading two books at the same time.
You can act from people -- ["Benjamin Franklin" by Walter Isaacson] ["John Adams" by David McCullough] who were involved in the same event, or by friends with common experiences.
["We print!"] ["Warine Graham] ["Wox Buffet Buffett Buffett -- life is like a snowball of Alice Schroeder's stories, I also like the same stories in different gene-Jamesel -- ["The Bible of Christopher Moore] ["The Bible from a different culture -- or similar stories of different cultures, like Joseph Campbellse book. ["Luary myths"] ["Light of Joseph Campbellus and Buddha, for example, have to stand three trials.
Christus were the trials of economic, political and spiritual nature.
Buddhas were all psychological nature: guesse, fear and social social media -- interesting.
If you're a stranger, it's fun to read the favorite books in two languages.
["Aynie for a sea sphere" by Thomas Merton"] ["Dr of water -- the life of the Taoism"] Alan Watts] And instead of losing me to translation, I found out how much I could win.
In translation, for example, I realized that "sl" in Chinese literally means "snomen."
"Boy" in Chinese means literally sucking "neu mother." Ohoh.
books are like a magical gate, and by doing so, I have a connection to the people of the past and present.
I know I'll never feel a little more or a little more feeling.
A savanna dream is really nothing compared to what many others have been through.
I came to believe it's not the only purpose of a dream to become true.
His important purpose is to get us to touch where dreams come from, where our passion and our happiness come from.
Even a sacrot dream can meet that purpose.
Because of books I'm here today, happy with a purpose in life and with clear perspective, most of the time.
Take books always with you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
When I was eight years old, a new girl came to the class, and she was as impressive as being new girls.
She had long sawls of hair, and a little sexy sexy sexy shit, a good thing was good at geography and letters.
In that year's school, I sat in front of eggs until I had a swam plan.
So I stayed in school one day, a little longer, and I stayed in the school, and I stayed in the girls.
When the air was in, I came out, I was in the classroom, and I took the notes from the teacher's notes.
And then I did.
I manipulated the notes of my Rival, just a few.
All one.
When I wanted to go back to the book, some of my other classrooms had pretty good notes.
So I walked out in the eggs, and I sat down all the notes, all without imagination.
I gave all fours and myself one, because I was also living all the time.
I'm still a sawap about my behavior.
I don't understand where the thought came from.
I don't understand why I felt so good about it.
I felt really good.
I don't understand why I never got best for it.
It was so obvious.
I never became a denial.
But the most amazing thing that really verbed me: Why did it make me feel so much that this little girl was so good at the letter?
On the other hand, the eggs are frightened me.
It's so secret, so profound.
We know that babies are suffering from eggs.
Similarly, primates. huts are very random for this.
We know that eggs are the main reason for murderers in the United States.
But I never read a study that could explain theirness, their longevity or their mammalian nerves.
And we need to apply to the literature because the novel is the lab where eggs were analyzed in all its possible shapes.
Is it an exaggeration to say that if we didn't have eggs, we wouldn't have literature?
So no innocent Helena, noOdys Sea.
No king, no adventure from 1001 night.
No Shakespeare.
And because the U.S.istists are going to go, because we're losing, "S. and Wahn," the big "sby," "Fiest," "Madamvary," "Anna Karenina."
No eggs, no proustus. I know it's come to fashion that proustus has the answer to everything, but in puncto eggs he really did.
This year we celebrate 200. InJubiläums his masterpiece "The Goes," and his green analysis of sexual eggs and normal eudings, my thing we can have hope.
Do we think about Prous, do we think about emotions. Right?
We think of the little boy trying to sleep.
We think of a piece of cake in Lavendelndel cliche.
We forget how out of his vision was.
We forget how he is unemployed.
These kinds of books are as similar to Virginia Woolf as a cat-like cat.
I don't know how cat is a cat, but let's say it's a powerful one.
Let's see why the novel and the eggs, the eggs and prousts together so well.
Is it so obvious that eggs, reduced to person -- desire -- obstacles, such a strong basis for a story?
I don't know. I think it's just hard to get to the pain line, because think about what happens when we're a little bit sacrot.
If we're a sexy, we tell a story.
We tell stories about the lives of other people and they make us bad because they're so focused that we're bad.
As a narrative of history and the audience, we know what details they have to stop to break the knife. Right?
On the eggs, the eggs are all making us amateur cars, and it knew prostate cancer.
The first band, "In Swannsh," in the novel, Swann, one of the people who thinks about his favorite, and as great as they love bed, and suddenly, some sentences -- so they're as rivers -- he's consciously like he's going to be aware of, "Wait a woman, I would love someone else in this woman.
Everything that gives me and what I'm willing to joy could also provide somebody else's joy, maybe even at that moment."
This is the story that he tells himself, and from there, Proustt is that Swann has discovered every new rice he discovered in his loved ones, to his private sector in his private torture.
We have to admit that Swann and proustor is a sludge.
Proust's friends would have to leave the country if they'd want to end with him.
But you don't have to be a sacrotical thing to do, to dream that it's hard work. Right?
On the other hand, it's tired.
It's a hungry feeling that needs to be suck.
What might the eggs like?
On the other hand, the protein may be able to get information.
Eitle may have details.
egg egg may have long slam hair and little sexy shits.
Eitie is a simple one.
That's why Instagram is so successful.
Basically, proustus connects the language of science and eggs.
If Swann's a egg he's a tucked, suddenly he's reading the door, and the man's he's sainging of his loved ones, he's screaming this behavior.
He says, "You might think that's a sading thing, but it's not something else to interpret an ancient text or think."
He says, "It's scientific studies with real intellectual value."
Proust's trying to show us that eggs are infected and makes us silly, but in their core, it's a search for knowledge, which is painful, and what protocells does, the more painful, the better.
Omme, shit, loss -- that's for proustuation to wisdom.
He says, "A woman we need to suffer who makes us suffer, snucks us a bigger and a spectrling of feelings as the genius of a man who is interested in us."
Is he going to tell us that we should look for a lot of cruel women?
No. I think he's trying to tell us that eggs are telling us something about ourselves.
Is there another sense that open us to this particular way?
Does any other sense of our Aggression, our hidden honor and ours are happy?
Are we going to look at any other feeling of this strange intensity?
Freud was supposed to write about it later.
One day Freud was fought by a very worried young man who was taught by the thought that his wife was famous.
And Freud says this man is kind of weird because he doesn't even look at what his wife does.
Because she's innocent, and everyone knows that.
The poor creature is essentially thoughtless.
Instead, he looks for things that his wife, without even putting it, so unimaginable behavior.
Do they smile too much or they happen to be with a man?
[Freud] says that the man will become the hut of his wife's consciousness.
The novel is very good at this point.
The novel describes very well how eggs are making us intense school, but not looking at exactly.
Because the more equid we are, the more we pull it down to imagination.
So I think eggs don't get us to do huge or illegal things.
So eggs are a very inventor for us to become very inventors.
And I think about eight years, but I also think of the story that I've heard in the news.
A 52-year-old woman was taken out of Michigan because she was created by a false Facebook account for a year, a year-old message that had written on himself.
For a year.
She tried to put her new friend into her ex-Funating shoes, and I asked her to hear that, I respond to wonder.
Because, let's be honest.
Who is a great deal of depressed, creativity. Right?
This is something from a novel.
This is from a novel from Patricia Highsmith.
I think highsmith is one of my favorite writers.
She's the most brilliant and strange woman in American literature.
From her, "The Frewee in the train," and "The talented Mr. Ripley," all books that act about how eggs are stumbling down -- they're confused our minds, and we're in this realm of eggs in which membrane is between what could be and what could be done in a moment.
Take Tom Ripley, her most famous character.
First of all, Tompley wants to be you, and what you have, then he's got you, and you've got what you've had, and you've gone like the ground floor, and he responds to your name, he's wearing jewelry, he's empty your bank account.
That's a way of doing that.
But what should we do? We can't do it like Tom Ripley.
I can't give four to four days, even if I'd like to do it for some days.
It's a shame, because we live in a very nice time.
We live in a "eifer-anthropy time."
We're all good citizens of social media, where the currency is. Right?
Are we going to move the novel out? I'm not sure.
But let's do what characters do when they're not sure if they're in the seat of a puzzle.
Let's go to two21B Street and ask for Sherlock Holmes.
Think about the people in Holmes, think of his necis as a professor of Moriarty, this brilliant verbal verb.
But I always liked [Inspector] Lestrade, the boss of Scotland Yard, who needs a rat who needs Holmes Grat, who needs Holmes Gification, but he's a threw it.
That's so familiar to me.
So Lestrade needs his help, he sat in the course of the history, he needs a sludge.
But when they work together, something starts to change, and finally, in "The six Napoleons" comes in as a Holmes, and all of its solution is frightened, Lestrade is about to Holmes, and says, "We're not neominous to you, Mr. Holmes. Holmes. Holmes. Holmes. Holmes. Holmes. Holmes. Holmes.
We're proud of you."
And he adds that there would be no Scotland, the Sherlock Holmes didn't want to shake the hand.
This is one of the few times that we see Holmes in his stories, and I think this little scene is moving very, very secret, but also a secret. Right?
It seems like a eggs are not an emotional problem, it seems like a physical problem.
At a moment, Holmes is on another wavelength like Lestrade.
And the next moment, they're on a wavelength.
Suddenly, readingtrade makes it wonderful to admire this genius that he's able to do before him.
Is it really so simple?
What if eggs were really just a physical problem? If it was just how we went to the other side of the relationship?
Maybe we wouldn't be able to take somebody's cells.
We could make ourselves out of each other.
But I like notes plans.
As we wait for it, we still have the literature as a drum.
literature alone is a protein-like egg.
literature alone can take it, take it.
And who gets all this together: the good reading companies, the terrible Tom Ripley, the crazy Swann Marcel Proust.
We're in exotic society.
Thank you very much.
I was about 10 years old, and on a Camping flight with my father in the Adirondack, a wild area in the northern part of the state of New York.
It was a beautiful day.
The forest sucks.
The sun left the leaves like a sawam glass, and if there was no path, you could have been almost able to assume that we were the first people going through this forest.
We came to our tent.
I saw the little hut on a cliff and looked over a crystall, beautiful lake, when I fell on a little terrible.
The roof was a garbageki, maybe four square meters, with apple meters, with a high-speed aluminumfoli and an old Turn.
I was amazed, I was angry and confused.
The tents were too frogs to get away, what they brought in -- who thought they thought would dream with them?
The question stayed with me and I stayed with them.
Who dreamed up to us?
How do you turn it or where that might be, who dreamed behind us in Istanbul?
Who dreamed behind us in Rio? Or in Paris or in London?
Here in New York, the city dreams about 1,000 tons of garbage and 2,000 tons of recycling.
I wanted to know them -- as individuals.
I wanted to understand who does the job.
How is it to wear a uniform and wear that ado?
So I started a research project with them.
I went down to the trucks, I walked the route and interviewed people in office and facilities all over the city, and I learned a lot, but I still was a outsider.
I had to go deeper.
So I took a job as a re-deadea.
I didn't just run the trucks. I went to the trucks.
And I used mechanical Bees and plant the snow.
It was a remarkable privilege, and it was a exciting experience.
Everybody asks the est one.
He's there, but not as present as you think and days that it's really bad, you get used to it quite quickly.
And you're just a hard time to get to the weight.
I know people who were doing this job several years, and the bodies still used to wear the weight they put on their bodies, tons of garbage every week.
Then there's the danger.
After statistics of the Department of the Department of labor, the profession is under the city's 10 dangerous jobs in the country, and I learned why.
You're all over the course of traffic, everything goes by.
All of them want to fit over and often don't want to fit the car drivers.
That's really bad for the workers.
And the waste itself is full of poisons that come down from the waste car and swarming.
I also learned about the inertia of waste.
If you go from the board to the back of the garbage and see the back of the landfill, you realize that waste is like a nature rape itself.
He doesn't stop being created.
It's also like a kind of breathing or aulation.
He's always got to be in motion.
And then there's the stigma.
You put the uniform and you get invisible, until someone -- whatever reason -- because you're a traffic block or you're going to be able to block the car or drink a coffee in your local, and you're going to get a son and you're going to have a non-violent place to have one near her.
I think this stigma particularly ironic because I believe that the staff of the city are the most important labor in the streets of the city. That has three reasons.
They're the dignity of public health.
If they didn't take the waste away every day and effective, he would go out of the sads and the more connected dangers to us to very real ways.
Now, diseases that we've had for decades and centuries under control would spread and harm us.
The economy needs it.
If we can't throw away the old stuff, we don't have a place for the new one. The motors of the economy start to suck when consumption is suck up.
I don't get capitalism, I just want to get rid of the interaction.
And then there's what I call our average, everyday speed.
So I mean, just how fast we are used to motion today.
We don't care about putting our coffeechers, our bag, our water bottle, or our water bottle, or a few of them.
We take them, throw them away, forget them, because we know there are people on the other side who care about it.
So today I want to suggest a couple of ways we can think about city thinking about the stigma and make it work in this conversation, how can you create a city that is sustainable and humanitarian.
Their work, I think, is kind of a sludge.
You see the streets every day, regular.
They wear in many cities.
You know when you can expect them.
And their work makes us do our work.
They're like a back-up.
The process that they hold on right is safe to imagine ourselves, to change our intentions, to keep the process, to keep the process that needs to be more and more likely to be able to keep any price.
On the days after 9/11, I heard the Donner's landfill on the street, I walked down my little son, and I ran down the staircase, and there was a man who ran his paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper, like he does every Wednesday.
And I tried to thank him for his work -- this day, every day, but I started crying.
And he looked at me and he sat down, and he said, "All it's going to be good."
"All is going to be good."
One later, I started studying my research on city research and I met the man again.
His name is Paulie, and we worked often together, and eventually we became good friends.
I wanted Paulie to believe that Paulie was right.
Everything is going to be good.
But in our efforts to change the way we exist on this planet as a species, we also have to notice all the cost, including the very human cost of work.
And we need to be informed to reach the people who do this work, their experience, how we think about how we can develop systems around sustainability, what is a remarkable success of the last 40 years, about the United States of America and countries of the world, and bring us to a horizon where we can be able to go through the others of garbage and industrial sources.
Stese waste, where we think about waste, when we talk about waste, three percent of the national waste sexy.
It's a remarkable statistics.
In your life, in the process of seeing the next time you see someone, whose job it is to clean you, take a moment to perceive it.
Take a moment to thank you.
Hello TEDWomen, what's going on?
That's not enough.
Hello TEDWomen, what's going on?
My name is Maysoon Zayid, and I'm not drunk, but the doctor at my birth is already drunk.
He cut my mother six different directions, and he sat down to me poor little ones.
So I have infantilebralpar, which means I'm a sludge all the time.
Look at that.
It's a slam. I'm a cross from Shakira, Shakira and Muhammad Ali.
Zebralpares is not genetically genetic.
It's not a birth error. You can't get it.
No one has the squid of my mother's squid, and I haven't got it because my parents are the first degree of cousins, which they are.
You just get them through accidents like the one that happened on my birth day.
I have to warn you. I'm not a source of inspiration, and I don't want anybody here with me, because you all dreamed of your life at some point in your disability.
Come on for a second.
It's just before Christmas in the mall, and you turn circles on a parking lot, and what do you see?
Six 10, empty disability park.
And you think, "Why can't I be a little bit disabled?"
I also have to tell you, I have 99 problems and tentsels.
If there was a crisis of the underworld, I would get a gold medal.
I'm a Palestinian, Muslims, female, disabled, and I live in New Jersey.
Now, if you don't feel better, I don't know.
Cliffside Park in New Jersey is my hometown.
I love the fact that my crime and my housing have the same initial initial.
And I love the fact that I could walk from my house to New York City, if I wanted to.
Many people don't walk withCP, but my parents didn't believe in "the parents."
Thetra my father was, "Yes, you can do that! You can."
So if my three older sisters were shit, I would know.
When my three older sisters went to a public school, my parents gave up the school system so I could go in and if we didn't get all the ones we were able to get through my mother's truck.
My father taught me the running when I was five by putting my skills on his feet and just flies around.
Another one of his tactics was to make a dollarnote in front of my nose so I could start it.
My inner Strip was very strong, and when -- yes. So, the first day in kindergarten, I was walking like a squeacle that had a lot of reacted.
At the time, there were only six Arabs in my city, and everybody was my family.
Today we have 20 Arabs in the city, and they're all my family.
I don't think nobody noticed that we are not Italy.
This was before 9/11, and before politicians were able to do it, "I hate Muslims" as a choice of the competition.
People I grew up with had no problem with my faith.
But they were worried that I might be able to starve to Ramadan.
I explained that I could live from my body fat three months, so almost a lot of suns until -- a child game.
I walked in Broadway.
Yes, on Broadway. Total crazy.
My parents couldn't afford physio therapy, so they sent me to dance school.
I learned how to dance on the approaches, so I can run on the approaches.
And I'm from Jersey where it's really important to be a cliff, so if my friends were wearing the same, I'm also important.
And if my friends spent their summer summers on the coast of Jersey, I don't.
I spent my summer in a war area because my parents were afraid that if we didn't go back every single summer after Palestine, one day like Madonna.
The summerfers often come out of it, so my father wanted me to get sick milk, was sat down in the dead ocean, and I remember thinking, "It's going to work!"
But we found a miracle curve.
I have to say it's really boring, but before I made a Yoga, I was a stand-up comedian that can't even stand.
Now I can stand on my head too.
My parents always gave me a sense that I was able to do anything that was impossible, and my dream was to play with soap's "General Hospital."
And because of the minority, I got a great scholarship at the ASU, Arizona State University because I grew up any minority.
I was kind of the house-in-law of the feces.
All loved me.
I did not get all the homework that were not so clever, get kids in all of my classes, get in all their courses.
Every time I played a scene from "The glass dung," my teacher sat down.
But I never got a role.
In my graduate year, ASU finally got a piece called "You dance in Jackson."
A piece of CP with a girl.
I was a girl withCP.
So I sat everywhere, and eventually I get a role!
I have a tentash!
Eventually, free!
Thank God, I'm finally free!"
I didn't get the role.
Sherry Brown got the role.
I sat down to the head of the game-in-the-shysterical hysterical, when someone shot my cat and asked her why. She told me she didn't get the stunts.
I said, "Sorry, but if I can't do the stunt, then the character can't."
I was born right for that role, and they gave an actor withoutCP.
The university reacted the life.
Hollywood is known to make physically healthy actors play disabilities.
After the degree, I moved home again, my first role was when I was a statue in a soapper.
My dream was true.
And I knew that soon I would go from "Restrantgast" to "the back-up friend."
But instead, I stayed in a gloric furniture that was only known at the back of the head, and I realized that Casting reactors didn't make any kind of a sawritute, ethical actors.
They just put perfect people in there.
But exceptions are the rule.
I grew up with Whoopi Goldberg, Roseanne Barr and Ellen, and all these women had one in common: they were compelled inside.
So I became a compass.
My first job was to drive famous commute from New York City show in New Jersey, and I'll never forget the face of the first compass I ever learned when he realized he was on the street after New Jersey with a male CP as a driver.
I grew up in Club all over the United States, I also did show show in the Middle East, in Arabic, unfinished and inevitable.
Some people say I'm the first compass in the Arab world.
I don't like to call myself the first one, but I know they've never heard of the bad little framework that women are not funny, and they find us strange.
In 2003, my brother began from another mother and father, Dean Obeidallah, and I started with The New Yorker-American comedy festival, which now celebrates his 10-year-old.
Our goal was to change the negative image of Americans in the media and to remind Casting sectors that South Asia and Arabs are not synonyms.
The same thing from Arabs was much easier than getting the challenge against the stigma of the disability.
My big breakthrough was 2010.
I was invited as a guest in the news show calledCountdown with Keith Olbermann.
I came in like the degree ball, and they sat me in a studio and put me on a turn-up chair.
So I looked at the stage stage. I said, "Sorry, can I get another chair?"
And she looked at me and she said, "Fun, four, three, two..."
And we were live!
So I had to hold myself on the table, so I didn't roll out the scene from the screen, and when the interview was over, I was except for me.
There was my chance, and I had sat down, and I knew that never would invite me again.
But Mr. Olbermann was not just a re-eyed, but made me a full-time worker and lived my chair.
At the work with Keith Olbermann, I learned something to do: all people on the Internet are wires.
People say kids are cruel, but as a child or adults, somebody never made fun of me.
In the World Wide Web, I'm suddenly free of freeway.
When I look online, I see comments like, "Ey, why is this?"
"Ey, is this alop?"
And my favorite, "Puturelippenist.
Did they have a disease?
We should be afraid of them."
One even proposed to take my disability in the Credit car, compass, a physicist, tinsparls.
A disability is as visible as the origins.
If a wheelchair driver can't play Beyoncé, Beyoncé can't play a wheelchair driver.
The disability are the biggest -- Yes. That's worth a device. Go.
People with disabilities are the largest minority in the world, and we are the most significant in entertainment industry.
The doctors said I could never walk, but I'm sitting here in front of you.
But I would have grown up with social media, maybe not here.
I hope that together, we can create a more positive image of disability in the media and in the everyday life.
Maybe there were less hatred on the Internet when there were more positive role models.
Or maybe not.
Maybe it needs a village to get a child good.
My journey with transformation, I got some very special places.
I was allowed to walk on the red carpet next to soap soap-Star Susan Lucci and the economist Arbus.
I was allowed to play in a film with Adam Sandler and work with my Idol, the wonderful Dave Matthews, working with Adam Sand.
I've been a main character with the comedyour's "Arabs Gone wild" by the world.
I was a big state of New Jersey in Democratic Committee 2008.
I started "Maysoon's kids," a well-known United Nations that tries to give Palestinian refugees the fraction of a chance that my parents gave me.
But the one moment that sat down the most -- before this one -- -- the moment that was the one that was most sat outside, when I was flying in front of the man who sat down and sat like a bee, the Parkinson's sucks and sucks like me, Muhammad Ali.
This was the only time my dad ever saw a live line of mine, and I was able to think about this talk.
: Mmmoon your soul will be, Dad. My name is Maysoon Zayid, "If I can, you can."
There was a time when we solve big problems.
On July July 1969, Buzz Aldrin was climbing from the moon, Apollo 11 and walked down to the sea of rest.
Armstrong and Al indrin were alone, but their present on the surface of the gray floor was the peak of a regret, community-based sphere.
The Apollo program was the largest peacemobilization in the history of the United States of America.
To get to the moon, NASA invested about 180 billion dollars on the value of today, or four percent of the federal house.
Apollo created jobs for 20,000 people, and he took the collaboration of 20,000 companies, universities and authorities.
People died, including the Apollo 1,500 approach.
But until the end of the Apollo program, 24 people flew to the moon.
From the 12s that advanced his surface, Al in the last year, after the Armstrong, is now the oldest.
But why did they go?
They didn't bring a lot back: 380 kilograms of old block and something that all 24 later -- a new sense that our common home is small and fragile.
Why did they go? Zynical, because President Kennedy wanted to show the Soviets that his nations had better rockets.
But Kennedy's own words of 1962 at Rice University is giving a better clue.
For the time, Apollo was not just a victory of the West was over the East during the Cold War.
At the time, the most powerful sense of the amazing forces of technology was.
They flew to the moon because it was a great thing.
The moon happened before a long series of technological triumphs.
From the first half of the 20th century, the tape came and the plane, penicillin and vaccine was tuberculosis.
In the middle of the century, polio and smallpox had gotten extinct.
Technology seemed to have something called Alvin Toffler 1970 called a "beaccelerating shit."
For most of human history, we couldn't move faster than a horse or a boat with a sail, but in 1969, the team of Apollo flew over 10 to a speed of about 40 miles per hour.
Since 1970, no more human beings have been on the moon.
No one has ever moved faster than the Apollo 10, and the unreviewed optimism about the power of technology, because the big issues we've had to solve with technology, for example, to produce clean energy, or to cure cancer, or to free the world from hunger, seem to be difficult now.
I remember being a five-year-old.
The Apollo 17 looked at me and my mother warn me not too much in the feud suff of Saturn-Va.
I had a clue that this was going to be the last moon, but I was sure there were going to be hundreds of percent, in my life colony on Mars.
The "smuasse happened to solve big problems with technology," has become a racial sphere.
You hear it everywhere.
We've heard it here in the last two days at TED.
It's a place where technologists have been defored and accelerating and accelerating themselves with a very unsustainable toy, and with things like iPhones and app and social media, or algorithms that are accelerating automatically business needs.
It's not wrong with most of these things.
They've snucked our lives and screamed.
But they don't solve the big problems of humanity.
What happened?
There's a more emailed explanation from Silicon Valley where you spend less time re-eyed companies than they've been funded in the years, the Intel, Microsoft, Apple and Gene.
In Silicon Valley, the markets would be school, especially the presence of the risk machines provide the companies.
Silicon Valley says that riskors have moved away from putting world-changing ideas, and instead of putting growing problems or even invented problems.
But that explanation is not good enough.
It mainly explains what is wrong with Silicon Valley.
Even at their risk-related risk-related little facilities, a angle of investment, could be done within 10 years.
investors had always been able to invest in a more strong, strong technology like energy that is a sadable capital that is a long-term and boring and risk-like, never funded the development of technologies that solve large problems without immediate values.
No, the reasons why we can't solve big problems are more complicated and deeper.
Sometimes we decide not to raise the big problems.
We could fly to Mars if we want.
NASA even designed a plan.
But to fly to Mars, a political decision of public lovedness and therefore it's never going to happen.
We're not going to fly to Mars because everybody thinks there are more important things on Earth that need to be done.
Another time, we can't solve the big problems, because our political systems fail.
Today, less than two percent of the energy consumption of the Earth's energy consumption are advanced, renewable sources, like solar, wind and biofuel, less than two percent, and the reason it's infected.
coal and natural gas is cheaper than solar and wind and oil is cheaper than biofuel.
We all want alternative sources that can be able to stop, but it doesn't exist.
Now, the way we think about it is that business leaders and economics are basically all of the same opinion, which would be the national practices and international practices that would drive the development of alternative energy, is the main growth in research and development of energy and a more a cost of carbon.
But in the current political climate, there is no hope that the energy policy of America or international ones will take these opinions and again.
Sometimes deep problems that he seemed to be able to eat, but not that way.
It was believed that hunger are at the failure of food supply.
But 30 years of research have taught us that hunger crisis are political crisis, which have catastrophic effects on the food distribution.
Technology can improve things like a system or a system of campation and transportation and transportation, but there will be famine as long as there are famine governments.
And finally, big problems are sometimes designed to get the solutions, because we don't really understand the problem.
President Nixon explained the cancer of war, but soon, there are many types of cancer that are largely dominated by therapy, and only since the last 10 years, real therapies seem to be really realistic therapies.
The difficulty problems are difficult.
It's not true that we can't solve big problems with technologies.
We can, but we need to be there, we need to be these four elements there: the euthanized politicians and the public to be interested in solving a problem; institutions have to support the solution; it really needs to be a technical problem; and we need to understand it.
The Apollo emissions, which became a kind of metaphor for technology, has been able to solve big problems, a criteria.
But this is a model that can't be done in the future.
It's not the year 1961.
There's no dramatic struggle like the Cold War, no politicians like John Kennedy, who makes everything difficult and dangerous to a heroism, and no popular science fiction as the exploration of the solar system.
But at the end of all, it was easy to fly to the moon.
He was only three days away.
And it's fabulous to see if this really has solved a serious problem.
We're based on ourselves and the solutions of the future are going to be more difficult to reach.
God, we don't have any challenges at all.
Thank you very much.
I want to close your eyes.
Imagine you're standing in front of your door.
Look at the door, their color and the material that it's made out of.
Now, a group of weight-dead fKKlers on their bicycles.
It's a naked bicycle burning, and they come right up to you and your door.
You really have to imagine that.
They're snuck down, sweating and squint right on you.
And then they all sat right into your door.
bicycles, wheels, everything is flying and spectrified.
Now, the threshold goes into your apartment, your river, or what's on the other side of your apartment, and sounded like the light in the room.
The light seems to be on the mutilation.
It's a tiny little back of your backs of a yellow horse.
A horse.
You can almost feel what his blue tinie is like to fit your nose.
You sat down the soko geek, and it sounded in the mouth.
Go over and over and over in your living room.
Here you have all the performance of your imagination, Britney Spears.
They only cover all the greatest clothes, they sing "Hit Me One More Time," as they dance on your living room.
Now I'm in your kitchen.
The floor was replaced by a yellow road, and out of your oven, you get Dorothy, the interestman, bird lions and the lion of ocean, hand squid on you.
Okay. Now, the eyes are going.
I want to tell you about a very bizarre competition that's being held every year in New York City every year.
It's called "The States Memory."
A few years ago, I wanted to do this competition as a science journalist, and I expected to find the day of the same thing.
It was a bunch of guys, and a few ladies, of very different age and Hygiene standards.
They argued for a number of random numbers.
These names of dozens and dozens of dozens of dozens of inknia.
And they noticed, they were in just a few minutes.
They were able to compete who could enact the order of a sludge cards at the fastest.
That's crazy.
These people have to have a re-educated skills.
I started to stop with some of them.
This is Ed Cook, a guy who came from England, and has one of the best-reviewed memory.
And I asked him, "Is there when you realized you had this special encounter?"
And Ed said, "I'm not a same thing.
I just have an average memory.
Everybody who's coming here will tell you he or she has only an average memory.
We all have trained all of us using ancient techniques to train these incredible memorys, and techniques that invented the Greeks two years ago, and the same techniques that Cicero used to learn from a sawright, and use the eradication of yellow to learn all the books."
And I just thought, "Wow, how come I've never heard of it?"
We stood outside the competition hall and Ed, this wonderful, brilliant, and something exotic English guy says to me, "Yes, you're an American journalist.
Are you going to be Britney Spears?"
I said, "What? Nee. Why?"
"I would like to teach Britney Spears Spears, as you learn from a sludge cards. In the U.S., look serious.
It would prove the world that everyone can do this."
I told him, "I'm not Britney Spears Spears, but you can teach me.
I mean, you have to start somewhere, right?"
And that was the beginning of a very strange journey for me.
A lot of the next year, I spent not just training my memory, but also trying to study it and understand how it works, why it might be not just what its potential might be.
I met a lot of really interesting people.
This is E.P.
He's suffering from memory, and probably has the worst memory in the world.
His memory is so bad that he doesn't even remember his memory problem. What's amazing.
Although it was so tragic, he offered insight in how much our memory makes us who we are.
On the other hand, I learned how to do it.
Kim Peek know.
He was the tin Hoffman's movie "Rain Man."
We spent a afternoon learning in Salt Lake City phone books. Just fascinating.
And I came back to read a whole stack of memory about memory, negotiations, 20,000 years ago, and more of the age in Latin and later on in the Middle Ages.
And I've learned a whole bunch of really interesting things.
And I was particularly fascinated by that there was a time to train the idea of putting memory, disciplined, not almost as alien as I've been around today.
There was a time when people were investing in their memory, they were sat down.
Over the last few millennia, we invented a series of technologies -- from the alphabet to the writing, to the Kodex, the pressure, the computer, the smartphone, the smartphone that we've made it easier for us to store our memory, to essentially rethink these fundamental human ability.
These technologies have allowed our modern world to change us at the same time.
They changed us culture, and I would argue that they also changed cognitively.
Without remembering the need, it seems sometimes as we forgot how to do it.
One of the last places in this world where you can still find people who are still passionate about their memory, discipline and enlightened, is this unique memory-based.
In fact, it's not as unique, there are be bees as they all over the world.
And that's sat me in the ban, I wanted to know how these people do this.
A few years ago, a research group at University College London brought a group of memory to the lab.
They wanted to know: Is the structure or anatomy of their brain differently than the rest of us?
The answer was no.
Are they smarter than we do?
They gave them a stack of cognitive test, and the answer was, actually, not.
But there was an interesting and much more predictions between the brain of a memory and the control over which it was compared to.
If you put them in fMRI machine and you scan your brain while they're putting number, faces and images of snowflocks, you can see that in the memory of other regions of the brain, there are other regions of the rest of us.
It seems like they're using the part of their memory that's used for noise and Navigs.
Why? And we can learn from this?
The competition for the best memory is dominated by a kind of beadest, where anyone with a new technology has to be able to re-evolve faster from more facts and to get the rest of the field.
This is my friend Ben Pridmore, three times the memory of memory.
On the table, 36 threw cards covered in front of him, which he invented within an hour with a technique that he invented and he jumped as a single janitors.
He used a similar technique to re-educate the exact order of four 140 random crows in half an hour.
Yeah.
And although there's a lot of techniques to get rid of different things in these beads, all these techniques are based on the concept called the psychologists.
So, the way B baker/B baker he illustrates this concept is particularly elegant. It's like followed by this idea: if I ask two people to notice the same word, and tell you, "My baker is there a person named B baker."
That's his name.
And I say, "My person is a baker."
Now, when I come back to you at a time and say, "You know, what else do I say to you about some time ago?
Do you know what word it was?"
The person who should remember the person who was supposed to notice the baker was less likely to be the word than the person who was supposed to notice the baker.
Same word, different memory vision; that's strange.
What's going on here?
Well, the name baker means nothing to you.
It's absolutely independent of all the memories that are sneoiling into your head.
But the career of the baker, we know the baker.
B bakers wear weird white cliches.
B bakers have memes on their hands.
The bakers are good at getting home from work.
Maybe we even know a baker.
And if we first hear the word, we'll just suck these biofuels with the word and allow it to find the more simple rethink later.
The secret of what's fighting in the memory world is about, and the secret of able to notice everyday things is to find a way to turn the name baker into the profession -- a information that has no assistants with it, no sense of changing meaning, in a way that is already transformed meaning and meaning in all the world's unfortunately, in a questionable memory.
One of the extinct techniques here can be re-eyed for two years on ancient Greeks.
It was known as memory resilience.
The story of his creation is how follows: there was a poet called Simonides who visited a hardmahl.
He was in the conversation because at the time, if you wanted to suck a really big party, you didn't make a dyo.J., you were a poet.
He's wearing his poem from memory and he's putting the room right now, and the halls sat behind him and he's putting all the perspective.
Not only are all dead, their bodies are defecated until the dispersed.
No one can tell who was living, nobody knows where they eat.
The body cannot be able to get really re-emod.
It's a tragedy after the other.
Simonides is outside, the only survival of this disaster. He's sat down his eyes, and suddenly he's able to see he can see what's got got got got got got got got got got got got got got got rid of what guest in front of his eye.
And so he takes the stayed with the hand and makes them go through the dung to the tel.
In that moment, Simonides understood something that we all know intuitively that we don't care how bad we can tell ourselves, phone number, or literally instructions of our colleagues, we have a very good visual and noise.
If I asked you to repeat the first 10 words in history about Simonides, you would find it hard.
But I bet if I asked you to remember who's sitting on a moment of yellow horse in your slideyer, you might be able to visualize this.
The idea of memory is to build a building in front of the inner eye and fill it with images of the images -- the crazy, bizarre, fun, more squid, more squid the image, so it's a little memory.
This is a advice that goes back to over 20,000-year-old Latina text about memory.
So how does it work?
If you were invited to keep a talk here at TED, and you want to hold it out of memory, just like Cicero did, he would have been invited to TEDxRome 25,000 years ago.
You can go like this: You can imagine your door before you.
So, you know, a perfectly crazy story, and you turn it into uncanny images to remind you that you're going to be the first one to talk about this total crazy competition.
And then you go into your house and you see the mutilation on the back of Mr. Ed.
And that would remind you of your friend Ed Cook.
And if you saw Britney Spears, you'd be a funny anecdote you wanted to tell.
You go to your kitchen, and the fourth thing you wanted to talk about was this strange journey you went to for a year, and you have some friends that help you remember it.
So, the nonprofits noticed their language -- not words for words, which is just the subject, but the subject.
The English term "topic sentence," a subject of the Greek word "topos," which means "st."
These are overeating of them as people thought about language and Rhetoriks in the spatial terms.
The shape of "an first" is actually, "An first place in your memory."
I just found it fascinating and even more fascinating.
Some other memory-in-laws.
I might want to write something long about this substance of a state of a state of a state.
But there was a problem.
The problem is that memory is a very powerful thing.
It's like a group of people sitting there writing a test.
It's exciting when someone is squid.
I'm a journalist, I need something to write about it.
I know the most amazing things that happen in these people, but I don't have access to it.
So if I wanted to tell this story, I had to put myself in.
And so I started learning about every morning 15 to 20 minutes before I was able to learn something from my newspaper.
Maybe a poem or a poem.
The name from an old year book I bought on theFloh market.
I had to realize that it was amazing to make a lot of fun.
I could never imagine that.
It's been fun because it's not about training memory.
You want to be better and better at being, these crazy, frozen, fun, hopefully dreaming to your inner eye.
I was deeply deeply threw in it.
Here I am with my standard site site of competition.
A pair of earists and a protection that has been re-semblanced until two little shits, because distraction is the largest enemy in memory.
I went to the same competition that I visited a year earlier.
And I was able to share it as a journalistic experiment.
It could be a nice epidemic for my research.
The problem was that the experiment didn't go like planned.
I won the competition, which should not have happened.
It was nice to be able to talk and phone phone numbers and shoppingists, but that wasn't what I wanted to get.
That's just tricks.
The trick is that they work because they build on some simple ideas about how our brains work.
You don't have to build memory or you have to have a pre-selovenomous cards to benefit from the insight of how your memory works.
We often talk about people with good memory, as if it's a special encounter, but that's not true.
Good memory is a moment-in-law.
We feel better when we look at things.
We remember when we're involved.
We remember when we have the opportunity to figure out why information and experiences are more meaning to us, why they have meaning and understanding how they can transform it into something that's able to transform us into something that's more meaningful to us in terms of our other memory, and if we can turn the name of "B baker" into the profession.
The memory resilience, these memory techniques, they're all just a sex.
In fact, it's not even really a rethinking.
They work because they force us to work.
They're allowing us to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be a way in which we normally aren't.
But it's not a resemblance.
So things are being snuck in memory.
One thing I want to leave you with is something I'm going to give you through E.P., the man who didn't even remember his memory problem, and our lives are the sums of our memories.
How much are we ready to lose without losing our lives, that we are permanently looking at our Blackberry or our iPhone, instead of looking at people talking to us, how much are we willing to lose because we are so prepared to process it, that we don't want to go deep and want to remember it?
I learned that memory, in each of us, has incredible capacity.
If we want to live a more powerful life, we need to be the person who doesn't forget.
Thank you.
At the age of 27, I left a job in the company's corporate video to a more difficult job.
On public schools in New York, I taught math for you.
As every teacher led me to test test and test.
I gave up homework.
When the work came back, I calculated grades.
And the IQ wasn't the only difference between the best and the worst students.
The IQs of some of my most powerful students were not strategic.
Some of my smartest kids don't cut very well.
That made me think.
What you learn in math in the early year of math is hard: advice of numbers, Dezimal, the area of a parallel.
But impossible is not that these concepts aren't. I realized that all of my students could learn the stuff if they worked long enough.
After several years of school, I came to the conclusion that we needed a much better understanding of education and learning from a perspective of motivation, from a psychological perspective.
What we can measure best in education is the IQ. But what if we get in school and lives from much more than the ability to learn fast and easily?
So I left the classroom and made a student to psychologists.
I started studying children and adults in all sorts of ultra-dote situation, and I wondered who is successful and why?
My research team and I went to the West Point military academic.
We tried to predict which cadade were going to stay in the troops and which ones weren't.
We went to the national copyright competition and tried to predict which children would get far.
We studied boys who worked in very difficult housing and asked, what teachers would teach at the end of the year, and what would be the learning community that would make their most effective.
We decided to do private companies and ask the sales of their jobs.
And who would make most of the money.
In all these different contexts, a property has gotten more important to success.
It wasn't social intelligence.
It wasn't good, physical health, and it wasn't IQ.
It was a resemblance.
Through terms, passion is very long-term, very long-term goals.
It's a resemblance.
In terms of the future, if you think of a future plan, not just for a week or a month, but for years, really hard to work to make that plan.
Through terms, life is like a marathon, not sprint.
I started teaching public schools in Chicago.
I asked thousands of students to fill in the bottom line of sediment, and then wait for a year to see who made the degree.
It turns out that kids with higher breakthroughs are more likely to get the degree even when I grew up all the measurable properties, things like family, results in standardized tests, even how safe they felt in school.
So, in terms of vision, not just in Westernpoint and letters, but also in school, especially for children with a risk of risk.
The most euding thing about this issue is that for me, we know so little that science knows how to build it.
Every day, parents and teachers ask me, "How do we support the children's consensus?"
How do I teach kids a solid jobmoral?
How do I make it motivated for distances?"
The honest answer: I don't know.
But what I know is that talent alone doesn't give you a breakthrough.
Our data shows that a lot of talented people just don't stay true.
In fact, our insights are usually not talented, but it's actually a very strong thing to do with talent.
So the best idea I've heard about building the breakthrough is called the growth-based attitude.
This idea was developed at Stanford University by Carol Dweck, and he re-eating the ability to learn not to learn but to change with your use.
Dr. Dweck showed that kids when they read about brains and learn how it changes as answers to challenges and grows much more likely to stop because they don't believe failure is a permanent state.
This growth-based posture is a great idea for a structure of re-engineering.
But we need more.
So here I want to end my remarkable, which is so far.
That's the work that's in front of us.
We need to stop our best ideas and our most vulnerable intuition.
We need to measure whether we were successful, we need to be willing to make predictions, to have some lessons to learn and start learning from.
In other words, we need more breakthroughs to give our children more breakthroughs.
Thank you very much.
In the center of my work, the connection of re-educated to our community lives and to be part of the environment, where architecture is growing from natural, local conditions, and traditions.
Today, I've been doing this as an example of this, and I've been doing some of the projects.
Both projects are in emerging economies, one in Ethiopia and one in Tunisia.
They also have in common that the different analysis of different perspective will become a much more important part of the final architecture.
The first example started using an invitation, a more hives mall in Ethiopia's capital city of Addis Abis Abeba.
This is the kind of building that we, my team and me, as an example of what we should be able to design.
First of all, I thought I wanted to walk away.
After we saw some of these buildings -- there are many of them in the city -- we realized they have three major features.
First, these buildings are almost empty because they're very large naughty, where people can't afford to buy things.
Secondly, they need huge amount of energy because the surfaces are made of glass, which creates heat inside, and then you need a lot of refrigerators.
In a city where this should not happen, because they have pretty mild weather, which is all over the next year between 20 to 25 degrees.
And thirdly, their image has nothing to do with Africa and Ethiopia.
This is a place where there's such a rich culture and tradition.
And I was really fascinated with our first Ethiopia from the old market with this open-source structure of free-source, where thousands of people go and buy a day at small rural.
It also has this idea of public space using the outside area to create activity.
So I thought that's exactly what I really want to design, not a shopping mall.
But the question was, how could we design a more hives, contemporary building with these principles.
The next challenge came to see us the property, because it's in a real growth area in the city where most of the buildings you see on the picture are not there yet.
By the way, it's between two parallel streets that have no connection between hundreds of meters.
First, we created a link between these two roads and put everybody in there.
This is a genetic atrium that creates a free air in the building that protects itself through its own form of sun and rain.
So in order to get this honey space, we put the idea of a market with little smiles that are changing in every floor because of the shape of the honey, the way we do it.
I also thought, how do we close the building?
I really wanted to find a solution that responds to local climate conditions.
I started thinking about textiles, like a sludge from concrete with Perforation, which leave the air, and light, but sucks into a swarm.
Then these beautiful heads inspired me to the clothes of Ethiopian women.
They have the properties of a teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee geometry, and that helped me build the entire fiber.
We're building this with these little tinkering building, the windows, the air and light in a way that we're able to build.
And this is a little color-eyed color, which is putting the light out of the building to light the building.
It wasn't easy to convince the re-eyed re-eyed re-eyed re-eyed re-eyed to these ideas because they thought, "This is not a shopping mall. We didn't make it."
But then we all realized that this idea of brand is much more profitable than the idea of a shopping center, because they can actually sell more lungs.
And the concept of the fiber was much more low, not just because of the material compared to glass, but because we didn't need any more air conditioning.
So we created some cost savings that we used to realize the project.
The first thing that was to think about is how we could make the building energy Antarctica, in a city that has almost every day of electricity.
We created a valuable contribution by putting solar panels on the roof.
And under that arm, we made the roof as a new public space with dream and Barse, which creates these urban oase.
This is a memory that collects the water to the re-resemblance of the water.
Hopefully the next year, because we've done the construction all the way to the fifth floor.
The second example is a master plan for 2000 homes and institutions in Tunis.
So to do this big project that I've ever designed, I really had to understand the city Tunisian of Tunis, but also the environment and the tradition and culture.
And while this analysis was particularly based on the drug, this is the 1,000-year-old structure that was emailed by a wall of 12 deaths, and almost entirely connected lines.
When I went to the site, the first step to hide the existing streets to create the first 12 blocks, with similar size and properties like the Barcelona and other European cities with these caves.
In addition, we chose some strategic dots in the concepts of these deaths and we gathered them with straight lines, and that changed the original pattern.
The last step was to think about the cell, the small cell of the project, like the apartment, as a much part of the master plan.
What would the best way to do it in a media air for an apartment?
This is North, because of the temperatureiff between the two house pages that are created and creates a natural breakthrough.
So we put a pattern on it that makes sure most of the apartments are perfect in that direction.
And that's the result, it's almost like a combination of a European block and Arab town.
There's the blocks of caves and the Earth shot all this connections for pedestrians.
It also has the local rules that are putting a higher density in the upper neighborhood and a lower density in the soil.
It also changes the concept of death.
The volume has this based form that's adapted itself through three different apartment types, and also makes light in very dense squids, and in the inner three different institutions, like a fitnesscenter and a kindergarten, and near a series of businesses that bring in the soil.
The roof, my favoriteor at this project, is the community almost gives back to the space that is taken from building.
There's all the neighbors that can go up and come together, and do things like a two-foot-foot-foot-foot-foot-foot-dolescence morning, jump from one building to another.
These two examples have a common approach to design process.
They're in emerging markets where you can literally grow cities.
In these cities, the effect of architecture in the world today and future lives of people who are local communities and economic systems are also changing the way the buildings grow.
And I find it more important to think that architecture is simple, but a number of simple solutions that enlightened the relationship between the community and the environment, and the underlying nature and the people.
Thank you very much.
I want to talk about trust, and I want to remind you of the common opinions.
They're so ubiquitous that they've become a clients.
There's something I think about three.
First of all, trust is strong in the back, and many people believe.
Then we should trust more.
And one thing is, we should rebuild the trust.
I think the claim that the goal and the task is based on false ideas.
I want to tell you a different story about a claim, a goal and a task that offer a much better approach to the thing.
First of all, why do people think trust has gone back?
And if I really think about my current knowledge, I don't know the answer.
Maybe it's taken in some activities or institutions and maybe took them in some other ways.
I'm missing the opposite.
But I can look at the question, of course, the question that's been engulf the source of faith is that the trust has gone back.
Look at consumer question over time, there's no evidence of evidence for that.
So, in a way, people who were beaten up 20 years ago were mainly journalists and politicians, still sucking.
And the people who were very familiar with 20 years ago will still be very familiar with judge, nurses.
We are in between, by the way, the average citizens are almost exactly in the middle.
But is that a good proof?
In terms of opinion, they ask -- clear -- opinion.
What else could they raise?
So you look at the general attitude of people when they ask them certain questions.
Do you trust politicians? Do you trust teachers?
Now, if you ask someone, do you trust vegetables?
Do you trust fisheries?
Do you trust the school teacher?
And then -- you might ask, "What exactly?"
And that would be a very sophisticated response.
And if you understand the answer to that, you might say, "I'm going to get some of you, but not others."
It's rational.
In short, we're trying to bring trust in different ways.
We don't know that we trust every officials or a rise in an official or institutional institutions.
So I could say that I would go out of a particular basic school teacher to teach me the first class to read, but I wouldn't let them go to school bus.
Maybe I'm sure she doesn't drive well.
I'm putting out my stumbling friend a conversation on the ground, but maybe not a secret is true.
Just.
So we know from our everyday life, how different trust can look, but why do we take this knowledge out when we think about trust?
The polls here are very bad at the actual level of trust, because they ignore the common sense of trust that you use in trust.
Second, we get to the target.
The goal is to trust more.
I actually think of the target stupid.
I wouldn't be able to catch it.
I would try to trust trust more trusting trusts, but not trusting.
I even rely on it, not trusting trust.
And those who, for example, put their savings into the hands of a certain billion, Madoff, who then sat down like the name, made out of dust, ["The'"] ["Then I think I'm going to make a lot of trust.
"Mehr trust" is not a smart goal in this life.
Make trust smart and enlightened the goal.
And then you say, yes, so what's most important is not trust, but trust.
The trust of people can appreciate.
And to do that, we have to look at three things.
Are they weird? Are they honest? Are they reliable?
If we find a person in the wild topics, reliable and honest, we have a good reason to trust her, then it's a trustable person.
But I think the person is unimaginable, probably not.
Some of my friends are weird and honest, but I wouldn't let them send a letter off because they're healthier.
I have friends who trust their own competence, but they're about some.
And I'm very happy that I haven't got a lot of friends that are weird and reliable, but they're not so euthanized.
If I didn't know it, I didn't know it.
But we're looking for that: first trust, then trust.
trust is response.
We need to estimate trust. That's hard, of course.
Over the last few decades, we've tried to make control systems in all sorts of institutions and experts and the public and the public and the public to make it easier for us to estimate their trust.
Many of these systems have the opposite effect.
They don't work like a savanna.
One of the things that he said to me was, "This problem is that the paper sawramly took longer than to bring the baby to the world."
All over our public everyday life, in our institutions, this problem is supposed to be able to do trust and faith, but create the opposite.
It's a human being, a human being, a debillion-afecating task, and they have to eat first.
And certainly, I can do an example of this.
So much for the goal.
The goal is more trustable, and that's going to be difficult if we want to be trustable and want to communicate to others, and if we want to appreciate whether other people, or whether other people, or officials, are trustable.
It's not easy. You have to estimate it. It's simple reaction or necks don't make it.
And now, to the task.
This is a building building the trust, re-conducting the situation.
Because it's depressed that you and I should rebuild trust.
We can do that for ourselves, of course.
We can win a little bit of trust.
That's how two people can improve trust each other.
But ultimately, trust is a trust that is given by others.
You can't build it back to what others give.
You have to give them a basis that they trust you.
So you have to be a trustable.
And of course, that's because you don't usually do all the people at the same time.
But you also have to make evidence that you're a trustable.
How is that?
That's what happens every day, everywhere. normal people do it, Beamte, em, very effective.
Here's a simple commercial example.
The store I bought my Soy, let them bring me back and don't ask them questions.
They take them back and give me the money back, or some of the sobers in color.
That's great. I'll tell you, because they showed me vulnerable.
This is an important moral.
If you think about it as a vulnerable, it's a very good clue that you're trusting, and you're sucking your own words.
So our goal is basically not very difficult to see.
It's relationships between trusting people, and the re-engineeration when and whether it's a very powerful thing.
So morality of history is to think a lot less about trust, or about attitude, about trust, which are realized correct or in terms of opinion, and much more about trust, and how you get people to be a more useful and simple evidence of trust.
Thank you.
You know, the best part of the father is for me the films I can see.
I love looking at my own favorite movie with my kids, and when my daughter was four years old, we sat down together, "The magician of the ocean."
And the film hasn't left them for months.
Your favorite character, of course, was Glinda.
So she had a good excuse to wear a owner and a magic mutilation.
But if you look at this film often enough, you can see how extraordinary it is.
We live in today's time and we pull our children into a kind of spectacular child-sad industry.
But "The magician of the ocean" was different.
He didn't set up this trend.
It took 40 years to get through this trend, with -- interestingly -- a different film, where a guy from metal and a guy who saved a girl by putting himself down like the enemy.
You know what I'm talking about, right?
Right.
Well, there's a big difference between these two movies, even multiple big differences between the oceans and all the movies that we're looking at today.
First of all, there's a lot of violence in the ocean.
The monkeys are quite aggressive, just like the apple trees.
But I think if "The magicians of the ocean" were produced today, the magic would have said, "Do redhy, you're the wheels of the ocean that we've been a prophed for.
Ben now, your magic shoes to defeat the army of evil Hexes' West shit."
But it doesn't happen that way.
Another thing I think about the ocean is that the most heroic and most powerful, and even the most powerful characters in the world are female.
I noticed the first time when I showed my daughter "Star Wars," which was years later, and the situation was different.
At that point, I had a son.
He was just three years old at the time.
He was not invited to this cinema evening. He was still too young.
But he was the second child, and he became far less careful than his sister.
So he's a one, and he's thrown up the movie, and he's a duck, like a duck, his mother sat down, and I don't think he understood what was going on, but he's thrown it up in the process.
And I wondered what he grew up there.
Did he get up that it's about courage, Beharp and Loyity?
Did he get up that Luke is a army versus re-educated government?
Did he get up that there are only boys in the universe, of course, taken out of Tante Beru and of course, who are really cool, but while most of the time, they actually wait for the heroes with a Medaille and a eye he can reward for the rehesep of the universe, which he was born with?
Just if you're a "The magician of the ocean" by 1939.
How does the Dorothy bring their movie to a good end?
By bringing them to all of them and a leader is.
This is the kind of world I would rather pull my kids up -- ocean, right? -- not in the world, in the candle, what's quite the case of our world today.
Why is there so much power -- big power -- in the movies that we have for our children, and so few yellow spheres?
There's a lot of good literature about influence, the movies of violent boys on girls, and they should read. It's very good.
But I didn't read as much about how boys are going to deal with this influence.
I know from their own experience that princessia did not take the equate model that I could have used to find the world of adults in which girls and boys are taught together.
I think there was this moment with the first kiss when I really expected the reacted to it, because that's how a film is, right?
I ended my mission, I helped my girls.
Why are you still standing there?
I don't know what to do.
The films are very enlightened to get the evil and to get their reward, and there's not much space for other relationships and other travels.
It's almost like you're a boy, and if you're a girl, you should be able to bring your war cosmic.
There are a lot of exceptions, and I'm going to defend the Disney inside of each of you.
But they give a message to the boys that the boys are actually not the target of the Republican.
They're fabulous in teaching girls how to rely against thePatriarchat, but they don't necessarily show the boys how to teach themselves thePatriarchat.
There's no role models for them.
There are some great women who write new stories for our children, and so three-dimensional and wonderful Hermine and Katniss, and they're still movies.
And the most successful studio of all time, of course, is a class after another, and each one of them is about the journey of a boy, or a man, or two men who are friends, or a man and his son, or two men who are a little girl.
Until -- how many of you think -- this year, when she finally spent the film "Merida" -- legends of the Highlands.
I'm going to give it all to you. He's a call on the Internet.
Remember what the critics said when "Merida" suck out?
"Oh, I can't believe that Pixar has made a prince inside of the inside."
It's very good. Don't stop it from there.
But no one has done the most amazing thing.
I don't know if you've heard of it.
He hasn't really been doing that yet, and he's won meaning, but maybe we're going to start a movement today.
Alison's a comic book book, and in the middle of the '80s, the conversation that she'd taken with a friend of the movie that she'd seen.
It's very simple. There are only three questions you need to ask: Is there more than a character in the movie that is female and saying something?
Try to meet that shit.
And are these women talking about any other time of film at all?
And is it about something else, about the guy they like both?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Two women who exist and talk about each other about anything.
I saw it happen. I still see it quite rare in the movies that we know and love.
In fact, I went to the cinema to see myself a very good film, "Argo."
You remember? A lot of ems at Oscars, greatness results, generalizations about what a good Hollywood movie is.
He falls with the tinkerest tinkering test.
I think he shouldn't, because a lot of the film -- I don't know if you saw him -- but a lot of the film plays in a message where men and women are putting themselves in the process.
There are some good scenes that men in this savanna are going deep, fear conversations, and the big moment that one of the actors has to be able to watch and say, "Come on bed, favorite?"
So some Hollywood imagine.
So let's look at the numbers.
In 2011, among the 100 popular movies, what do you think there were actually a lot of the female primary writers in 2011,?
Elf. That's not angry.
It's not as many percent of the number of women we just elected in Congress, so that's good.
But there's a number that's bigger than that one, and that's going to shake this room.
Last year, the New York Times published a study that the government did.
She says she's going to be a big deal.
One of five women in the United States is that they've been sexy in their lives.
I don't think that's the school of general entertainment culture.
I don't think kids have something to do with it.
I don't even think music video and pornography have to do with it, but something goes wrong, and when I hear that statistic, one of the things that I think this is a lot of sexual data.
Who are these guys? What are they learning?
What are they not going to learn?
Take a story to think that it's a male hero to defeat the shoe and then to get the reward, which is a woman who has no friends and has no talk?
Do we take this story like this?
You know, as a parent who has privilege to take a daughter, just like those of you who do the same thing, we find these worlds and we want to alarm them and we want them to prepare them.
We have tools like "masease" and we hope that that will help but I wonder if girls will protect them, if we will, at the same time, active or fit our sons, to keep their "Jaspower."
The Netflix-Warife is a means that we can do something very important and I'm going to talk to the father here.
I think we just have to show our sons a new definition of males.
The definition of males is already changing.
They read how New Economy changed the roles of house and the writors.
They're being confused by each other.
Our sons will have to find a way to adapt to the new relationship, a new relationship, and I think we really have to show them that a real man is someone who has a sisters familiar and respects them and who wants to stand on their side and who really cares about the bad guys who want to abuse women.
I think we should look for the Netflix-War films that are the most el-Women test, and we can find them, and look for the heroes that are real mutations that people bring together and bring our sons to identify with these heroes and say, "I want to stand on your side," because they're on the side of the site.
When I asked my daughter, who was her favorite piece in "Star Wars," you know what she said?
You know, top.
Whether Kenya and Glinda.
What have these two together?
Maybe it's not just the owner of a sludge.
I think these two figures are experts.
These are the two characters in the film that know more than any other and their knowledge love to share with other people to help them deal with their potential.
And they're leaders.
I like this kind of task for my daughter and I like this kind of task for my son.
I want more tasks like this.
I want to go less tasks in my son, "Tell out and fight alone," and more tasks he should join to a team that might be introduced by a woman to help other people, to be better people, and better people like the magician of the ocean.
Thank you very much.
I want to talk to you about the story of a small town child.
I don't know his name, but his story.
He lives in a small village in South Somalias.
His village is near Mogadu.
The drought caused poverty to the village and the famine.
When there was nothing that he thought he had left his village and went to the city, in this case, Mogadu, the capital of Somalias.
As a result, there's no possibilities there, no work, no way out there.
At the end, he comes in a tent outside of Mogadic he's under a tent.
It may be a year, but nothing goes on.
One day he's spoken by a man who will take him to lunch, then for dinner, after breakfast.
He's true of this dynamic group of young people, and they give him a chance.
He gets a little bit money to buy new clothing and send money home to his family.
This young woman is being introduced.
He finally married.
It starts a new life.
His life has a sense.
On a beautiful day in Mogad, under blue sky, a car bomb goes into the air.
This little town of child dreaming with grandparents and bombs and bombs, and this dynamic group of young people was al-Shabab, a terrorist organization with al Qaeda.
How could the story of a small child who just tried to end up in the Great city to end up putting himself into the air?
He was waiting.
He had gotten a chance to go to the future, to a way out, and it was the first opportunity to get him there.
It was the first thing that he did out of a state we call "Waithood."
And his story is repeating over and over again in the urban areas around the world.
It's the story of the entrenched urban youth that's enslaved in Johannesburg and London, and after something else, "Whathood."
Boy people are promise of the city, dreaming about their grandparents, possibilities, work, wealth, but young people don't have a wealth in their cities.
Often, it's the youth who suffer under the high unemployment.
In 2030, three of five people will be younger in the cities than 18 years.
If we don't put young people in growth in cities, if we don't give them opportunities, then we'll be "What is the rise in terrorism, in violence and in Gangse the cities of 2.0.
In my city, Mogadu, 70 percent of young people suffer from unemployment.
70 percent have no job, don't go to school.
They're actually not doing anything.
Last month, I went to Mogadu and I went to Madina-Ka-Ka-Ka-Ka-Ka-Ka-Ka-Ka, the hospital I was born.
I remember standing in front of this squea, and I wondered, what if I had never been here?
What if I had been forced to the same state of "What aithood"?
Would I become terrorist?
I'm not sure what to answer.
The reason for my performance this month was actually the expansion of a summit of young leaders and entrepreneurs.
I brought together about 90 young leaders.
We sat down and made a Brainstorm solutions to the biggest challenges of their city.
In the room, a young man, Aden.
He went to Mogadu and he went to Mogadu and he went to school.
There was no work, there was no possibilities.
I remember telling myself that he had a university degree, workingless and frustrated, the perfect goal was to become member at al-Shabab and other terrorist organizations.
They were looking for people like him.
But this story takes another running.
In Mogadu, the biggest obstacles are to come from A to B to B, the streets.
23 years of civil war has completely destroyed the streets system so the motor vehicle is the best movement.
And the opportunity realized it, and it took them.
He opened a motor business.
He started sat down to places that they could not afford.
He bought 10 engineered to his family and friends, and he dreamed of being in the next three years, and he was going to end up in the next three hundred.
How is this different story of the other?
What makes the difference?
I think it's his ability to recognize and use a new opportunity.
It's the entrepreneur, and I think entrepreneurs can be the most effective means of "Whathood" can be.
It's a young people putting economic opportunity in creating the economic opportunity that they're so desperate.
You can teach young people to be entrepreneurs.
I want to talk to you about a young man who took a meeting at one of my meetings: Mohamed Mohamoud, a fist.
He helped me, the entrepreneurs, some young people who were putting out the summit, showing them how to innovative and entrepreneurs.
He's actually the first frog, who's seen Mogadu for 22 years, and until recently, before Mohamed, you used artificial sknitarians that came out of the ship when you wanted flowers on your wedding.
If you asked someone, "If you saw the last time you saw fresh flowers, then was the answer of many, many who grew up in the civil war, "No."
So Mohamed saw an opportunity.
He started a landscape of flowers.
He put a Plant outside Mogadus outside, and started taing taing taing taing, and then he turned out to grow Tulpen and he said, "What he said in which climate climateogadus could survive out of the savan.
He started putting flowers around the city, he was able to create private light bulbs and business around the city, and he's working on the design of the first public park in Mogadu for 22 years.
There's no public park in Mogadic eu.
He wants to create a place where families and young people come together and tell you how to enjoy the beautiful things of life.
Just on the edge, he doesn't grow rose because they need too much water.
So the first step is to inspire young people, and in this room, Mohamed's re-educated huge impact on the other young people in the room.
They never really thought about putting a company on it.
They thought they were working for a NGO or for government, but this story, his innovation, had a powerful impact on them.
He re-eyed her city as a place of possibilities.
He re-eyed them that they can be entrepreneurs that they could bring change.
At the end of the day, they had innovative solutions to some of the biggest challenges of their city.
They had entrepreneurial solutions for local problems.
The inspiration of young people and the creation of an entrepreneurs is a really big step, but young people need capital to actually put their ideas into action.
They need a re-conductor and a re-engineer to run their business and start a re-ssemblance.
Bring young people with the resources that they need, connections, give them the support they need to make ideas and create catastrophes for urban growth.
For me, entrepreneurship means more than just the founding of a business.
It's about social effects.
Mohamed doesn't just sell flowers.
I think he sells hope.
It's called "the a park," when it's created, people's perspective will change their city.
Aden has put up roads who help him eat the motors and sat in.
He gave them the opportunity to get out of the saithood state.
These young businesses have a huge impact on their cities.
So my proposal is: do you let young people entrepreneur, let them leave their own innovations, and you'll get more stories about flowers and "Fris park" rather than getting cars bombs and "Whathood."
Thank you very much.
As I was a kid in Maine, it was one of my favorite engagements to look for sanddollars on the coastal of Maine, because my parents said that was going to bring happiness.
But these flies are hard to find.
They're sand-like to see, barely.
But after a while, I had developed a routine.
I started to see shapes, and patterns that helped me collect them.
And that evolved into a passion to find things that were love for transition and archaeology.
And then finally, when I started studying eptology, I realized that the vision didn't take my bare eyes.
Because suddenly, in Egypt, my little beach grew up in Maine to an eight hundred miles long, along the Nils, and my sand grew up to the size of cities.
That led me to use satellite images.
I had to see different ways to look at the past in a map.
I want to show you how we see different things when we use infrared.
This is a stypherical Delta called Mendest.
And the stunt seems to be brown, but we do have a red light, and we work with false color, this stunt suddenly becomes bright pink.
What you see here are the chemical changes in the landscape through building materials and -- activity of the old Egyptians.
What I want to share with you today is how we used satellite data to find an old-time city that's taken the Itjau and disappeared for thousands of years.
Itjaui was the capital of the ancient Egyptians, more than four hundred years, in an era called the creation, about four thousand years ago.
The tribes are in Egyptian Al-Fayum, and it's very significant because there was a big Renaissance for old-cyptic art and architecture and religion.
gyptoologists always knew that the sawists had been taken place somewhere near the pyramid, he's putting two kings here with the red circles, but somewhere in this massive pig.
This area is huge -- the area is four times three miles.
It used to be a Nila, right by Itjaui, and as his running threw in the West, he sat over the city.
So, as you find, you find a buried city in one of the most buried landscapes.
They would be too close to finding the equivalent of the needle in the ear, connected to baseball and baseball gloves.
So we used NASA's friends to try to make a map of the landscape to see a little bit of change.
where the course of the Nils used to be.
But you can see more and more interesting, and this is very interesting, this slightly squid region, squid with the circle that he appeared as a possible position for the city of Itjaui.
So we worked with Egyptian scientists to do testes of honeybees, what you can see here.
This is like Hohkeros in the ice, just instead of showing the layers that are looking for layers of human habit.
In a depth of five meters, under a thick layer of battle, we found a dense layer of clay.
This shows that at this possible position for Itjaui, in five meters, we can find a living layer over a hundred years, back to the actual wealth, to the exact epocaism that we think of as Itjau.
We also found work rocks -- Karneol, Quartz and Achat -- which shows that there was a tawe lose.
This may not look like much, but if you look at the most common stone, which were used by jewels in the creation, you'll find exactly the stones.
So we found a dense layer of habit of this re-eyed richness coming back to the creation.
We also found evidence for a Juwe loser for the dolescence that shows that this has been a very important city.
It didn't take a Itjaui, but we'll go back to that teddy bear to draw a map.
What's more important is we have a re-educated in young Egyptians who are trained in satellite technologies so that they can make those who are as big discoveries.
So I wanted to close with my favorite wealth -- it was maybe written in the city of Itjaui, four thousand years ago.
"You know, the biggest profession is all the professions.
There's nothing in the country."
TED wasn't founded in 1984.
But ideas started actually in 1984, in a non-violent city, re-sed city, re-educated.
You can't compare that to the tel on the beach anymore.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I grew up in Taiwan as a daughter of a California, and my beautiful memories are counted to me the beauty of the Chinese writing, and the shape of the Chinese script.
I've been fascinated by this incredible language since then.
But for an outsider, it seems as unlikely as the Great Wall of China.
I've been wondering about how I can suck these walls so that anyone who has interest in this complex language has also learned and appreciate it.
I thought that a new quick way of learning Chinese would be useful.
Since the last five years, I've learned to draw every single stick of every single piece of penguin in the right show.
The next 15 years, I learned new writing writings every day.
And we've only got five minutes to be available, and more easy way to do it.
A Chinese yellow yellow understands about 20,000 writing signs.
They just need 1,000 writing signs for a simple type of writing.
The most important 200 is to give you 40 percent of the simple literature -- enough to understand roads, food cards and basic ideas or newspapers.
Today, I'm going to start with eight writings to show you how the way the method works.
Are you ready?
Do your mouth as much as possible, until it's square.
And that's what a "Mom."
This person is walking.
"Men."
If the ice cream showed a human being with high arms, when he would say, "Hil! I'm going to stop!" -- the writing comes from the form of flames, but I like that idea. Take the best way to do it.
This is a tree.
"Baum."
This is a "Berg."
Theonne.
The "Mond."
The squid for "Tas," looks like a Saloon door from the wild West.
These eight writings are radicals.
They're the hive to form a variety of writing signs.
A human being.
If somebody else is there, it means "the suck."
And then there are more, two "syris" and three "mait a "m."
If a human being sat down far, that person says, "It was so big."
The person in the mouth, it's a swaming.
It's a "seahive," like Jonas in the whale.
A tree is for a tree. Two trees are together for a "we."
Three together are for a "Wald."
You've got a plan under the tree, and you've got a "Basis."
You put a mouth up on the top, it means "idiocy."
Just notice, because a tree is pretty idioty.
Do you remember the fire?
Two flames mean "shit."
Three fires together, many "Famem."
You put the fire under two trees, it means "bobe."
For us, the sun is the source of wealth.
Two suns together "asssy."
Three together are "Funn."
If the sun and the moon seems together, it means "the orbit."
It can be the next day.
The sun goes across the horizon: sun's a sun.
door. A board in the door is for the sphere.
You put a mouth in your door, it means "the suck."
Was clone, clone. Is there someone there?
This person's snuck out of the door. "fucking," "suck."
On the left is "Fom."
Two women are together for a "syit."
Before three women, that's called "Eheence."
We now have met 30 writing signs.
And with this method, you can make up from the first eight radical words 32 words.
The next group with eight writings, they're bringing together 32 words.
With a little bit of effort you can learn a few hundred writing signs, like an eight-year-old Chinese child.
If we can start to put these writings together, we can start to use them.
For example, it's a mountain and fire together the fireberg, so it's a "sulfide."
We know Japan is the country of the sun.
This is the sun with the "The" because Japan is eastern by China.
A sun is a re-eyed sun, which means "Yespan."
A human being behind Japan is a human being?
One of them is "Japaner."
The writing signs on the left are two mountains above each other.
In the classical Chinese, it means "Exil," because Chinese C-sections have sent their political enemies across the mountains.
Today, "Exil" has become "Exil."
A mouth who says where it goes, is for "the transition."
This is the slide that reminds me of putting the stage. Thank you very much.
I'm going to tell you a little bit about architecture history over the last 30 years.
That's pretty much for 18 minutes.
It's a complex subject, so we start directly in a complex place: New Jersey.
Because 30 years ago, I lived as six years ago with my parents in New Jersey in a city called Livingston, and that was my room room.
And near my bedroom, that was the bathing I shared with my sister.
In my bedroom and the bath was a balcony with the living room.
And they all looked up and they would see me, so every time I went to the bathroom in the bathroom, and whenever I sat down and sat down and saw me all.
And I looked like this.
I was plutoni, unsustainable, and I hated that.
I hated this gang, this balcony, I hated this room, and this house.
And that's architecture.
This feeling, my emotions, this is the power of architecture, because architecture isn't about math and building plans, it's about the deep, emotional connections that we have with places we live.
And it doesn't wonder that we feel that way, because the environment is EPA, Americans spend 90 percent of their time.
So we're 90 percent of our time surrounded architecture.
That's enormous.
It means architecture is a form of us that we don't know.
That makes us a little naive and very naive.
if I show you one of these buildings, I know what you think, "Because stability" and "Democracy."
And you think that because it's a building that was built two years ago by the Greeks.
This is a trick.
These kinds of architects use to create emotional cliches that we build out of our buildings.
It's a predictable emotional connection, and we're using this trick very long.
We used the trick 200 years ago at the building banks.
We used it in the 19th century in the museum.
In America, we built houses like this.
Look at these solid, stable little soldiers looking at the ocean and protecting the Witts.
It's very useful because building things is fearful.
It's expensive, it takes a long time, and it's very complicated.
People who build things -- build a sex and governments -- of course, to innovation, rather than using the forms that are good at making experience.
That leads to buildings like this.
This is a beautiful building.
But it doesn't have much to do with what a library does today.
In 2004, the other side of the United States, another library was finished, and this is what it looks like.
This is in Seattle.
The library is about the media consumption in the digital age.
It's about a new kind of public institution for the city, a place to read and to exchange.
So what is it possible that in the same country, two buildings, both library, look very different?
architecture is based on a kind of a re-educated principle.
On the one hand, innovation is the innovation. architects are constantly bringing new technologies, new type of technologies, new solutions for the way we live today.
We all wear black, they're very depressed. They think we're infected, but we're dead because we don't have choice.
We have to change the site and use the symbols that you know, that you love.
If we do that and you're happy, we feel like a device, so we experiment again, we swam back and forth for the last 300 years and grew up in the last 30 years.
Four years ago, about the end of the '70s.
Basically, architects were able to experimentally retalism.
And it was concrete.
Small windows, euding-out scale.
That's really hard stuff.
When we got closer to the '80s, we started to apply these symbols.
We're going back to the other direction.
We took the shapes you like, and we owe them.
We added Neon and we added some panicys and we used new materials.
And you loved it.
They didn't get enough of it.
We took chipspendale feedbacks and turned them into high-speed houses, and high-speed, a single-speed, a era of glass.
The forms became large, artificial and frozen.
We had to have pillars.
It was crazy.
But these were the '80s, that was cool.
So this was the poster poster.
So this was with symbols.
They were just cheap, because instead of creating places, we created memories of places.
I know, and I know you all know that's not the death rate.
This is Ohio.
By the end of the '80s and early '90s, we gathered with what we called "the designism."
We let the historical symbols behind us, we left ourselves in new computer design techniques and found new compositions that re-eyed shapes on other forms.
This was academic and exciting, which was very un-poption, we sat down with it completely.
Usually the pendulum would just go back.
But then something surprising happened.
In 1997, this building opened.
This is the Guggenheimbao of Frank Gehry.
This building changed the relationship of the world to architecture.
And Paul Goldberger was the Bilbao of one of the rare moments in which critics, academics and public were completely in the building.
The New York Times called this building a miracle.
The tourism grew up in Bilbao by two percent after the building was finished.
He's our first right star architectural.
Now, how is it possible that these forms -- wild and radical -- how is it possible that they spread around the world?
This happened because the media had been successful with deforestation, and we quickly realized that these forms of cultures and tourism mean.
These forms called us an emotional response.
It's just like mayors worldwide.
Every mayor knew that these shapes and tourism were able to get to it.
This phenomenon has also met a few other stars in the year.
Think about your architecture consumption.
One hundred years ago, you'd have to go to the first village to see a building.
The transportation accelerated: you take a boat, an airplane, you travel as a tourist.
The technology accelerating: You see it in newspapers, TV, until finally we're all architecture photographer, and that's what's going on in the site.
architecture is everywhere now, that the speed of communication finally has brought the speed of architecture.
Because architecture is developing pretty fast.
It doesn't take long to think of a building.
But it takes for a building to build three to four years, and in the meantime, an architect designed two or a hundred other buildings before he knows whether the building he designed was four years ago, a success or not.
This is the misundersering of a good "Feedback shaming" in architecture.
So we have these buildings.
This is never going to happen again, I think, because we're just before the largest revolution in architecture since the invention of the world, of steel or of elevator. It's a media revolution.
My theory is always sounded faster when you put media in the same way, until it gets almost both extremities, which is in the difference between innovation and symbols, between us, the architects, and you, the public.
Now we can almost re-engineerately on the edge of emotional symbols from something completely new.
This is going to be clear in a project that we've been completed recently.
We were beaten to replace this building.
This is the center of a city called Pines on Fire Island in New York City.
It's a sludge.
We proposed a very swam building that was a usual form of all the usual forms, and we were worried about our customers, and the community was also worried, so we created a series of photorealistic representations that we put on Facebook and we put people up what they do: we divide it, we divide it, we get it, "like."
That meant that there were two years before building a community, and that was the representation of exactly what the end product was, there was no surprise.
This building was already part of this community, and in the first summer when people got to the building and started sharing the building in social media, it wasn't just a medium, because these are not just images of a building, it's your images of a building.
So we don't need Greeks anymore to tell us what to think about architecture.
We can tell each other what we think about architecture, because the digital media hasn't only changed the relationship between us, it has changed the relationship between us and buildings.
Think about the library in Livingston.
If the building today was going to be built, they would go online and search for "neu library."
You would be bombarded with experimental, innovative examples that would be enlightening the border of what a library can be.
This is Munition.
This is Mun that you can take to mayor and citizens of Livingstoning citizens to tell them, there's not just an answer to what a library is today.
Let's take a part of it.
These flow of experiments give them the freedom to do their own experiment.
Everything has changed.
architects are no longer secret creatures that use big words and complicated drawings, and you're not the euding public -- consumers who didn't accept anything that he's seen before.
You can hear architecture, and architecture doesn't make you feel a little bit shy.
This is the end of architecture history, which means that the future buildings are going to look very different than the current building.
It means that a public space in the old city of Sevilla was unique and putting out how a modern city works.
A stadium in Brooklyn can be a stadium in Brooklyn, and not some historical goats from our ideas of a stadium.
Robots will build our buildings, because we're finally ready for the forms that they're going to produce.
buildings are going to be able to build after nature's salmon rather than the other way around.
A park in Miami Beach, Florida, can be a place where you're moving sports or a Yoga, and you can even marry to the night.
That means that no building is too small for innovation, like this little retirement tree, which is as powerful as the animals he designed to be able to deliver.
So a building doesn't have to be beautiful to be able to love what this ugly little building in Spain, where the architects sat around with a hole, then the concrete sat around, and when the concrete sat around, they asked to take somebody, so that he just stayed there, that little room left out of the tinkering and crammed it out of the manufacturing and threw it down to see a Spanish sun.
It doesn't matter whether a cow is building our buildings, or a robot built our buildings.
It's incredibly important, as we build, it's just important what we build.
architect knows how to create green, smart and friendly buildings.
We just waited for you to wish it.
We're not at all in the laws of laws.
Find an architect, if you give an architect, you design an architect, design us better buildings, better cities and a better world, because it's much better on the game.
Not only did our society, they continue to shape the smallest places, the city, where you pull your children, and the way they take from the bathroom to the bathroom.
Thank you.
That's my non-violent, Stella.
She was started to walk one year and started walking.
It's going to go on this cool way, like, year-old, and a thousand times, a tinie, after the motto is too fast for my legs.
It looks completely cute.
And one of their favorite things about being able to look at themselves in the mirror.
She loves mirror image.
She kilos, quit, quit, and she gives itself this big, feud sound.
When is it suddenly fine to love his appearance?
Because apparently we don't.
Every month, tens of thousands of people in Google give me, "Do I ugly?"
This is Faye. Faye is 13 and live in Denver.
And like any teenager, she just wants to be threw up and listen to it.
It's a little bit gray about it. She's a little confused, even though her mother always says she's beautiful, she says that every day in school she says she's ugly.
Because her mother says one, and her friends or her school cameras say something else, she doesn't know who she should believe.
Some of them are so powerful that you shouldn't think about them.
This is an average, healthy girl who gets this feedback in one of the most emotional times of their lives.
Well, the teenagers of today are rare alone.
They're under pressure, they're always available online, they're talking, writing news, they're going to come, they're sharing, they're just going to post -- they're never hearing it.
Never before were so connected, so unreviewed, so young.
A mother told me it's like every evening a party is going up in the room.
You just don't have a personal life.
And the social pressure that goes with it is incredibly unintended.
This one-to-one one is a one-one one that is based on our kids, on the number ofikes and the kind of comments they get to pay.
There's no separation between the online and the "offline."
What's real and what's not really hard to say.
What is their source of inspiration?
You can see the images that are coming up in the Newsfeed of the girls today.
Basically, model to zero degrees is still the runningest.
Now, image worker is routine.
And trends like #thinspiration, #thighgap, #bikinibridge and #proana.
By the way, the #proana stands for pro-Anorexia.
This trend is going to be a rather than the stereotypes and the euding of women in the stereotypes.
You can see the culture today. You can see who the girls are shating.
But the boys are not in the face of this.
The pursuit of the face and the washing tube of the heroic sports and Playboy starch.
But where does the problem exist?
We want our children to be compared to healthy, compared people.
But in one of the ways we eat cultures, we raise our children to spend more time and thoughts with the look at the cost of all other aspects of identity.
So their relationships, physical development and school, start to suffer from.
Six of 10 girls don't prefer anything because they think they don't look good enough.
And these are not inadible activities.
It's fundamental activities in their development as a human being and as a contribution to society and to work.
31 percent, about one in three teenagers, keep back in a discussion in classroom, not putting your attention, because they don't want to take the attention on their heads.
One is not about five to school when they're not comfortable with it.
If you think about tests, you don't look good enough or especially thin enough, you get a note worse than the ones that don't have to care about it.
And this is all over the case, in Finland, U.S.
and China, and the same way you actually eat.
To make this clear, it's about how you think you're looking, and not how you actually think about it.
It looks like negative body feeling under academic success.
But it also sucks the health.
teenagers with negative body feel less sports, eat less fruit and vegetables, control the weight more often than the weight of what is unresolvable and putting destruction.
And that just doesn't change.
Women who think they're thick -- and again, whether they're it or not -- have higher failures.
17 percent of women wouldn't go to a notion of what they would think of when they don't feel comfortable with their look.
Think about what that does to the economy.
If we could overcome that, which possibilities open us up.
This potential to free is in the interest of each one of us.
But how do we do that?
Just talk, it doesn't make us very far.
It's not enough alone.
If we want to move what we need to do, we have to do something.
Here are three key factors: First of all, we have to teach them self-esteem.
We need to help our teenagers develop strategies, to overcome the image and the re-dism of self-esteem.
The good news is that there are many programs already.
But the bad news is that most people don't work.
I was shocked to learn that good-profit programs have a situation that is a good thing to do.
We really need to make sure that the programs that our kids participate in are not just a positive, but also have a long-term effect.
The research shows that the best program is six key areas in the process: the first impact of family, friends and relationships.
Second, the media and Starkult, then the re-educated and mosque, as we compare to other bees and power to other bees, and to look at the Apropos of Aody Talk -- some people call it "Body Talk" or "Fat Talk" -- and the foundation of self-interest and care about themselves.
It's like asking women what's going to be seen and how they're talked about them.
It's not okay that we're putting the contribution of our politicians in the world because of their hairsurgency, the size of their bridges, or followed by a lympion, that success depends on their way.
We need to start putting them on their actions, not after what they look like.
We can all start to post responsibility for the images and comments that we post in social networks.
We can make people a compliment for their success and their tun, not for their heads.
And I ask you, when did you get a mirror?
We need to work as communities, governments and business partners to move something so that our children value their self-esteem and individuality, diversity and smarter.
We have to move the people who really move something, Pod, so that they make something in the world.
You have to let the stage, because only the world is changing.
One world where our kids have freedom to be the best version of their self, where the thoughts don't hold them from their heads, who they really are, or to achieve what they want.
Think of what this might mean for someone in your life.
Right? Or the woman who's sitting on just one more.
What would it mean for them if they were free from this voice, their internal critic, who sat down longer legs, thin squid, small stomachs or smaller feet?
What would it mean for them if we could release this over walls and free their potential?
Today, all of us are eating the obsession of our culture.
Let's tell our children the truth.
Let's show them that the look only makes our identity look part of our identity, and that we actually love them for what they are, what they do and what they're giving us a sense of.
Even awareness needs to be in the curriculum.
Every single one of us should change the way we talk and compare ourselves to others.
We work together as communities, from the vocabulary movement to the governments, so that the happy-year-olds are now going to be made by the self-organizing worlds.
Let's go to it.
On November November November, a man named El-Sayid Nosair went to a hotel in Manhattan and a deadly Attent, Rabbi Meir Kahane, the founder of Jewish Defense League.
Nosair was talked about the design of the murder, but while he was able to defecious his threw down smaller actions, he started planning and he started planning to plan a dozen New Yorker signs, including tunnels, synagogue and the main radios of the United Nations.
Luckily, these plans were re-eyed by a FBI reform.
Interestingly, the slam on the World Trade Center was not sat down to 1993.
I was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in Pennsylvania, as a son of an Egyptian engineer and a loving American teacher and a school teacher who gave her best to offer me a happy childhood.
First, when I was seven years old, the family dynamics started to change.
My father showed me a side of Islam, who, just a few people, including the majority of Muslims, were getting to see.
But there are in every religion, in every people, a small percentage of people who are so surrounded in their faith, that they have to do everything in their power to bring others to live like them.
We came to Calverton-American system that was seen without our knowledge of the FBI.
And the day my last sphere was a little orange color about the target, and the surprise of all, especially my goal was in flames.
And this comment seemed to get them all very much to laugh, but only a few years later, I just understood what they were doing so funny.
They thought I had the same tent disorders as my father.
These men were finally thrown to have a supply of six-foot squids on a lower park of the North storm, and the explosion killed six other people and injured thousands.
I looked up at these guys.
These guys, I called "ammu," which means "sbee" as much as "seay.
When I was nine years old, we were sat down to 20 times, and this instability in my childhood had hardly had a chance to find friends.
Once I was living in a little bit, it was time to put the suitcases and pull the next city.
And I've always been to the new class, and I've been the victims of a squeaks.
So I spent most of my time at home, and I read books, looking distant or playing video games.
So I was missing in the real world -- to express it -- and since I grew up in a fan of fan, I wasn't prepared for the real world.
I was raised to be able to print people in the way they were able to re-evolving their herd or their religion.
So what opened my eyes?
One of my first experiences that I had to figure out how to make my thinking, 2,000 in the president.
When I was prepared to college, I could participate in the National Youth Convention in Philadelphia.
The focus of my group was youth, and I was almost all my life victims of savanna this topic of strong emotions in me.
The members of our group came from different social layers.
And on the last day before the Convention, I found that a boy who I was a friends who was a Jews.
It took a few days to get this detail into the light, and I realized that between those two, we didn't have a natural enemy.
And there I met with people all faith and cultures, and this experience was sustainable.
This feeling sounded me to the situation that I was taught to compare as a child to be able to compare with encounters in real life.
I don't know how it is to be gay, but I know very well how it is for something that is convicted of my control.
Then there was the "Daily Show."
inspiration often comes from unexpected side, and the fact that a Jewish compass influenced my world as my extremely non-violent father, has not gone to me.
One day, I had a conversation with my mother about how my world picture started changing, and she said something that I live in my heart.
She looked at me with the tired eyes of a woman who had experienced all her lifelong dogmatism, and she said, "I'm sorry to hate people."
And I realized that at that moment, how much negative energy it takes to get this hatred right now.
Zak Ebrahim is not my right name.
I changed him when my family decided to break the contact with my father and start a new life.
So why do I go and bring me to danger?
It's very simple.
Instead, I use my experience to fight against terrorism against the imagination.
I do it for the victims of terrorism and the loved ones, the terrible pain and losses that they've gotten in their lives.
For the victims of terrorism, I'm talking to these nonviolent actions and judge my father's actions.
With this simple fact, I'm the living proof of violence not sucking in religion or group and the son doesn't have to go into the foot of the father.
I'm not my father.
At that moment, a film goes in your head.
It's a impressive, more sexy movie.
He's got 3D with Surrounds for all of this you just saw and hear, but that's just the beginning.
Your film has smell, taste and touch.
He has a sense of your body, pain, hunger, orgasm.
He has emotions, trouble and joy.
He has memories, for example, your childhood, that play you in front of you.
And he has a permanent speaker: conscious thinking.
The main control in the film, you play, and you can see all that directly.
The film is your electricity of consciousness, the outcome of how you experience your mind and the world.
The consciousness is one of the fundamental elements of human beings.
Every one of us is conscious.
We all have our own inner film, you, and you, and you.
There's nothing we're seeing right now.
At least I'm a re-eyed resemblance.
I can't tell you you're aware too.
Our consciousness is also what makes life value.
If we don't know what we would have been aware of, we would have nothing in our lives, or we would have a value.
At the same time, it's the most secret phenomenon of the universe.
So why aren't we just a robot that's able to process all of the inputs and create all the output without seeing this inner film at all?
At that point, none of the answers don't know the answers to these questions.
I'm saying that some radical ideas will be necessary to make progress in the area of consciousness.
Some people say that science of consciousness is impossible.
Science is from objective.
The consciousness is euthanized by nature.
And so, in fact, there can never be a science of consciousness.
For most of the 20th century, that opinion was predictable.
psychologists studied behavior objective, neuroscience, the brain has objective, and nobody has mentioned consciousness.
Thirty years ago, when TED was founded, there was a lot of scientific work on consciousness.
About 20 years ago, change began.
neuroscience scientists like Francis Crick and physicists like Roger Penrose, who have come to time now has to deal with consciousness.
Since that time, there was a real explosion. The science of consciousness started to prive.
This work is great. It's great.
But she still has some basic borders.
We've seen a part of this work that we've seen as Nancy Kanwisher when they made their wonderful work.
Now, for example, we understand a lot better, what areas of the brain are interacting with the conscious perception of faces, or with the sense of pain or joy.
But this is still a science of correlations.
It's not science of explanations.
We know that these areas of brains are consciously consciously consciously consciously consciously consciously consciously consciously adolescence, but we don't know why they do that.
I see this sort of thing about neuroscience, some questions about consciousness, looking for answers -- the question of what particular brain regions do and where they do it.
But in a way, these are the simple problems.
Nothing against neuroscience.
It's not a simple problem.
But that doesn't solve the real puzzle, the core of this issue: why are all the physical processes of the brain ever accompanied by consciousness?
So why does this inner film exist, subjective movie?
Until that, there's no answer to that question.
Now you might think, well, you should just give science a few years.
It's going to be another emergent phenomenon, like wonder, like a re-shape, how life, and we're going to be able to explain it.
The classic problems of enlightened problems are all going to affect the phenomenon of behavior: how dust is going to happen, how a re-emotaliation works, how a living organism works, adapts and metabolized, all questions of objective function.
You could apply this to the human brain by allowing behavior and functions of human brain as emergent phenomena, as we go, how we talk, how do we play chess, all questions of behavior?
But when it comes to consciousness, questions are the most easy problems.
When it comes to complicated problems, the question of why all these behaviors are dominated by a subjective experience.
So here are the standard-Parming of the emergence, even the standard re-resolution of neuroscience, not too much to say.
What science is true is I'm in the heart of a materialist.
I want to give a scientific theory of consciousness that works, for a long time, I've been looking for a theory of consciousness that's completely physical and works, sucking.
But I had to look at this for a systematic reason that this doesn't work.
So I think we've come to a kind of a dead race.
We have this wonderful, great chain of explanations. So, most of the time physics tells you chemistry, the chemistry tells us the biology, and biology explains part of psychology.
But consciousness doesn't seem to fit into this model.
On the one hand, it's given that we are aware of.
On the other hand, we don't know how to put this into our scientific world.
So I think consciousness right now is a kind of a enoma that we need to put into our world, but not yet know exactly how.
So, with such an anom, a radical ideas could be necessary, and I think we could use one or two ideas that would start crazy before we get the consciousness of the scientific.
There are some candidates coming into question for these crazy ideas.
My friend Dan Dennett, who's here today, has one of these ideas.
He's like, "I don't think it's a hard problem with consciousness."
The whole concept of inner subjective movies is based on a kind of illusion or a confused.
In fact, we just need to explain objective function of the brain, and then we have to explain everything that needs to be explained.
I say, just to this thought!
This is the kind of radical ideas we need to explore when we talk in a sawist and brain-based theory of consciousness.
But that view for me and many others don't worry about because it's almost a human consciousness.
So I go in a different direction.
In the remaining time I want to go to two crazy ideas that I think they could be a lot promising.
The first crazy idea is consciousness is fundamental.
physicists see some aspects of the universe as a fundamental building blocks: space, time and mass.
They are based on fundamental laws that are based on them how the laws of gravity or quantum mechanics are.
These fundamental properties and laws are explained by nothing else.
They're much more likely to be seen as a reshape, and in their foundation, the world is built.
Sometimes the list is going to be able to scale the fundamental things.
In the 19th century, Maxwell found that you can't explain the phenomenon of the electromagnetism through fundamental things: space, time, mass, Newton's laws. So he put fundamental laws of electromagnetism on and explained the electrical charge as a fundamental element to which these laws are able to turn.
I think we're in the same situation.
If you can't explain consciousness with the existing elements -- space, time, mass, charge -- then the logical conclusion that you have to expand the list.
The natural consequences would be to explain consciousness itself as a fundamental element to a basic building block of nature.
That doesn't mean you can't run science with it.
It opens the way to run science with it.
What we need to do then is to create fundamental laws that connect consciousness to other fundamental elements: space, time, mass, physical processes.
Sometimes we sometimes need fundamental laws that are so simple that you can print them on the front of a t-shirt.
I think we're conscious in such a situation.
We want to find fundamental laws that are so simple that you can print them on a t-shirt.
We don't know yet what laws are, but we're working on it.
The second crazy idea is that consciousness might be universal.
Every system could have a certain kind of consciousness.
This view is sometimes called a panpsychiaism: "Pan" for everything, mental illness, every system is aware of not just people, dogs, mice, flies, but even Rob Knight's microbes, fundamental particles.
Even every photon has a certain amount of consciousness.
This approach doesn't tell you that photons are smart or think.
A photon't a photon is not a frightened, and thinks, "Oh, I'm going to move close to the speed of light.
I can never slow down and take me out."
No, not that.
But the idea is that photons may have some kind of rhemion, subjective feeling, sort of primitive resemblance of consciousness.
That might sound a little idiot for you.
I mean, why would anyone think that kind of crazy?
Part of it is in the first crazy idea that consciousness is fundamental.
If it's fundamental, like space, time and mass, it's also universal to think that it might be the way it is.
You also have to say that this idea that we are a lot of, but for other cultures, is far less fewer fewer in cultures that see the human mind in stronger ways with nature.
A deeper motivation comes from the idea that maybe the simplest and best way to find the fundamental laws between consciousness and physical processing is to connect consciousness with information.
Where there is information processing, there is consciousness.
So complex information processing, like humans -- complex consciousness.
Simple information processing -- simple consciousness.
Now, funny is that in the last few years, a neuroscientist, Giulio clayio clay, the approach of this theory has developed with a mathematical theory.
He takes mathematical measure of information, which he calls "Phi" to measure the amount of information in a system.
And he suspects that phthalates with consciousness.
So in the human brain, an unrethinkable amount of information, a high level of  Phi, a lot of consciousness.
In a mouse, middle amount of information reintegration, still very high -- significant level of consciousness.
But if we go further to worms, microbes, particles, takes phthalates.
The information reintegration is still greater than zero.
And sound sound is going to be a theory that's still going to be consciousness, that's not zero.
In fact, he's a fundamental law of consciousness: high  Phi, high consciousness.
I don't know if this theory is right, but it might be the re-eyed theory in science of consciousness, and it would be the re-educated of a whole series of scientific data, and it's easy enough to print them on the front page of a t-shirt.
Another thing that's more powerful is that Panpsychism could help us build consciousness into the physical world.
physics and philosophers have seen often that the physics is a abstracter.
It describes the structure of reality with a series of formulas, but it doesn't tell us anything about reality that's underlying it.
How Stephen Hawking says, "What does the formula need to live?"
And if you think about the panpsychism, you can let the formulas of physics, as they are, but you can use them to explain the electricity of consciousness.
That's what the physics is ultimately doing, explain the electricity of consciousness.
So, it's consciousness that reverbes the formula.
And from this view, consciousness doesn't enlighten the outside of the physical world as a kind of extra.
It's in their center right.
I think that pandemic view has the potential to change our relationship with nature, and that might have some serious social and ethical consequences.
Some of them don't like intuitive.
I thought so far, I shouldn't eat anything that has consciousness, and that's why vegetation is so.
If you enter the pandemic perspective, you're going to be very hungry.
I think if you think about it, it could change our view as what is more ethical and more morally important, less consciousness, but rather the scale and complexity of consciousness.
It's also logical to ask for consciousness in other systems, like computers.
What about artificial smart system in the movie "Here," Samantha?
Is it aware?
If you look at the informal, pandemic perspective, it certainly has a high level of information processing and integration, so the answer is yes, it's aware.
If that's right, ethnic issues come up, both the ethics of smart computer systems and ethics are going to turn on their own.
Finally, you could ask for consciousness of all the groups, the planet.
Did Canada have a own consciousness?
Or at the local level, has a unified group, like the audience of a TED conference, we've just got a collective TED consciousness; there's an internal film for these collective TED group that's different from the inner movies every single one of us?
I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it should be asked at least.
Okay, this vision of panpsychism is radical, and I don't know if it's right.
I'm actually more powerful than the first crazy idea that consciousness is fundamental than the second thing it is universal.
This view is a lot of questions that we're putting together, a lot of challenges, like the individual parts of consciousness, and create this complexity of consciousness that we know and love.
If we find answers, then we're on the right way to a serious theory of consciousness.
If it's not, it's perhaps the most complicated problem in science and philosophy.
We can't expect to solve it night.
But I think we're going to end up solving it.
I think understanding of our consciousness is both a key to understanding the universe and understanding of ourselves.
It might just need the right idea.
Thank you very much.
I grew up in a very small city in Victoria.
My childhood flies normal and unsustainable.
I went to school, hing with friends, sat down with my younger sisters.
It was all normal.
When I was 15, a community member of my parents talked to me: the community wanted to no more re-eyed for a special performance.
My parents said, "Well, that's really nice, but there's an open problem.
To be honest, she didn't get to." And they had quite a good job.
I went to school, got good grades, helped school a little bit in the Friseurs, and spent a lot of time looking at "Buffys" and "The arms of the Dmonenson's Creek."
Yeah, I know. What a contradiction.
But they were right.
Over the years later, while my teaching in Melbourne in a high school, 20 minutes went to school in the law and said, "When are you going to start with your speech?"
"What talk?" I wanted to know.
I had talked about deprivation and a half minutes.
He said, "You know, you know, your motivations.
If somebody comes in the wheelchair here, most people will say this person will inspire stuff."
"Welodd that in the Aula."
And I went to see a light on this: this boy had people who have known disability so far as inspiration.
For him, we are -- and he can't do anything for it, it's true for a lot.
For many, disability are not teachers, doctors or a sawr.
We're not real people. We're supposed to inspire.
And in fact, I'm sitting on this stage here, and I look like I'm looking out at the wheelchair, and you probably expect me to be inspired by you. Right?
Ladies and gentlemen, I have to defy you very much.
I'm not here to inspire you.
I'm going to tell you that we were logists when it comes to disability.
disability is not bad, and it doesn't make us extraordinary.
In the last few years, we've been able to spread these lies in social media even further.
You probably saw images like this: "The only disability in life is a bad attitude."
Or, "As out of the way to do it is to be a shit."
Or, "You know, you're going to be doing anything."
These are just a few examples; it's a lot of images like this.
You may know this from the little girl without hands, which is a pencil in your mouth.
You may have seen the child running to Carbon-theses.
And these pictures, there are many, many, many, what we call inspirationography.
I use the word pornography, because here you do people who are benefiting with objects.
You make disability to objects so that you can benefit not to benefit.
These images have inspired the purpose of putting the disability so that you look at the disability and think, "How bad my life is, it could be worse.
I could be this person."
But what if you're this person?
I stopped telling you how many times strangers have talked to me, to tell me that they were brave, or inspiring, and that was long before my work was known.
In a way, I was able to get up in the morning and remember my name. That's how a human being is made to the object.
All these images make disability to objects, for the well-being of non-humans.
disability are able to look at them so that you can look at them better, and you can worry relatively.
Life with disability is actually quite difficult.
We're just so worried about it.
But what we're worried about is not what you think.
It has nothing to do with our body.
I use intentions to help us use the term, because I'm a social model of disability, and we're more disabled by society where we live as our bodies and diagnosis.
I've been living in this body for a long time.
I like it very much.
He's doing what's needed, and I learned to use his skills best, just as you do, and that's why kids are on these photographs.
They don't do anything extraordinary.
They just use their bodies, so good they can.
Is it really fair to how they were made objects and how these photos are shared?
When people say, "You're inspiration," they want to make a compliment.
I know why.
Because of the lie that we've been gathered up: disability makes extraordinary.
I'm extremely excited about inspiration, and you're thinking, "Do you think you're inspired, never inspired?"
But yes.
I've been learning from other disability all the time.
But I don't learn that I was lucky than she was.
I learned that it's a great idea to come down with a cricket, and I learned to download the squid tricks that download the phone with the battery of the wheelchair.
Genial!
We learn from the strength and regrets of the other. Not in battle against our bodies and diagnosis, but against a world that makes us special objects.
And I think that gap is a liarsive injustice.
It makes us hard.
And the only disability in life is a bad attitude, is large, because it's not true because of the social model of disability.
You can smile the staircase for a long time, and it still doesn't turn into a Rampe.
It's never going to happen.
I want to live in a world where disability is the norm.
In a 15-year-old girl who looks at her room "Buffy -- in the Ban of the Dmonen," not being considered success, just because she does it in the seat.
I want to live in a world where you don't expect so little disability to stand up and congratulate them in the morning.
I want to live in a world where real performance is actually being re-eyed; I want to live in a world where a student of 11th grade is not so wonderful that his new teacher sits in the wheelchair.
Not a disability makes us extraordinary, but asking our attitude to her.
Thank you.
What have "The Great reality" and professional ball of empathy?
How fast is a "unchhiking" slam in the air?
Unfortunately, I'm just going to answer one of those questions today, so please don't be disappointed.
Most people think of far-fetched reality, "Minority Report," and Tom Cruise, as it's sat around in the air, but he's not science fiction.
ER is something that comes faster than we think we're going to get our lifetime, and he's going to get a little bit more ER because we need the technologies, and you have to be aware of that, because our lives are going to change the way the Internet and the cell phone.
And how do we get the ER?
The first step in success I'm wearing: Google Glass.
Many of you know Google Glass sure.
You may not know that Google Glass is a device that allows you to see what I see.
And to experience how it's like standing on the field.
Right now, you can only experience that if I describe it to you.
I have to deal with it in words.
I have to create a framework that you fill out with your imagination.
With Google Glass, we can put that under a helmet, and get a sense of how it's going to run with 160 things across the field, and feel your heartbeat all over your body.
You can experience how it's when a 125-ray is trying to get you on theprint and try full body force you're able to claim.
I experienced this myself, and it doesn't feel good.
Here's the video.
Go.
Aah, being killed, is a guess.
Right now, I'm going closer.
Are you ready?
Go!
You've noticed that people are missing: the rest of the team.
We have a video of it from college.
Quarterback: Hey, Mice 54! Mice 54!
Blue eight! Blue! Go!
Oh!
fans wants to do that experience.
They want to stand on the field.
You want to be your favorite actor, and I've talked to YouTube and Twitter, "Can you give this a Quarterback?
Once we have the experience, with GoPro and Google Glass, how do we do it better?
What's the next step?
The Oculus Rift is considered one of the most realistic  VR devices of all time, and that's not just a hype.
And I can show you why this is the way it is.
Oh! Oh!
No! No! No! No! I don't want it anymore! No!
Oh my God! Aaaah!
This is a man who experienced a Achteric orbit and he sat around his life.
How is it going to be like if he's going to go down to Olympia with over 100 miles an hour and a mountain down?
I think adults are going to carry a re-conductor.
But that's not a ER yet.
This is just virtual reality.
How do we get to the ER?
We're creating this when coach and managers and owner are putting this information out, and we're asking, "How do we improve our team?
How can we win games?"
team use technologies to win games.
They like to win, that brings money.
A short story of technology in NFL.
In 1965, Baltimore Colts gave her Quarterback an arm band that he could predict faster with.
They won the SuperBowl.
Other teams followed the example.
More people saw it because games were about it.
They were more exciting and faster.
In 1994, the NFL gave the helmets the Quarterbacks to sparks, later the defense.
More people saw games that were faster.
It's a fun one.
Imagine you're playing 2023 with it, you're walking back to the ouddle, and you're looking at the next game directly in front of your plastic microbial community that you're wearing today.
No more fear of playing.
No more fear of learning to all the tactics.
They go out there and respond.
And the coach wants to do that, because, by putting instructions, you lose games, and you don't like to lose coach.
And then they're going to fire.
They don't want it.
But he's not just a improved book.
ER allows you to reduce all this data in real time and improve your game.
How does that look like?
A very simple model would be a camera on every corner of the stadium, and it shows all the people down from the bird's bird's perspective.
They also have the data from the helmet sensors and the acoustic, technology that's been working on right now.
You can put all this data on your player.
The good teams are allowing the good teams to deliver data.
The bad one is a data points.
That's different and bad teams.
And now your IT distribution is as important as your Scouting, and data win is no longer just for narcosis.
It's also for sportslers. Who would have thought that?
How does that look like in the field?
Imagine you're Quarterback.
They get the ball.
They're looking for a free actor.
Suddenly, on the left, there's a bright flash on your visual level, and it shows you that the Side Lineback starts.
Normally you don't see it, but the player is in a way that's going to share the player.
They go to position.
Another flash for a actor.
They throw it, but they're met.
The ball is out of control.
You don't know where he landed.
But he's able to re-educate the visual, and he can react to.
He can catch the ball, go on, touchdown.
The amount of stuff is dead, and the fans are at any given time, and from every perspective.
This will be a new desire for play.
People will look in mass, because they want this experience.
fans wants to be on the field.
Do you want to be your favorite actor.
ER is not going to be part of the Sports, because it's not worth doing it.
But my question to you is: Are we happy to just eat it?
Do we want to just put bread and games and normal entertainment?
Because I think we can use more in a way.
I think we can use the ER to promote empathy in people by showing someone how it is to put themselves in someone else's way.
We know what this technology is worth sports.
They invest sums of sums in billions of a year.
What is this technology worth in Uganda or Russia worth showing the world, among which conditions he lives?
What is this technology migrantfield or Neil deGrase'sese, Tyson'sse want to inspire a generation of children to think about all and science and not about jellyfish and the Kardashian's report?
Ladies and gentlemen, the re-eyed reality is coming.
The questions that we ask are the decisions we make, the challenges we face, the ones we face, the way we're all in our hand.
Thank you very much.
I was just recently a service from California after 23 years ago.
Most of the time I spent the Patrouilleian a period at the South Pole County, which is the golden Gate Bridge.
The bridge is a building company that is known for its beautiful view of San Francisco, the Pacific Ocean and its inspiring architecture.
Unfortunately, it's also a magnet for suicide, because it's the most used place in the world.
The Golden Gate Bridge was opened 1937.
Joseph radiation, the re-eyed engineer, is thrown in with the words, "The bridge is a self-driving squeak.
Evenmorrows on the bridge, neither is practical nor likely."
But since their opening openings have been a thousand people whose bridge had remained in death.
Some believe that a moving moving between the two doors into another dimension -- the bridge was romanticized -- that you're going to be free of all the worried and everything, and the water down there is going to be a soul.
I'll tell you what's really happening when the bridge is used as a means to suicide.
In a slam, the bone squids, some of the living organs dread by.
Most of them die in the equatter.
Those who don't die, most of them are helpless around the water and then drink.
I don't think those who consider this kind of suicide in it is clear what a cruel death is expected.
This is the cable.
And then, from the area around the two door, 80 inches of steel going next to the bridge.
Here are most people standing before they take life.
I can tell you that one person who's already on the cable, and that's in their darkest hour, is very difficult to bring back.
I shot this photograph last year when this young woman spoke to a policeman and thought about her life.
I'm very happy to tell you that we were successful on that day to get them to the other side of the site.
When I started working on the bridge, there was no official training.
You've looked through all the phone calls.
It wasn't just a bear service for potential self-assembly, but it was also for policemen.
Since then, we've been behind a long way.
Today, former policeists and psychologists are training the new policemen.
This is Jason Garber.
I met Jason last year at July July when I got a call that went around a possible soup sat in the middle of the bridge.
I answered, and when I got there, I watched Jason as he talked to a policeman of Golden Gate Bridge.
Jason was just 32 years old, and it was thrown by New Jersey here.
After about an hour of Jason, he asked us if we know the story of Pandora.
We remember the Greek mythology: Zeus created Pandora and sat them together with a Bü and said to her, "We never, never do this squeath."
And one day, when the curiosity played Pandora, she opened the Bü.
Hers came, suffering and all kinds of evils that spread across humanity.
The only good thing in the midst was hope.
Then Jason asked us, "What happens when you open the sex and no hope in it?"
He was silent for a moment, he sat right and he was gone.
This nice intelligent young man from New Jersey had just taken his life.
I talked to this evening with Jason's parents, and I think when I talked to them, I didn't hear me very well, because the next day the rabbi rabbi, the rabbi, the rabbi, the rabbi, I was able to get involved with me.
Jason's parents had asked him.
The slateral harm of a suicide is based on so many people.
I'm going to ask you the following questions: What would you do if a family member, a friend or a loved one?
What would you say?
Would you know what you should say?
My experience is not just about the other, but about listening.
So listening to understanding.
Don't you, don't do a squeezing, or don't say the other person, you know how it feels because you probably don't know.
By just there you might be, you may be the turning point that the person needed.
If you think someone's a little bit more likely to be a re-evolving, you don't fear to confront that person.
For example, you could ask, "And people in similar situations have thought about putting their lives in, you know, did you think about this?"
The person just sat away with it, maybe saving their lives and gets the turning point for them.
Other signs that you should look at: hopelessness, the belief that things are bad and never get better, aidlessness, the belief that you can't do anything about it; recently, the re-semblance of social life and loss of a general interaction.
I just thought of this talk a few days ago, and I got an email from a lady who I'd like to read you.
She lost her son on January the 19th of January of this year, and she wrote this email just a few days before, and with her permission, and her blessing I read it to you.
"Hi Kevin, probably you're on the TED conference.
That has to be a great experience there.
I think I should walk on this weekend on the bridge.
I wanted to send you a few lines.
I hope you get a lot of people to reach home with your message, and you go home and talk to your friends about it, and so forth.
I'm still quite excited, but I've always got more moments when I realize that Mike is not coming home anymore.
Mike's gone from Petalum to San Francisco to look at his father's 19th, and his father's game was the 49s game.
He's never come there.
I called the police in Pealuma, and I sat it as a sludge night.
The next morning, two policeists came home to me and explained that Mike's car was down on the bridge.
A stuff looked like he was at 13:58 o'clock in the bridge.
Thank you so much for making yourself strong, perhaps too long to be too strong for yourself.
Who didn't even think of it as bad without a mental illness?
It shouldn't be that easy to end your life.
I sat down for you and the fight you fight.
The GGB, Golden Gate Bridge, should be a transition over our beautiful book, not a Friedof.
Fortunately, this week, Vicky."
I can't imagine how much mutation she walked to the bridge and go the way that her son took to that day, and not what courage needs to continue.
I'd like to introduce you to a man who's hope and courage.
On March 11th, I was reacting to a re-edimeter of possibly adolescence near the North storm.
I went down the motorrad and looked at this young man, Kevin Berthia, like he stood on the foot.
For the next half hours, I heard Kevin, as he talked about his depression and his farmlessness.
Kevin decided to climb himself on the day for putting over the site, and give his life another chance to do it.
When Kevin climbed back, I sat down.
"That's a new beginning, a new life."
But I asked him, "What did you do to climb up to the site again and give the hope and the lives of another opportunity?"
And you know what he told me?
He said, "You've heard me.
You've got to let me talk, and you've just heard."
In short after this event, I got a letter from Kevin's mother, and I got him reading this, and I'd like to read you.
"Dear Mr. Briggs, nothing can happen by March 11th, but you're one of the reasons why Kevin still are under us.
I believe that Kevin has looked for help.
He was found in a mental illness he got to the he.
I just adopted Kevin six months, completely adread about any kind of features, but thank God we know.
Kevin is fine, as he says.
We thank God for you.
deep in your shoulder, Narvella Berthia."
And at the end of the day, she says, "P.S. When I went to the hospital of San Francisco, you were a patient.
Boy, I had to go back first."
Today Kevin is a loving father and a member of society.
He's talking open about the rethinking those days and his depression, hoping that his story is inspired by others.
Evenmord is not just a job of work.
It's also in personal environment.
My grandfather took care of life.
And that fact, even though she ended his own pain, took me the opportunity to learn it ever.
That's what suicide is doing.
Most of the rethinking people or those who think about suicide would never think of hurt another human being.
They just want you to end their own pain.
This is normally happening in one of three ways: sleep, drugs, alcohol, death.
I've answered hundreds of calls in my career, and I've been involved in hundreds of cases of mental illness and suicides around the bridge.
In the accidents that I was directly involved, I've lost only two people, but these are two too many.
One of them was Jason.
The other one was a man I talked to about an hour.
And he sat down for three times.
And he looked at me at my last hand and he said, "Kevin, I'm sorry, but I have to go."
And he jumped.
I still want to tell you that most of the people we come to contact with on the bridge are not going to happen to suicide.
And also, most of the people who have walked away and survive, and they can talk about it, or two, these people have said they've left out of the moment they've left a mistake, and they knew they wanted to live.
I tell people that the bridge is not only squeacles and San Francisco, but that it connects people.
The connection, or the bridge we do, is something that every single one of us should be able to do.
Evenmordable is a squirtable.
There are help. There are hope.
Thank you very much.
The world makes something you don't, but deep in yourself, you know what you are, and the question you say, "How are you going to be?"
I may be a little bit special about this, but I'm not alone, not alone.
When I was a model, it was like the dream I had had finally come true since I was a kid.
My extremely true self was finally true with my inner truth, my internal self.
The reasons for this is a lot of history -- I'll come back to that later -- but when it felt like this, it felt like, "It's it! You did it, you got it."
But last October has become clear to me that I'm just at the beginning.
We're all sat in a shoe store, from our families, from our religion, from our society, from our own time, from where we are now, even from our own bodies.
Some people have the courage to free up the constraints that don't accept their skin color, or their beliefs to them.
These people are always a threat to status quo, for what is acceptable.
In my case, over the last nine years, some of my neighbors, some of my friends, even my agent didn't know anything about my story.
When I was five years old, I was always sat at home on the Philippines, on my head.
My mother asked me, "Why are you always going to take this t-shirt on your head?"
I said, "Mom, these are my hair. I'm a girl."
I knew my own identity back then.
And gender is always considered the fact that inevitable, but today we know that it's a sexy, complex and secret.
Because of my success, I never had the courage to tell my story, not because I thought something was wrong with me, but because of the way the world treat the ones that want to free.
Every day I'm so grateful, because I'm a woman.
I have a mother, a father and a family that accepted me as I am.
Many haven't got that lucky.
In Asia, there's an old tradition that sex as a sex sex sex sex sex.
There's a Buddhist god of compassion.
There's a Hindu sex, a Hjira-Gin.
When I was eight years old, I was at a Fiesta on the Philippines to the celebration of this myth.
I was standing in front of the stage, and I remember, this beautiful woman came out, right in front of me, and I knew this kind of woman I wanted to be.
When I was 15 years old, still when I was a boy, I met a woman named T.L.
She was managers for transparency.
And she asked me this evening, "Why don't you do the beauty competition?"
This moment changed my life.
Suddenly I found myself in the beauty of beauty world.
Not many people were in the first job of beauty in transgender, but it fits me.
At the age of 15 and 17 years, I was looking at the most emailed of dying, and in those of them who literally found in a truck, or sometimes it was the walking back next to a rice field, and when it rained -- it rained a lot of the Philippines -- the organisms had to put everything in.
I also experienced the goods of strangers, particularly travel to remote provinces in the Philippines.
But most importantly, I found some of my best friends in this community.
In 2001, my mother called me to San Francisco, and told me that my personal personal life was convicted for a Green Card that I could now pull into the United States.
I was a frightened.
I said to her, "Mom, I've got fun.
I'm here with friends, I love to travel and be beauty-based.
Two weeks later, she called her back and said, "Do you know you can change your name in the United States and change your gender?"
More, I didn't have to hear.
My mother also meant to write my name with two "E".
She also wore me when I was in Thailand in Thailand for the age of 19.
It's interesting that in the most rural areas of Thailand, some of the most euding, first and most sophisticated surgeries are done.
It was necessary in the United States at the time to have surgery before you could change your name and change your gender.
So in 2001, I moved to San Francisco, and I remember when I saw my California license with the name of Gees and the sex record.
This was a print moment.
For some people, this one is a license for a car to drive, or to buy alcohol, but for me it was my license to live and to feel dignity.
I believed that I could make my dream a dream that could be used after New York and model.
Many haven't got that lucky.
I think of a woman named Ayla Nettles.
She's from New York, a young woman who lived bravely her truth, but hated her life at the end.
For most of my background, this is the reality we live in.
Our suicide rate is nine times the size of the general population.
Every year in November, we keep a global Andadolescence to the transgender memory.
I stand here on this stage because there's a long history of people who fought for fought against injustice.
These are Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera.
Today, right now, my real output happens.
I could not live my truth for myself longer.
I want to give my best to help others live without shame and fear.
I'm a slamr, so one day it's not going to be necessary, and I'm going to stop November a Gee.
My inner truth was allowed me to accept the way I am.
Can you do that too?
Thank you very much.
I love to say what you would say to parents, especially in the other sense of being friends, and in the family, and all those who have children or people who have trouble with gender, what you can say to them, to the family members of those people who help them be good, good, good members, and compassionate,
Certainly. Before that, I'm very lucky.
And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work, so -- it's just that the sexy identity is in the core of our mind, isn't it?
We're all going to get involved in birth, and I'm trying to have a conversation about it, that sometimes it's not going to fit gender, and that you should be able to find the people in their own identity, and we should lead to this conversation with parents.
The transparency movement is still at the beginning, compared to the beginning of reading and gay movement.
There's a lot to do.
There should be some insight.
There should be room for curiosity, questions, and I hope you're all here in this room.
Thank you. That was beautiful. Thank you very much.
In many patriarchal societies and tribes, fathers are usually known by their sons, but one of the few fathers who are known by his daughter, and I'm proud of it.
Before that, she was my daughter, but now I'm her father.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we look at the history of humanity, the story of women is a story of injustice, inequality and violence.
She doesn't want to be called, neither of her father, nor her mother.
The neighborhood comes by, to treat mother, and no one congratulates the father.
A mother feels very unintended when she got a girl.
If she brings the first girl to the world, the first daughter, she's sad.
When she gets the second daughter to the world, she is shocked and shocked to a son where he was born in the third daughter, she feels guilty like a verbal.
Not only does the mother teach, but the daughter, the new daughter, if that's older, it's suffering.
With five, at a age where she was supposed to go to school, she stays home while her brothers were taken in school.
By the age of 12, she kind of has a good life.
It can have fun.
She can play with her friends on the street, and she can move around like a butterflies.
But when adolescents, with 13 years, her will be understood without a male encounter.
She's in the four walls of her own home.
It's no longer a free human being.
She's going to be injured to the so-called honor of her father, her brothers and her family, and when she hurts what she can be killed, she can even be killed.
And what's interesting about this is that this so-called honor code is not only influenced the girl's life itself, but also the life of male families.
I know a family with seven sisters and a brother, and one of those brother is a brother-statedd in the Gulf state to earn the living room for his seven sisters and his parents, because he thinks it's California when his seven sisters were going to learn a job and he went out to control something for life.
This brother, so, opheh, he sat down the joy in his life and fortunately, his sisters on the Altar of the so-called honor.
There's another important norm of patriarchal societies, and that's walking.
A good girl has to be very quiet, very modest and very sucking.
That's the scale of the distribution.
The amazing girl has to be very quiet.
She should be very weak, and she should accept the decisions of her father and her mother, and her choices of the oil, even though she's a sludge.
It's a sawam. It's a slam.
And what happens at the end?
In the words of a poet, she's married and rescued to get more sons and daughters to the world.
And that devil is going to continue and further.
Ladies and gentlemen, this crap of millions of women could be changed if we were different, if women and men and men and women could be able to create women and women in patriarchal societies in the developing world, some rules that would be able to create for families and societies, if they could navigate the laws of laws in which the systems have been able to promote the basic human rights of women.
Love brothers and sisters, when Malala was born, when I first got born -- and please believe me, I don't like to say, a new one -- when I first looked at her in the moment, believe me, I was profoundly honored.
For a long time before she was born, I thought about her name, and I was fascinated by the heroic, legendary freedom of Afghanistan.
Her name was Malalai often Maywand, and I called my daughter to her.
Some days after the birth of my daughter, my cousin came over -- and this was infected -- he came home and brought a family tree back home, a family tree of Yousafzai, and when I looked at this tribe, he took 300 years to our ancestors.
And when I looked at it -- all the men -- I took my pen, I moved a line from my name and wrote "Mala" there.
When she was older, with four and a half years old, I took her to school.
Now you're wondering why should I mention that a girl is taken in school?
Yes, I have to mention it.
It may be, of course, in Canada, in the United States and many other developed countries, but in poor countries, in patriarchal societies, in tribe societies, it's a big event for life.
To go to school, their identity and their names are known.
At school, she means that she's going to the world into her dreams and her hopes, where she can study her talents for her future life.
I have five sisters and no one could go to school. It will be amazing, but two weeks ago, when I was a form of the Canadian visuals, and I answered the section of my family, I couldn't remember the name of some of my sisters.
And the reason for that was that I'd never seen my sisters' names on any document before.
What my father couldn't give my sisters, could not give his own daughters, I had to change, change.
I've always estimated intelligence and the glasses of my daughter.
I've encouraged them to sit at me when my friends came to visit me.
I've encouraged them to visit me with different meeting.
And all of these good values, I tried to sat in her personality.
And it wasn't just for them, not just for Malala.
I shared these good values in my school, both with school and students.
I used education for Emancipation.
I brought my girls to my school, I brought my school to learn the lesson from walkingorsam.
I brought my students to learn what is called the Pseudo-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-Na-E-Eh.
love brothers and sisters, we sat down more rights for women and we fought more, more and more space for women in society.
But we're sat down across a new phenomenon.
Something interesting for human rights, and particularly for women's rights.
It's called Talibanization.
This is the complete ephemeral of women in all political, economic and social activity.
Hundreds of schools have gone lost.
Girl became a hero to go to school.
Women were forced to wear slime, and they were thrown to markets.
Musicers were killed to silence, girls and singers were killed.
millions of times, but a few people talked about things, and it's very scary to join your rights when you're surrounded by people who kill and kill.
It's really the most horrible thing.
At age 10 years old, Malala stood up and stood for her right to education.
She wrote a book for a BBC book, she worked for the New York Times documentary, and she spoke to every possible poet.
And her voice was the most powerful voice.
It spread like a escendo all over the world.
And that was why the Taliban couldn't engulf their campaign, October 2012 was shot out of the shortest distance in their head.
It was the day of the youngest court for my family and me.
The world became a big black hole.
As my daughter was sat down between life and death, I sat in the ear of my wife, "Please owe to what happened to my daughter and your daughter?"
And she immediately said, "Please don't give you the fault.
You've been in the right thing.
You put your life on the game, for the truth, for peace, and for education, and your daughter was inspired by you.
Her two wards on the right, and God will protect them."
These few words meant a lot for me, and I didn't ask that question.
As Malala was in the hospital, and very strong pain had strong head pain, because her face was cut nervous, I saw a dark shadow on my face spread.
But my daughter never sat down.
She always said to us, "My smile is fine, and my sex is fine, too.
I'm going to get good. Don't worry."
She was a drop of drop for us, and she gave us a sadolescence.
And love brothers and sisters, we learned from her resistance in the most difficult times, and I'm glad to share with you, even though she is an icon for children's rights and women, she's like every 16-year-old.
She's crying when her homework are not completely completely.
She argues with her brothers, which I'm very happy.
People ask me what the particular thing about me as mentor is what Malala did so brave and so brave and so squid and so squid.
And I tell them, don't ask me what I did.
Frag me, which I didn't.
I didn't have a wing. That's all.
Thank you very much.
I was surgery in the brain 18 years ago, and since then, brain research has become a passion for me.
I'm actually a engineer.
Anyway, after a brain surgery, a stigma is arrested.
Isn't it intelligent or not?
And if not, can I get it again?
I had to figure out how much of each one of them had to take over a dozen chemicals every day, and I just didn't think I was dying within hours.
Some times it was really, really, really, really, really.
But luckily, I love experiments, and so I decided to experiment to experiment with the optimal doses, because there's no driving plan that would be detailed enough.
I tried different mixtures, and it really brought me out of the fiber, like the smallest changes of the dove inventing my self, my sense of myself, my thinking can change my behavior to other people.
A particularly dramatic case: I actually took Dos and chemicals that are typical of a man in the early 20s, and I couldn't believe how my thoughts changed.
I was quite extremely extremely.
But I was surprised that I didn't try to be arrogant at all.
I actually tried to make a little bit sludge and sat down, and I just didn't get out of it.
But I think that I have a better understanding of men and what they need to do, and I've been able to do a lot better with men since then.
I wanted to reach one of those hormones and neurotransmitter and so on: after my disease and surgery, I wanted to get my intelligence, my creative thinking, my ideas.
I think mainly in images and so that was the key question for me -- how do I get to these mental images that I use as a sort of quick prototype for my ideas, if you will, to test different ideas to play different kinds of things.
This way of thinking is not new.
philosophers like humor, Descartes and Hobbes, they saw it similar.
They thought images and ideas were actually the same thing.
Today, it's being pushed by many best and how our head actually works, but for me, it's very simple: mental images, for most of us, are essential for the inventor and creative thinking.
So, after several years, I finally grew up and I see a lot of great, very empty mental images with high levels and needing to be alystic basis.
Now I work on how I can get these mental images from my head faster on my computer.
Imagine if a filmer was a re-eyed film, just with his imagination, the world would be able to re-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e
Or a musician could bring his music out of his head.
This offers incredible possibilities, like creative people at the speed of light.
I want to show you why I think we're close to this. Here are two recently done experiments from two of the most euthanized groups in neuroscience.
Both of the MRI technology -- functional magnet MRI tomography -- to get the brain scan, and here you see a brain scan of Giorgio Ganis and his colleagues at Harvard.
The left-hander is a person looking at a picture.
The middle-class brain scans the same person who only does to see the picture.
And the right-hand side came from the middle-hand side of the left-handers, and shows that the difference is almost zero.
This was done in many different people, with many different pictures, always with a similar result.
There's no difference between the actual actual picture and the S-Vo, the same image.
Let me show you another experiment that was from Jack Gallant labs at Cal Berkeley.
In this experiment, the people were played hundreds of hours of YouTube videos on YouTube videos while chimpanzees were made by their brains, and so a full data set that showed the reactions of the sequences of the videos.
Then a new film was shown, with new pictures, new people, new animals, and a new scanner was recorded.
The computer, just with the brain scan data, re-engineerated the new brain scans, and showed what he thought that actually was similar to the person.
On the right-hand side, you see the trial of the computer and on the left-hand side of the clip.
There's a language left.
We're so close to that.
We just need to improve resolution.
And don't forget that if you see a picture, and if you imagine seeing the same image, almost exactly the same brain scan comes out.
So this was done with the highest resolution of the brain scans today, and the resolution has really improved for thousands of times in the last few years.
The next thing we need to do is to improve resolutions again, and we need to improve a thousand times more deeply, to get deeper insight.
How do we do that?
There are many different ways of doing this.
One way to break up the skull and to use electrodes.
That's not for me.
It's been given a lot of new engineering techniques, some even me, but in the recent success of MRIs, we have to ask ourselves if we've already come to this technology.
And convention experiences can only increase the resolution with greater magnets, but at that point, more magnets improve the resolution only a thousand times, not as we need.
So I'm going to show you, instead of having a better magnet, we need better magnets.
We can design a lot more complicated structures with easy kinds of interactions, a little bit like a spirograph.
So why is this important?
In the last few years, you've been MRI technology to create huge, big magnets, really massive magnets.
But most of the recent progress in resolution came actually through the great squatter and de-sel-siavanna sequences and defestation and defestation systems.
So we should also add structural magnetic patterns, rather than add a uniform magnetic field to the U.K. sequence.
So thanks to the combination of these magnetic patterns with the UK frequency patterns, we can pull out more information from a single scanner.
In Ben MRI, we should be MRI, not only the flow of a famine blood, but also by hormones and neurotransmitters, as I mentioned, and maybe even directly nerve activity, which is the goal.
We're going to be able to download our ideas directly to the digital media.
Can you imagine putting language and putting it right on human thoughts?
So where would we be able to do that?
And how are we going to learn to deal with the truths of unrethinking human thoughts?
You think the Internet is big.
These are big questions.
It could be incredibly a instrument that could give us our thinking and our communication.
And this instrument could actually lead to the cure of Alzheimer's disease and similar diseases.
We have almost no choice to open up this door.
It's hard to imagine that it's going to take longer.
We need to learn to do this step together.
Thank you.
I think we all make ourselves out.
You can be a matter of being able to tell someone for the first time, that you love them, or somebody to tell you you're pregnant or someone you're pregnant to say you have cancer or one of the other difficult conversations we live in our lives.
The thing that comes out of the conversation is always hard, and although the issues can be very different, the experience of having a secret and a lot of universality.
It's scary, and we hate it, but it needs to be done.
I worked on whales for several years at the South Side, a racial raging in the city, and during my time, I went through militant strength: no race of the axis, song of anachaco, as a basic approaches.
And depending on how "baggy" was my Kargohose, and how short my hair was just thrown out, often the question was thrown out by a little kid: "Are you a boy or a girl?"
And then there's an unabted silence on the table.
I sat down to my teeth a little bit, and my coffee cup was a little bit more oblivious to something more vegetation.
The father sat around his newspaper, and the mother was a cool view of her child.
But I didn't say anything, and I was cookd.
So I was speaking to myself that I would say something next time.
I would have this difficult conversation.
So after a few weeks, it happened again.
"Are you a boy or a girl?"
I've ready my Gloria Steinem Zitate.
I even prepared a little bit of a "The Vagina Monoologist."
So I'm going to go deep, and I'm looking down a four-year-old girl in a pink marrow, not a challenge to a feminist mutilation, just a kid with a question, "Are you a boy or a girl?"
So I'm going to breathe deep down, screaming me next to her and say, "Hey, I know it's a little bit confusing.
My hair is as short as if I'm wearing boys, and I'm wearing boys, but I'm a girl, and you know how you like to a pink mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmming and how you rather than a sucking your comfortable sleep suit?
So, I'm more of the comfortable elephant-like device."
And this child looks directly into my eyes without a blind, and says, "My favorite sleep suit is lila with fish.
Can I have an elephant?
How about an elephant?
That was the most easy conversation I've ever had.
And why? Because the elephants and I were honest with each other.
How many of us, I had some secrets in my life, and, most of us, were that I was gay.
But you don't see the people who are putting the secrets around them.
You only know how it feels to have a secret.
So my secret is not different from yours or yours.
Certainly, I can tell you why my output was harder than yours, but it's actually not quite a bit of a deal.
It's hard.
Who says it's harder to explain someone to be able to learn that when someone is a person, you just sat down?
Who says that his Coming history is harder than if you tell your five-year-old child that you will let yourself be a choice?
There's no harder, there's just a hard one.
We need to stop putting our own trouble with others, just to feel better with our secrets or worse, and instead we should have compassion because we all have severe.
On a particular point in our lives, we all have secrets, and they may give us security, or at least more security than what might happen if we give them a price.
But I'm here to tell you that, independent of what your secret is, you shouldn't wear it.
I wore a horse, a snucking savanna and a gloves.
I wasn't the militant reading that was willing to fight with every four-year-old who came to cafe.
I was sat down in the corner with my dark secret and clap to move my homosexy, and to move a muscle that I had ever done before.
My family, my friends, completely strangers -- I've spent my whole life trying not to defy these people, and now I've been able to think about the world in my head.
I burned the pages of the script that we all followed for so long, but if you don't throw that squid, it will kill you.
One of my most unreconservative feds was at the wedding of my sister.
And after a little bit of a splaude, a woman called "I love Nathan Lane!"
And so the battle started with gay cliffs.
"Ash, did you ever see in Castro?"
"Well, we actually have friends in San Francisco."
"We've never been there, but we heard it should be savanna."
"Ash, do you know my hair Antonio?
He's really good, and he never mentioned a friend."
"Ash, what television shows you most?
Our favorite show? Our favorites: Will and Grace.
And you know who we love? Jack.
Jack is our favorite."
And then a woman, he asked me, but despair her support, and to show me that she was on my side, she ended up being a woman saying, "Well, my husband is sometimes pink colors."
I could go back to my friend and my gay table and make fun of their reactions, and their ingenuity, and their inability to overcome the political correctness of the political Koran that I'd been able to overcome, or I could let myself realize that maybe one of the most difficult things they've ever done, that the beginning and touch of the conversation was a big step for them.
Certainly, it would have been easier to show up on their terms.
It's a lot harder to meet them where they're right now, and the fact that they've been trying to recognize.
And what else can you do from somebody else, except trying to do it?
If you start to be honest with someone, you have to be willing to get honesty back.
Their Their Their conversations are still not my strength.
Ask everybody I've ever gone.
But I'm going to better, and I'm going to show you how I like to call it the three elephant-like eradication.
Look through these rain-scale colored glasses, but with knowing that it's always hard to get his secret to hips.
Number one: Be authentic.
Take the pandemic. Be yourself.
The child in the cafe had no pandemic, but I was a competition.
If you want someone to be honest with you, you have to know that you suffer.
Number two: Be direct. Just tell it. Look at the pathogen.
If you know you're gay, you just say it.
If you tell your parents that you may be gay, these hope will change.
Don't give you the squid of a false hope.
You speak your own truth.
Sorry for that.
And on that way, some people might be injured, certainly, apologize for what you did, but never apologize for what you are.
And yes, some might be disappointed, but that's the problem, not yours.
These are the expectations of who you are, not yours.
That's the story, not yours.
The only story that matters is the one you want to write.
So next time you feel the secret of your secret, and you clap the re-educated, think about how we all know it.
You may feel very alone, but you're not.
We know it's hard, but you don't have to open up, whatever you are, I guarantee you, that there are many other secrets that are wearing their secrets around, looking for the next door to come up with a door, so be a door, and show that the world that we are stronger than our secrets and that a human should be living with secrets.
intelligence -- what is that?
If we look at how intelligence was shifted, then the famous quote from Edsger Dijkstra was a breakthrough, "This question can a machine think, is something as interesting as the question that a submersible can swim."
When Ed'sger Dijkstra wrote this, he wanted to sat down the early pioneers of computer science, like Alan Turing.
But if we look back and think about what the orbitings have able to build the most powerful machines and the flying machines, we see that only understanding of the physical mechanism of the swimming and flying these machines.
So I started to try to understand the fundamental physical mechanism of intelligence a few years ago.
Let's take a step back.
And we start with a thought experiment.
So imagine that we were alien, that we know nothing about irdal biology, neuroscience or intelligence, but fantastic telescopes that we can see with the Earth, and have an amazing long life so that we can see the Earth over millions, even billions of years.
And we see a very strange effect.
Because the Earth is bombarded by thousands of times, continuous from asteroids to a point, and that at the point, about 2,000th, asteroid, the asteroid, the asteroid, who are on collisions that would be squid or explod, before they meet the Earth.
And of course, as a Earth, we know the real reason why we actually save ourselves, we try to save ourselves.
We're trying to avoid a proposal.
But if you were an alien, which is not a white one who has no idea of irrational intelligence, you would be forced to imagine a physical theory of why A asteroids that have destroyed up to a certain point the surface of the planet, which is not going to be a mysterious idea anymore.
I'm saying that this is the same question, as the question of the physical nature of intelligence.
So I started trying to see a few years ago, a lot of different themes, from different scientific areas, which I think is one of the only intelligence mechanisms I've been looking at.
So with all these different areas, I asked myself a few years ago, could there be one of the intelligence mechanisms that we can suck out of all these thoughts?
Is there a single equation for intelligence?
And the answer, I think, is yes. ["F = T"] What you're looking at is probably the best discovery of E = mc2 for intelligence I've seen.
What you see here is a statement that intelligence is a force that is so affecting future action.
It's a way that the future action is being used, or it's open, with a strength that has a lot of possible artificial ability to a future period.
In short, intelligence doesn't like it in a case of brave.
intelligence is trying to maximize future freedom and to keep options open.
Now, with this equation, it's very natural to ask, what can we do with it?
What can they predict?
Do they have human intelligence?
Do they have artificial intelligence?
Now I'm going to show you a video that I think some of the amazing applications of this equation will be shown.
But what if that may be a cosmic connection between entropy and intelligence based on a deeper context?
What if intelligent behavior is not just entropy-based, but actually it's entropy directly evolved?
To find out, we have a engine, [forest part of a computer program called "Entropica," developed to maximize the production of long-term entropy every system that's in.
Interestingly, Entropica had a lot of animals ink-like test played games successful, and even making money with stock, without any kind of instructions.
Here are some examples of Entropica in action.
As a human being is right, without putting in, we see Entropica here, they automatically have a sludge on a car.
This behavior is remarkable because we never gave a goal to theopia.
It just decided to re-semblate the squirt.
This ability to be able to find, for humanoid robots, and for technical tools.
So as some animals use in their environment as tools to go into the spaces, what we see here is that Entropica managed to get it back out of their own initiative, a large failure that gives a small failure to move a tool, a limited space that contains a third failure, and liberate the third failure from their own sphere.
This ability is going to find application in elegant production technologies and agriculture.
And also, just like some animals, by bringing them to both the end of a vision to get to food, we see that duckopia is able to use this in the model.
This cooperation has interesting implications for economic planning and many other areas.
Entropica can be used on a variety of areas.
Here we see them successfully playing a Pong game against itself, which is what their potential in play.
Here we see Entropica in how they re-for-engineer new connections in social networks, where friends are losing their contact, and they get successful on the network.
The same ability to create the Network has applications in medical care, energy and intelligence.
Here we see Entropica, as it's a ship fleet, allowing the Panamakanal to be successful and use to re-esep their range of global from the Atlantic in the Pacific.
For the same reason, Entropica is a very powerful problem in autonomous defense, logistics and transportation.
So finally, we're looking at how Entropica buys a cheap, expensive to sell to a simulated market market, spontaneously, and using that to a violent wealth, which is a bribe exponentially.
This ability to have a more risk-related application in financial and insurance.
Alex Wisner's nerd: We've just seen a variety of clearly human-intellable cognitive behaviors, such as tools and social cooperation, all follow up from one equation that brings a system to maximize its future freedom of freedom.
This leads to a deep irony.
If we go back to the beginning of the word "Roboter," the game "RUR," then there was always the concept that if we developed machine intelligence, there was a ky gypervolt.
The machines would turn against us.
One important result of this work is that maybe for decades, we've seen the concept of ky cyberic syrovolts wrong.
Machines are not going to get intelligent first and then scale up, and try to get the world to eat.
Another important consequence is the goal.
I'm often asked, how do you want to look for the ability to look for goals, for this structure?
So, to conclude, Richard Feynman, famous physicists, once written that if human civilization was destroyed, and only one concept could be given to our neighbor to support the building, it should be this: that all matter around us are sexynman, that if they're far away, but they're close together.
My equivalent equivalent of this statement, after putting a little bit more common to support the building of intelligence, or helping them understand human intelligence, is the following: intelligence should be seen as a physical process that is trying to maximize future freedom and constraints of the future.
Thank you very much.