Første halvdel af det 20. århundrede slog fuldstændig fejl for menneskeheden det var en katastrofe. Vi havde Første Verdenskrig, depressionen i 30'erne, Anden Verdenskrig, og de kommunistiske landes grundlæggelse. Hver og en af de kræfter splittede verden, rev den fra sig selv, delte verden. De skabte mure, politiske mure, handelsmure, transportmure, kommunikationsmure, jerntæpper, som adskilte mennesker og nationer.
The first half of the 20th century was an absolute disaster in human affairs, a cataclysm. We had the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War and the rise of the communist nations. And each one of these forces split the world, tore the world apart, divided the world. And they threw up walls -- political walls, trade walls, transportation walls, communication walls, iron curtains -- which divided peoples and nations.
Først i anden halvdel af det 20. århundrede, begyndte vi langsomt at skubbe os væk fra afgrundens rand. Toldmurene begyndte at vælte. Her er nogle fakta om told: Startende på 40 procent, til nu mindre end 5 procent. Vi globaliserede verden. Og hvad betyder det? Det betyder, at vi udvidede samarbejdet henover nationale grænser. Vi gjorde verden mere samarbejdende. Transport forhindringerne forsvandt. I 1950 fragtede et typisk skib mellem 5.000 og 10.000 ton varer. I dag fragter et containerskib 150.000 ton. Det har brug for en mindre besætning, og losses hurtigere end nogensinde. Hindringer for kommunikation, som internettet er væltet omkuld. Og selvfølgelig Jerntæppet, politiske mure er væltet.
It was only in the second half of the 20th century that we slowly began to pull ourselves out of this abyss. Trade walls began to come tumbling down. Here are some data on tariffs: starting at 40 percent, coming down to less than 5 percent. We globalized the world. And what does that mean? It means that we extended cooperation across national boundaries; we made the world more cooperative. Transportation walls came tumbling down. You know in 1950 the typical ship carried 5,000 to 10,000 tons worth of goods. Today a container ship can carry 150,000 tons; it can be manned with a smaller crew; and unloaded faster than ever before. Communication walls, I don't have to tell you -- the Internet -- have come tumbling down. And of course the iron curtains, political walls have come tumbling down.
Alt dette har været fantastisk for verden. Handlen er øget. Her er bare en smule data. I 1990 var eksporten fra Kina til USA 15 milliarder dollar. I 2007: mere end 300 milliarder dollar. Og måske mest bemærkelsesværdigt, i starten af det 21. århundrede, for første gang i moderne tid, oplevede næsten hele kloden vækst. Kina, som jeg allerede nævnte, startende i 1978, i tiden hvor Mao døde, vækst - 10 procent om året. År efter år efter år. Helt fantastisk. Aldrig før i menneskets historie, er så mange mennesker løftet ud af så stor fattigdom som det er sket i Kina. Kina er verdens største anti-fattigdomsprogram i de sidste 30 år. Indien, begyndte en smule senere, men fik enorm vækst i 1990. Indkomsten på det tidspunkt mindre end 1000$ om året. Og over de næste 18 år er det tal næsten tredoblet. En vækst på 6 procent om året. Absolut fantastisk. Nu har Afrika, Afrika syd for Sahara - Afrika syd for Sahara har været det område i verden med størst modstand overfor vækst. Og vi kan se Afrikas tragedie i de første søjler her. Væksten var negativ. Folk blev faktisk fattigere end deres forældre, og nogen gange endda fattigere end deres bedsteforældre havde været. Men i slutningen af det 20. århundrede, starten af det 21. århundrede, så vi en vækst i Afrika. Og jeg mener, som I kan se, at der er grund til optimisme, fordi jeg mener at det bedste stadig venter. Men hvorfor.
Now all of this has been tremendous for the world. Trade has increased. Here is just a little bit of data. In 1990, exports from China to the United States: 15 billion dollars. By 2007: over 300 billion dollars. And perhaps most remarkably, at the beginning of the 21st century, really for the first time in modern history, growth extended to almost all parts of the world. So China, I've already mentioned, beginning around 1978, around the time of the death of Mao, growth -- ten percent a year. Year after year after year, absolutely incredible. Never before in human history have so many people been raised out of such great poverty as happened in China. China is the world's greatest anti-poverty program over the last three decades. India, starting a little bit later, but in 1990, begetting tremendous growth. Incomes at that time less than $1,000 per year. And over the next 18 years have almost tripled. Growth of six percent a year. Absolutely incredible. Now Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa -- Sub-Saharan Africa has been the area of the world most resistant to growth. And we can see the tragedy of Africa in the first few bars here. Growth was negative. People were actually getting poorer than their parents, and sometimes even poorer than their grandparents had been. But at the end of the 20th century, the beginning of the 21st century, we saw growth in Africa. And I think, as you'll see, there's reasons for optimism, because I believe that the best is yet to come. Now why.
På forkanten i dag er det nye ideer der driver væksten. Og med det mener jeg at det er produkter med en høj pris for forskning og udvikling, og hvor prisen for produktion er lav. Endnu mere nu end før er det denne type ideer der driver væksten på den forreste kant. Ideer har denne fantastiske evne. Thomas Jefferson, syntes jeg, sagde det rigtig godt. Han sagde, "Ham der modtager en idé fra mig modtager selv instruktion, uden at svække min. Som ham der tænder sit lys ved mit modtager lys uden at svække lyset fra mit." Eller for at sige det på en anden måde: Et æble kan bespise en mand, men en idé kan bespise verden. Det er ikke en nyhed. Det er især ikke en nyhed for TEDstere. Det er praktisk taget modellen for TED. Men hvad der er nyt er at den større funktion af ideer kommer til at drive væksten endnu mere end før. Det giver en grund til at handel og globalisering er vigtigere, mere magtfulde, end nogensinde før, og kommer til at øge væksten mere end nogensinde før.
On the cutting edge today it's new ideas which are driving growth. And by that I mean it's products for which the research and development costs are really high, and the manufacturing costs are low. More than ever before it is these types of ideas which are driving growth on the cutting edge. Now ideas have this amazing property. Thomas Jefferson, I think, really expressed this quite well. He said, "He who receives an idea from me receives instruction himself, without lessening mine. As he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening me." Or to put it slightly differently: one apple feeds one man, but an idea can feed the world. Now this is not new. This is practically not new to TEDsters. This is practically the model of TED. But what is new is that the greater function of ideas is going to drive growth even more than ever before. This provides a reason why trade and globalization are even more important, more powerful than ever before, and are going to increase growth more than ever before.
Og for at forklare hvorfor det er sådan, har jeg et spørgsmål. Forestil jer at der er to sygdomme: en af dem er sjælden, den anden almindelig, men hvis de ikke bliver behandlet er de lige alvorlige. Hvis du skulle vælge, hvilken ville du så helst have: Den almindelige sygdom eller den sjældne? Almindelig, den almindelige - Jeg tror det er helt rigtigt, og hvorfor? Fordi der er mere medicin mod almindelige sygdomme end der er mod sjældne sygdomme. Årsagen er at der er mere incitament. Det koster cirka det samme at udvikle ny medicin uanset om medicinen behandler 1.000 mennesker, 100.000 mennesker, eller en million mennesker. Men omsætningen er meget større hvis medicinen behandler en million mennesker. Så incitamentet er meget større for at udvikle medicin der kan behandle flere mennesker. For at sige det på en anden måde: Større målgruppe redder liv. Der er ikke noget der er så skidt at det ikke er godt for noget.
And to explain why this is so, I have a question. Suppose that there are two diseases: one of them is rare, the other one is common, but if they are not treated they are equally severe. If you had to choose, which would you rather have: the common disease or the rare disease? Common, the common -- I think that's absolutely right, and why? Because there are more drugs to treat common diseases than there are to treat rare diseases. The reason for this is incentives. It costs about the same to produce a new drug whether that drug treats 1,000 people, 100,000 people, or a million people. But the revenues are much greater if the drug treats a million people. So the incentives are much larger to produce drugs which treat more people. To put this differently: larger markets save lives. In this case misery truly does love company.
Tænk nu på følgende: Hvis Kina og Indien var lige så rige som USA er i dag, så ville markedet for kræftmedicin være otte gange større end det er nu. Vi er der ikke endnu, men det kommer til at ske. Som andre lande bliver rigere kommer efterspørgslen efter disse medikamenter til at stige voldsomt. Og det betyder et øget incitament for forskning og udvikling, som kommer alle på jorden til gode. Et større marked øger incitamentet for at producere alle typer af ideer, uanset om det er software, om det er en computer chip, om det er nyt design. For dem blandt publikum der kommer fra Hollywood, det her forklarer endda hvorfor actionfilm har et større budget end komedier: det er fordi actionfilm når bredere ud ud i andre sprog og andre kulturer, så markedet for de film er større. Folk er villige til at investere mere, og budgettet er større.
Now think about the following: if China and India were as rich as the United States is today, the market for cancer drugs would be eight times larger than it is now. Now we are not there yet, but it is happening. As other countries become richer the demand for these pharmaceuticals is going to increase tremendously. And that means an increase incentive to do research and development, which benefits everyone in the world. Larger markets increase the incentive to produce all kinds of ideas, whether it's software, whether it's a computer chip, whether it's a new design. For the Hollywood people in the audience, this even explains why action movies have larger budgets than comedies: it's because action movies translate easier into other languages and other cultures, so the market for those movies is larger. People are willing to invest more, and the budgets are larger.
Okay. Hvis et større marked øger incitamentet for at producere nye ideer, hvordan kan vi så maksimere incitamentet? Det gør vi ved at have et verdens marked, ved at globalisere verden. Jeg vil gerne sige det sådan: En ide. Det er meningen at ideer skal deles, så en ide kan gavne en verden, et marked. En ide, En verden, Et marked. Hvordan kan vi ellers skabe nye ideer? Det er en grund. Global handel. Hvordan kan vi ellers skabe nye ideer? Flere ideskabere. Ideskabere, de kommer fra alle steder i livet. Kunstnere og nyskabere - mange af de mennesker I har set her på scenen. Jeg vil fokusere på forskere og ingeniører fordi jeg har noget data på dem og jeg er en data person.
Alright. Well if larger markets increase the incentive to produce new ideas, how do we maximize that incentive? It's by having one world market, by globalizing the world. The way I like to put this is: one idea. Ideas are meant to be shared, so one idea can serve one world, one market. One idea, one world, one market. Well how else can we create new ideas? That's one reason. Globalize trade. How else can we create new ideas? Well, more idea creators. Now idea creators, they come from all walks of life. Artists and innovators -- many of the people you've seen on this stage. I'm going to focus on scientists and engineers because I have some data on that, and I'm a data person.
Nu, i dag, er mindre end én tiendedel af én procent af verdens befolkning forskere og ingeniører. [Latter] USA har været førende inden for ideer. En stor andel af disse mennesker er i USA. Men USA er ved at miste sin førerposition. Og det er jeg meget taknemmelig for. Det er en god ting. Det er heldigt at vi er ved at blive overhalet fordi i alt for langt tid har USA, og en håndfuld andre industrialiserede lande, båret hele byrden af forskning og udviklingen. Men tænk over det følgende: hvis verden som et hele var lige så rig som USA er nu så ville der være fem gange så mange forskere og ingeniører der bedrog med ideer til fordel for alle, ideer der kunne deles af alle. Jeg tænker på den store Indiske matematiker, Ramanujan. Hvor mange som Ramanujan er der i Indien i dag Slider i markerne, dårligt i stand til at brødføde sig selv, Når de kunne brødføde hele verden? Vi er der ikke endnu. Men det kommer til at ske i det her århundrede. Den sande tragedie i sidste århundrede er dette: hvis du tænker på verdens befolkning som en kæmpe computer, en enorm parallel processor, så har den stor tragedie været at milliarder af vores processorer har været off-line. Men i det her århundrede kommer Kina on-line. Indien kommer on-line. Afrika kommer on-line. Vi vil se en Einstein i Afrika i det her århundrede.
Now, today, less than one-tenth of one percent of the world's population are scientists and engineers. (Laughter) The United States has been an idea leader. A large fraction of those people are in the United States. But the U.S. is losing its idea leadership. And for that I am very grateful. That is a good thing. It is fortunate that we are becoming less of an idea leader because for too long the United States, and a handful of other developed countries, have shouldered the entire burden of research and development. But consider the following: if the world as a whole were as wealthy as the United States is now there would be more than five times as many scientists and engineers contributing to ideas which benefit everyone, which are shared by everyone. I think of the great Indian mathematician, Ramanujan. How many Ramanujans are there in India today toiling in the fields, barely able to feed themselves, when they could be feeding the world? Now we're not there yet. But it is going to happen in this century. The real tragedy of the last century is this: if you think about the world's population as a giant computer, a massively parallel processor, then the great tragedy has been that billions of our processors have been off line. But in this century China is coming on line. India is coming on line. Africa is coming on line. We will see an Einstein in Africa in this century.
Her er bare nogle tal. Det her er Kina. 1996: Mindre end en million nye studerende på universitetet i Kina om året; 2006 mere end 5 millioner. Tænk nu på hvad det betyder. Det betyder at vi alle får gavn af at et andet land bliver rigere. Vi bør ikke frygte at andre lande bliver rigere. Det er noget vi skal tage i mod med åbne arme et rigt Kina, et rigt Indien, et rigt Afrika. Vi har brug for en større efterspørgsel på ideer de større markeder jeg talte om tidligere - og et større udbud af ideer til verden. Nu kan i se nogle af grundene til at jeg er optimistisk. Globaliseringen øger efterspørgslen på ideer, incitamentet til at skabe nye ideer. Investering i uddannelse skaber et behov for nye ideer.
Here is just some data. This is China. 1996: less than one million new university students in China per year; 2006: over five million. Now think what this means. This means we all benefit when another country gets rich. We should not fear other countries becoming wealthy. That is something that we should embrace -- a wealthy China, a wealthy India, a wealthy Africa. We need a greater demand for ideas -- those larger markets I was talking about earlier -- and a greater supply of ideas for the world. Now you can see some of the reasons why I'm optimistic. Globalization is increasing the demand for ideas, the incentive to create new ideas. Investments in education are increasing the supply of new ideas.
Faktum er at hvis i kigger på verdens historie kan i se nogle af grundene til optimisme. Fra starten af menneskeheden til 1500: Ingen økonomisk vækst, ingenting. 1500 til 1800: Måske en lille økonomisk vækst, men mindre på et århundrede end man ville forvente på et år i dag. 1900'erne: Måske en procent. 21. århundrede: lidt over to procent. 21. århundrede kan let blive 3,3 procent måske endda mere. Selv med den hastighed, inden 2100 vil den gennemsnitlige BNP pr. indbygger i verden være 200.000$. Det er ikke USA's BNP pr indbygger, det vil være mere end 1 million, men verdens BNP pr. indbygger - 200.000$. Der er ikke ret langt. Vi vil ikke klare det. Men nogen af vores børnebørn vil sikkert. Og jeg må sige, jeg mener det er en ret beskeden forudsigelse. Med Kurzweilian's ord så er det dystert. Med Kurzweilian's ord er jeg ligesom Æseldyret med økonomisk vækst. [latter]
In fact if you look at world history you can see some reasons for optimism. From about the beginnings of humanity to 1500: zero economic growth, nothing. 1500 to 1800: maybe a little bit of economic growth, but less in a century than you expect to see in a year today. 1900s: maybe one percent. Twentieth century: a little bit over two percent. Twenty-first century could easily be 3.3, even higher percent. Even at that rate, by 2100 average GDP per capita in the world will be $200,000. That's not U.S. GDP per capita, which will be over a million, but world GDP per capita -- $200,000. That's not that far. We won't make it. But some of our grandchildren probably will. And I should say, I think this is a rather modest prediction. In Kurzweilian terms this is gloomy. In Kurzweilian terms I'm like the Eeyore of economic growth. (Laughter)
Okay, hvad med problemerne? Hvad med en stor krise? Lad os se på det. Lad os se på 30'ernes store krise. Her er BNP pr. indbygger fra 1900 til 1929. Lad os nu forestille os at du var økonom i 1929, der forsøger at forudse væksten i USA, du ved ikke at økonomien snart tager et stort dyk, Du ved ikke at der venter den største økonomiske katastrofe i det 20. århundrede. Hvad ville du have forudset, hvis du ikke vidste alt det? Hvis du havde baseret din forudsigelse på 1900 til 1929 du havde forudset noget lignende det her. Hvis du havde været lidt mere optimistisk - lad os sige, baseret på de svingende 20'ere - Så havde du sagt det her. Så hvad var det der i virkeligheden skete? Vi tog et gevaldigt styrtdyk men vi kom tilbage. I virkeligheden var anden halvdel af det 20. århundrede ramme for en større vækst end du ville have forudset baseret på den første halvdel af det 20. århundrede. Så væksten kan overstråle selv hvad der virker som en stor krise.
Alright what about problems? What about a great depression? Well let's take a look. Let's take a look at the Great Depression. Here is GDP per capita from 1900 to 1929. Now let's imagine that you were an economist in 1929, trying to forecast future growth for the United States, not knowing that the economy was about to go off a cliff, not knowing that we were about to enter the greatest economic disaster certainly in the 20th century. What would you have predicted, not knowing this? If you had based your prediction, your forecast on 1900 to 1929 you'd have predicted something like this. If you'd been a little more optimistic -- say, based upon the Roaring Twenties -- you'd have said this. So what actually happened? We went off a cliff but we recovered. In fact in the second half of the 20th century growth was even higher than anything you would have predicted based upon the first half of the 20th century. So growth can wash away even what appears to be a great depression.
Okay. Hvad ellers? Olie. Olie. Det var det helt store emne. Da jeg skrev mine noter var prisen på olie 140$ pr. tønde. Så folk stillede et spørgsmål. De sagde, "Drikker Kina vores milkshake?" [latter] Og der er et gram af sandhed i det, i den forstand at vi har en begrænset ressource, og en øget vækst presser efterspørgslen op. Men jeg tror ikke at jeg behøver fortælle det her publikum at en højere pris på olie ikke nødvendigvis er en dårlig ting. Ydermere, som vi alle ved, så er det energi, ikke olie, der tæller. Og en højere olie pris betyder et højere incitament til at investere i udvikling af energi. I kan se det i tallene. Som prisen på olie stiger, stiger antallet af energi patenter. Verden er meget bedre udrustet til at overkomme en stigning i prisen på olie i dag, end nogensinde før, på grund af det jeg taler om. En ide, En verden, Et marked.
Alright. What else? Oil. Oil. This was a big topic. When I was writing up my notes oil was $140 per barrel. So people were asking a question. They were saying, "Is China drinking our milkshake?" (Laughter) And there is some truth to this, in the sense that we have something of a finite resource, and increased growth is going to push up demand for that. But I think I don't have to tell this audience that a higher price of oil is not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover, as everyone knows, look -- it's energy, not oil, which counts. And higher oil prices mean a greater incentive to invest in energy R&D. You can see this in the data. As oil prices go up, energy patents go up. The world is much better equipped to overcome an increase in the price of oil today, than ever in the past, because of what I'm talking about. One idea, one world, one market.
Så jeg er optimistisk Så længe vi holder fast i disse to ideer: at blive ved med at globalisere verdensmarkedet, fortsat udvide samarbejdet på tværs af nationale grænser, og fortsat investere i uddannelse. USA har især en vigtig rolle at spille i det her: at holde vores uddannelsessystem globaliseret, at holde vores uddannelsessystem åbent for studenter fra hele verden. fordi vores uddannelsessystem er lyset som andre studenter kommer for at tænde deres ved. Husk nu hvad Jefferson sagde. Jefferson sagde, "Når de kommer og tænder deres lys ved vores, opnår de lys, og vores formørkes ikke." Men Jefferson havde ikke helt ret, havde han? Fordi sandheden er, når de tænder deres lys ved vores, er der dobbelt så meget lys tilgængeligt for alle. Så min holdning er: Vær optimistisk. Spred ideerne. Spred lyset. Tak. [Bifald]
So I'm optimistic so long as we hew to these two ideas: to keep globalizing world markets, keep extending cooperation across national boundaries, and keep investing in education. Now the United States has a particularly important role to play in this: to keep our education system globalized, to keep our education system open to students from all over the world, because our education system is the candle that other students come to light their own candles. Now remember here what Jefferson said. Jefferson said, "When they come and light their candles at ours, they gain light, and we are not darkened." But Jefferson wasn't quite right, was he? Because the truth is, when they light their candles at ours, there is twice as much light available for everyone. So my view is: Be optimistic. Spread the ideas. Spread the light. Thank you. (Applause)