Cities are the crucible of civilization. They have been expanding, urbanization has been expanding, at an exponential rate in the last 200 years so that by the second part of this century, the planet will be completely dominated by cities. Cities are the origins of global warming, impact on the environment, health, pollution, disease, finance, economies, energy -- they're all problems that are confronted by having cities. That's where all these problems come from. And the tsunami of problems that we feel we're facing in terms of sustainability questions are actually a reflection of the exponential increase in urbanization across the planet.
Qytetet jane djepe te qyteterimit. Ata jane zgjeruar vazhdimisht, urbanizimi eshte ne zgjerim e siper, me nje ritem eksponencial ne 200 vitet e fundit, ne nje menyre te atille qe ne gjysmen e dyte te ketij shekulli planeti do te dominohet teresisht nga qytetet. Qytetet jane origjine e nxehjes globale kane ndikim ne mjedis shendet, ndotje, semundje, finance ekonomi, energjitike -- keto jane te gjithe probleme me te cilat na perball prezenca e qyteteve. Ata jane origjina e te gjithe ketyre problemeve. Dhe kjo stuhi problemesh me te cilat po perballemi ne lidhje me ceshtjet e qendrueshmerise, jane ne fakt reflektim i rritjes eksponenciale te urbanizimit ne te gjithe planetin.
Here's some numbers. Two hundred years ago, the United States was less than a few percent urbanized. It's now more than 82 percent. The planet has crossed the halfway mark a few years ago. China's building 300 new cities in the next 20 years. Now listen to this: Every week for the foreseeable future, until 2050, every week more than a million people are being added to our cities. This is going to affect everything. Everybody in this room, if you stay alive, is going to be affected by what's happening in cities in this extraordinary phenomenon. However, cities, despite having this negative aspect to them, are also the solution. Because cities are the vacuum cleaners and the magnets that have sucked up creative people, creating ideas, innovation, wealth and so on. So we have this kind of dual nature. And so there's an urgent need for a scientific theory of cities.
Ja disa shifra. 200 vite me pare, Shtetet e Bashkuara ishin ne nje nivel perqindjeje shume te ulet urbanizimi. Tani eshte me shume se 82 perqind. Planeti e ka kaluar nivelin e gjysmes disa vite me pare. Kina do te ndertoje 300 qytete te reja ne 20 vitet e ardhshme. Tani degjoni kete: Cdo jave ne te ardhmen e afert, deri ne vitin 2050, cdo jave me shume se nje milion njerez po levizin drejt qyteteve tona. Kjo do te ndikoje gjithcka. Secili prej jush ne kete dhome, nese do te jete gjalle, do te ndikohet nga ajo cka po ndodh ne qytete ne kete fenomen te jashtezakonshem. Sidoqofte, qytetet, pavaresisht se mbartin kete aspekt negativ ne vete, jane po ashtu dhe zgjidhja. Pikerisht sepse qytetet jane makina thithese dhe magnete qe kane terhequr fuqishem njerezit krijues, duke krijuar ide, zbulime te reja, pasuri e keshtu me rradhe. Pra, ka nje natyre disi te dyfishte. Andaj, ka nje nevoje urgjente per nje teori shkencore te qyteteve.
Now these are my comrades in arms. This work has been done with an extraordinary group of people, and they've done all the work, and I'm the great bullshitter that tries to bring it all together.
Tani keta jane bashkeudhetaret e mi ne kete kerkim. Kjo pune (kerkimore) eshte bere nga nje grup i jashtezakonshem njerezish, dhe ne fakt ata kane bere te gjithe punen, dhe une jam vetem ai llafazani i madh qe po mundohet ta bashkoje te gjithe kete pune.
(Laughter)
(Te qeshura)
So here's the problem: This is what we all want. The 10 billion people on the planet in 2050 want to live in places like this, having things like this, doing things like this, with economies that are growing like this, not realizing that entropy produces things like this, this, this and this. And the question is: Is that what Edinburgh and London and New York are going to look like in 2050, or is it going to be this? That's the question. I must say, many of the indicators look like this is what it's going to look like, but let's talk about it.
Ja pra ku eshte problemi: Kjo eshte ajo cka te gjithe ne duam. Te 10 miliarde njerezit ne kete planet ne 2050 do te duan te jetojne ne vende te tilla, te kene gjera te tilla, te bejne gjera te tilla, me ekonomi qe po rriten ne te ketille menyre, pa e kuptuar se entropia (rremuja) prodhon gjera si kjo kjo, kjo dhe kjo. Dhe ceshtja eshte: A eshte kjo menyra se si Edinburgu, Londra dhe New Yorku do te duken ne 2050, apo eshte kjo tjetra? Kjo eshte ceshtja. Me duhet ta pranoj, shumica e treguesve sugjerojne se kjo eshte sesi do te duket por le te flasim ne lidhje me kete.
So my provocative statement is that we desperately need a serious scientific theory of cities. And scientific theory means quantifiable -- relying on underlying generic principles that can be made into a predictive framework. That's the quest. Is that conceivable? Are there universal laws? So here's two questions that I have in my head when I think about this problem. The first is: Are cities part of biology? Is London a great big whale? Is Edinburgh a horse? Is Microsoft a great big anthill? What do we learn from that? We use them metaphorically -- the DNA of a company, the metabolism of a city, and so on -- is that just bullshit, metaphorical bullshit, or is there serious substance to it? And if that is the case, how come that it's very hard to kill a city? You could drop an atom bomb on a city, and 30 years later it's surviving. Very few cities fail. All companies die, all companies. And if you have a serious theory, you should be able to predict when Google is going to go bust.
Qendrimi im provokativ eshte se ne na nevojitet deshperimisht nje teori shkencore serioze e qyteteteve. Dhe nje teori shkencore do te thote te jete e matshme -- qe ngrihet mbi parime baze te pergjithshme te cilat mund te bashkohen ne nje skelet mendimi me fuqi parashikuese. Kjo eshte pra sfida. A eshte e mundshme? A ekzistojne ligje universale? Ja ku jane dy pyetje qe me qendrojne ne koke ndersa mendoj per kete problem. E para eshte: A jane qytetet pjese e biologjise? A eshte Londra nje balene e madhe? A eshte Edinburgu nje kale? A eshte Microsoft nje koloni e madhe milingonash? Cfare mesimesh nxjerrim nga keto? I perdorim metaforikisht -- ADN-ja e nje kompanie, metabolizmi i nje qyteti, e keshtu me rradhe -- a jane keto vetem pallavra, pallavra metaforike, apo ka substance serioze brenda tyre? E nese eshte kjo e dyta, atehere si ka mundesi qe eshte kaq e veshtire te vrasesh nje qytet? Mund ta hedhesh nje bombe atomike ne nje qytet, dhe pas 30 vitesh, ai ende mbijeton. Shume pak qytete deshtojne te mbijetojne. Te gjitha kompanite vdesin, te gjitha. Nese ke nje teori serioze, duhet te jesh ne gjendje te parashikosh se kur do te zhduket Google.
So is that just another version of this? Well we understand this very well. That is, you ask any generic question about this -- how many trees of a given size, how many branches of a given size does a tree have, how many leaves, what is the energy flowing through each branch, what is the size of the canopy, what is its growth, what is its mortality? We have a mathematical framework based on generic universal principles that can answer those questions. And the idea is can we do the same for this? So the route in is recognizing one of the most extraordinary things about life, is that it is scalable, it works over an extraordinary range. This is just a tiny range actually: It's us mammals; we're one of these. The same principles, the same dynamics, the same organization is at work in all of these, including us, and it can scale over a range of 100 million in size. And that is one of the main reasons life is so resilient and robust -- scalability. We're going to discuss that in a moment more.
Pra, a eshte kjo vetem nje version tjeter i kesaj? Ne e kuptojme kete shume mire. Qe domethene, ne mund te pyesim cdo lloj pyetjeje te pergjithshme ne lidhje me kete -- sa peme te nje madhesie te caktuar, sa dege te nje madhesie te caktuar ka nje peme, sa gjethe, sa energji kalon permes seciles dege, sa e madhe eshte mbulesa gjethore, si rritet, cfare do te thote te vdese? Ne kemi nje konceptim matematikor te bazuar mbi parime universale te vetemjaftueshme per t'i dhene pergjigje ketyre pyetjeve. Dhe ideja eshte: a mund te bejme te njejten dhe per kete? Rruga drejt kesaj eshte te kuptoje nje nga gjerat me te jashtezakonshme mbi jeten, qe eshte qe ajo (jeta) eshte e shkallezueshme, shtrihet pergjate nje game te jashtezakonshme. Kjo eshte ne fakt vetem nje fragment i vogel; jemi ne gjitaret, ne jemi nje nga keta. Te njejtat parime, e njejta dinamike, i njejti organizim funksionon per te gjithe keta, perfshire edhe ne, dhe mund te shkallezohet ne permasa te nje rendi me 100 milione. Dhe kjo eshte nje nga arsyet kryesore pse jeta eshte kaq e forte dhe e durueshme -- shkallezueshmeria. Do ta diskutojme kete edhe per pak.
But you know, at a local level, you scale; everybody in this room is scaled. That's called growth. Here's how you grew. Rat, that's a rat -- could have been you. We're all pretty much the same. And you see, you're very familiar with this. You grow very quickly and then you stop. And that line there is a prediction from the same theory, based on the same principles, that describes that forest. And here it is for the growth of a rat, and those points on there are data points. This is just the weight versus the age. And you see, it stops growing. Very, very good for biology -- also one of the reasons for its great resilience. Very, very bad for economies and companies and cities in our present paradigm. This is what we believe. This is what our whole economy is thrusting upon us, particularly illustrated in that left-hand corner: hockey sticks. This is a bunch of software companies -- and what it is is their revenue versus their age -- all zooming away, and everybody making millions and billions of dollars.
Por e dini, ne nje nivel lokal, ti shkallezohesh, cdokush ne kete dhome shkallezohet. Kjo quhet rritje. Ja sesi ti rritesh. Mi, ky eshte nje mi -- por mund te kishte qene dhe grafiku juaj. Ne jemi te gjithe pak a shume njesoj. Dhe ja e shihni, ju te gjithe e njihni kete. Rriteni shume shpejt dhe me pas ndaloni se rrituri. Dhe ajo vija aty eshte nje parashikim nga e njejta teori, e bazuar mbi te njejtat principe qe pershkruajne dhe ate pyll. Dhe kjo ketu eshte per rritjen e nje miu. Dhe ato pikat aty jane ne fakt te dhena te mbledhura. Kjo eshte vetem pesha perkundrejt moshes. Dhe e shihni qe ndalon se rrituri. Shume, shume e mire per biologjine -- po ashtu dhe nje nga arsyet per qendrueshmerine e saj te madhe. Shume, shume e keqe per ekonomite dhe kompanite dhe qytetet ne paradigmen ekzistuese. Kjo eshte ajo cka ne besojme. Kjo eshte ajo cka e gjithe ekonomia jone po na fut ne koke, e ilustruar vecanerisht ne ate cepin e majte: shkopa hokej. Ky eshte grafiku i nje sere kompanish softueresh -- dhe ajo cka tregon jane te ardhurat perkundrejt moshes se tyre -- te gjitha duke u rritur me shpejtesi, dhe cdokush qe po ben miliona e miliarda dollare.
Okay, so how do we understand this? So let's first talk about biology. This is explicitly showing you how things scale, and this is a truly remarkable graph. What is plotted here is metabolic rate -- how much energy you need per day to stay alive -- versus your weight, your mass, for all of us bunch of organisms. And it's plotted in this funny way by going up by factors of 10, otherwise you couldn't get everything on the graph. And what you see if you plot it in this slightly curious way is that everybody lies on the same line. Despite the fact that this is the most complex and diverse system in the universe, there's an extraordinary simplicity being expressed by this. It's particularly astonishing because each one of these organisms, each subsystem, each cell type, each gene, has evolved in its own unique environmental niche with its own unique history. And yet, despite all of that Darwinian evolution and natural selection, they've been constrained to lie on a line.
Ok, pra si ta kuptojme kete? Le te flasim fillimisht per biologjine. Kjo ju tregon qartazi se si gjerat shkallezohen. Dhe ky eshte nje grafik vertet mbreselenes. Ketu paraqitet ritmi metabolik -- sa energji ju nevojitet cdo dite per te qendruar gjalle -- perkundrejt peshes, mases suaj trupore per nje sere organizmash. Dhe eshte i skicuar ne nje menyre zbavitese duke u rritur me shumefishe te 10-es, perndryshe nuk do mundnim te permblidhnim gjithcka ne te njejtin grafik. Dhe ajo cka shohim kur e skicojme ne kete forme disi kureshtare, eshte qe gjithcka ndodhet ne te njejten vije. Pavaresisht faktit se ky eshte sistemi me kompleks e me i shumellojshem ne univers, ka nje thjeshtesi te jashtezakonshme qe shprehet permes kesaj. Eshte vecanerisht e habitshme sepse secili prej ketyre organizmave, secili nensistem, cdo lloj qelizeje, cdo gjen, ka evoluar ne mjedisin e tij unik me historine e vet unike. Dhe prape se prape, pavaresisht krejt atij evolucioni Darvinian dhe perzgjedhjeje natyrore, ato jane detyruar te gjenden ne te njejten vije.
Something else is going on. Before I talk about that, I've written down at the bottom there the slope of this curve, this straight line. It's three-quarters, roughly, which is less than one -- and we call that sublinear. And here's the point of that. It says that, if it were linear, the steepest slope, then doubling the size you would require double the amount of energy. But it's sublinear, and what that translates into is that, if you double the size of the organism, you actually only need 75 percent more energy. So a wonderful thing about all of biology is that it expresses an extraordinary economy of scale. The bigger you are systematically, according to very well-defined rules, less energy per capita. Now any physiological variable you can think of, any life history event you can think of, if you plot it this way, looks like this. There is an extraordinary regularity. So you tell me the size of a mammal, I can tell you at the 90 percent level everything about it in terms of its physiology, life history, etc.
Dicka tjeter po ndodh ketu. Perpara se te flas per te, aty ne pjesen e poshtme te ekranit kam shkruar pjerresine (gradientin) e asaj vije te drejte. Eshte tre te katertat, pak a shume, qe eshte me pak se nje -- dhe e quajme nenlineare. Dhe ideja eshte ketu: Ajo tregon se, po te ishte lineare, me pjerresine me te madhe (gradient 1), atehere dyfishimi i madhesise kerkon dyfishimin e sasise se energjise. Por eshte nenlineare, dhe kjo perkthehet ne kete menyre, qe nese ju dyfishoni madhesine e organizmit, ne fakt ju duhet vetem 75 perqind me shume energji. Pra nje gje e mrekullueshme ne te gjithe biologjine eshte se ne te vihet re nje "ekonomi e shkallezimit" e jashtezakonshme. Sa me i madh qe je sistematikisht, sipas rregullave te mirepercaktuara, aq me pak energji per fryme. Tani, cdo variabel fiziologjik qe mund t'ju vije ne mend, cdo ngjarje historike e jetes qe mund t'ju vije ne mend, nese e skiconi ne te ketille menyre, do te duket keshtu. Ka nje rregullsi te jashtezakonshme. Pra, nese me tregon madhesine e nje gjitari, mund te te tregoj rreth 90% te gjithckaje ne lidhje me te ne lidhje me fiziologjine e tij, historine jetesore, etj.
And the reason for this is because of networks. All of life is controlled by networks -- from the intracellular through the multicellular through the ecosystem level. And you're very familiar with these networks. That's a little thing that lives inside an elephant. And here's the summary of what I'm saying. If you take those networks, this idea of networks, and you apply universal principles, mathematizable, universal principles, all of these scalings and all of these constraints follow, including the description of the forest, the description of your circulatory system, the description within cells. One of the things I did not stress in that introduction was that, systematically, the pace of life decreases as you get bigger. Heart rates are slower; you live longer; diffusion of oxygen and resources across membranes is slower, etc.
Dhe arsyeja per kete jane rrjetet. E gjithe jeta eshte e kontrolluar permes rrjetesh -- nga nderqelizorja tek shumeqelizorja e deri tek niveli i ekosistemit. Dhe ju ne fakt jeni te njohur me keto rrjete. Kjo eshte nje gje e vogel qe jeton brenda nje elefanti. Dhe kjo eshte permbledhja e atyre qe po them. Nese i merrni keto rrjete, kete ide te rrjeteve, dhe zbatoni parime universale parime universale, te reduktueshme ne forme matematikore, te gjitha keto shkallezime dhe te gjitha keto rregullsi rrjedhin prej tyre, duke perfshire pershkrimi e pyllit, pershkrimin e sistemit tuaj qelizor, pershkrimin brenda qelizave. Nje nga gjerat te cilen s'e theksova ne ate hyrje ishte qe, sistematikisht, ritmi i jetes bie ndersa ju beheni me te medhenj. Te rrahurat e zemres jane me te ngadalshme; ju jetoni me gjate; shperberja e oksigjenit dhe e lendeve permes membranave eshte me e ngadalshme etj.
The question is: Is any of this true for cities and companies? So is London a scaled up Birmingham, which is a scaled up Brighton, etc., etc.? Is New York a scaled up San Francisco, which is a scaled up Santa Fe? Don't know. We will discuss that. But they are networks, and the most important network of cities is you. Cities are just a physical manifestation of your interactions, our interactions, and the clustering and grouping of individuals. Here's just a symbolic picture of that. And here's scaling of cities. This shows that in this very simple example, which happens to be a mundane example of number of petrol stations as a function of size -- plotted in the same way as the biology -- you see exactly the same kind of thing.
Pyetja eshte: A eshte ndonje nga keto e vertete per qytetet dhe kompanite? Pra, a eshte Londra nje zmadhim i Birmingamit, i cili eshte nje zmadhim i Brighton etj, etj. ? A eshte New York nje zmadhim i San Francisco-s, i cili nga ana tjeter eshte nje zmadhim i Santa Fe? Nuk e di. Do ta diskutojme. Por ato jane rrjete. Dhe rrjeti me i rendesishem i qyteteve jeni ju. Qytetet jane vec nje manifestim fizik i nderveprimeve tuaja, i nderveprimeve tona, dhe i grumbullimit dhe grupimit te individeve. Kjo eshte vetem nje skicim simbolik i kesaj. Dhe ky eshte shkallezimi i qyteteve. Kjo tregon se ne kete shembull shume te thjeshte, qe eshte gjitashtu nje shembull i zakonshem i numrit te pikave te karburantit si nje funksion i madhesise -- te skicuara ne te njejten menyre si biologjia -- mund te shikoni pikerisht te njejten lloj gjeje.
There is a scaling. That is that the number of petrol stations in the city is now given to you when you tell me its size. The slope of that is less than linear. There is an economy of scale. Less petrol stations per capita the bigger you are -- not surprising. But here's what's surprising. It scales in the same way everywhere. This is just European countries, but you do it in Japan or China or Colombia, always the same with the same kind of economy of scale to the same degree. And any infrastructure you look at -- whether it's the length of roads, length of electrical lines -- anything you look at has the same economy of scale scaling in the same way. It's an integrated system that has evolved despite all the planning and so on. But even more surprising is if you look at socio-economic quantities, quantities that have no analog in biology, that have evolved when we started forming communities eight to 10,000 years ago. The top one is wages as a function of size plotted in the same way. And the bottom one is you lot -- super-creatives plotted in the same way. And what you see is a scaling phenomenon. But most important in this, the exponent, the analog to that three-quarters for the metabolic rate, is bigger than one -- it's about 1.15 to 1.2. Here it is, which says that the bigger you are the more you have per capita, unlike biology -- higher wages, more super-creative people per capita as you get bigger, more patents per capita, more crime per capita.
Ky eshte nje shkallezim. Qe do te thote se numri i pikave te karburantit ne qytet mund te llogaritet direkt kur te me tregoni madhesine e tij (qytetit). Pjerrtesia e saj eshte me pak se lineare. Ka pra nje "ekonomi te shkallezimit". Sa me pak pika karburanti per fryme aq me i madh je - aspak e habitshme. Po ja cfare eshte e habitshme. Shkallezimi ndodh ne te njejten forme kudo. Keto jane vetem vendet Europiane, por mund ta besh per Japonine ose Kinen ose Kolumbine, gjithmone e njejta me te njejtin lloj ekonomie te shkallezimit me te njejten pjerrtesi. Dhe cdo lloj infrastrukture qe mund te vezhgosh -- pavaresisht nese eshte gjatesia e rrugeve, gjatesia e linjave elektrike -- cfaredo qofte ka te njejten ekonomi te shkallezimit qe shkallezohet ne te njejten menyre. Eshte nje sistem i integruar qe eshte zhvilluar pavaresisht gjithe planifikimit e keshtu me rradhe. Por ajo qe eshte edhe me e habitshme eshte nese vezhgon variabla shoqerore-ekonomike, variabla qe nuk kane analoge ne biologji, qe jane zhvilluar qe kur ne filluam te formonim komunitete tete deri ne dhjete mije vite me pare. Ajo me siper paraqet pagat si nje funksion i mases te skicuara ne te njejten menyre. Ndersa ne ate me poshte jeni pikerisht ju -- super-kreativet te skicuar ne po te njejten forme. Dhe ajo cka shihni eshte nje fenomen i shkallezimit. Por cka eshte me e rendesishme, eksponenti, analogia e asaj ¾ per ritmin metabolik eshte me e madhe se nje - eshte rreth 1.15 ose 1.2. Ja ku eshte, qe tregon se sa me i madh qe je aq me shume ke per fryme, ndryshe nga biologjia -- paga me te larta, me shume njerez super-krijues per fryme sa me i madh qe je, me shume patenta per fryme, me shume krim per fryme.
And we've looked at everything: more AIDS cases, flu, etc. And here, they're all plotted together. Just to show you what we plotted, here is income, GDP -- GDP of the city -- crime and patents all on one graph. And you can see, they all follow the same line. And here's the statement. If you double the size of a city from 100,000 to 200,000, from a million to two million, 10 to 20 million, it doesn't matter, then systematically you get a 15 percent increase in wages, wealth, number of AIDS cases, number of police, anything you can think of. It goes up by 15 percent, and you have a 15 percent savings on the infrastructure. This, no doubt, is the reason why a million people a week are gathering in cities. Because they think that all those wonderful things -- like creative people, wealth, income -- is what attracts them, forgetting about the ugly and the bad.
Dhe ne fakt kemi pare gjithcka: raste te SIDA-s, te gripit, etj. Dhe ja, te gjitha jane te vizatuara ketu. Sa per te treguar se si i skicuam, ketu jane te ardhurat, GDP-ja -- GDP-ja e qytetit -- krimi dhe patentat te gjitha ne te njejtin grafik. Dhe e shihni, te gjitha ndodhen ne te njejten vije. Mendimi im eshte ky. Nese e dyfishoni madhesine e nje qyteti nga 100,000 ne 200,000 nga nje milion ne dy milione, nga 10 ne 20 milione, nuk ka rendesi nga cfare ne cfare, atehere sistematikisht do te kete nje rritje prej 15 perqindesh ne paga, pasuri, numer te rasteve me SIDE numrit te policeve, ne fakt te cdo gjeje qe mund t'ju bjere ne mend. Cdo gje rritet me 15 perqind. Dhe po ashtu ke nje 15 perqind rritje ne kursime ne infrastrukture. Kjo, pa dyshim, eshte arsyeja pse nje milion njerez ne jave po i shtohen qyteteve. Sepse ata mendojne se te gjitha keto gjera te mrekullueshme, si njerezit krijues, pasuria, te ardhurat, jane cfare i terheq ata, duke harruar per gjerat e keqija.
What is the reason for this? Well I don't have time to tell you about all the mathematics, but underlying this is the social networks, because this is a universal phenomenon. This 15 percent rule is true no matter where you are on the planet -- Japan, Chile, Portugal, Scotland, doesn't matter. Always, all the data shows it's the same, despite the fact that these cities have evolved independently. Something universal is going on. The universality, to repeat, is us -- that we are the city. And it is our interactions and the clustering of those interactions. So there it is, I've said it again. So if it is those networks and their mathematical structure, unlike biology, which had sublinear scaling, economies of scale, you had the slowing of the pace of life as you get bigger. If it's social networks with super-linear scaling -- more per capita -- then the theory says that you increase the pace of life. The bigger you are, life gets faster. On the left is the heart rate showing biology. On the right is the speed of walking in a bunch of European cities, showing that increase.
Cili eshte shkaku i kesaj? Nuk kam kohe t'ju tregoj te gjithe matematiken por cka fshihet pas kesaj jane rrjetet shoqerore, sepse kjo eshte nje dukuri universale. Ky rregull i 15 perqindeshit eshte i vertete pavaresisht se ne cilen pjese te globit ndodhesh Japoni, Kili, Portugali, Skoci, nuk ka rendesi. Gjithmone, te gjitha te dhenat tregojne te njejten, pavaresisht se keto qytete jane zhvilluar ne menyre te pavarur. Dicka universale fshihet ketu. Universaliteti, e perseris, jemi ne -- ne jemi qyteti. Dhe jane nderveprimet tona dhe grumbullimet e ketyre nderveprimeve. Ja pra, ja ku e thashe dhe njehere. Pra nese jane ato rrjete dhe struktura e tyre matematikore, ndryshe nga biologjia, qe kishte nje shkallezim nenlinear, me ekonomine e shkallezimit, ju pate se ndodh ngadalesimi i ritmit te jetes ndersa ju beheni me te medhenj. Por nese jane rrjetet sociale me shkallezim mbi-linear -- me shume per fryme -- atehere teoria thote se ritmi i jetes shpejtohet. Sa me i madh je, aq me e shpejte behet jeta. Ne te majte shihni ritmin e zemres qe tregon biologjine. Ne te djathte keni shpejtesine e te ecurit ne nje sere qytetesh Europiane, qe paraqesin ate rritje.
Lastly, I want to talk about growth. This is what we had in biology, just to repeat. Economies of scale gave rise to this sigmoidal behavior. You grow fast and then stop -- part of our resilience. That would be bad for economies and cities. And indeed, one of the wonderful things about the theory is that if you have super-linear scaling from wealth creation and innovation, then indeed you get, from the same theory, a beautiful rising exponential curve -- lovely. And in fact, if you compare it to data, it fits very well with the development of cities and economies. But it has a terrible catch, and the catch is that this system is destined to collapse. And it's destined to collapse for many reasons -- kind of Malthusian reasons -- that you run out of resources. And how do you avoid that? Well we've done it before.
Se fundmi, dua te flas per rritjen. Kjo eshte ajo qe kishim ne biologji, sa per perseritje. Ekonomia e shkallezimit ben qe te kemi kete sjellje ne forme sigmoidale. Rritesh shpejt dhe pastaj ndalon -- pjese e qendrueshmerise tone. Kjo do te ishte keq per ekonomite dhe qytetet. Dhe ne te vertete, nje nga gjerat e mrekullueshme te kesaj teorie eshte se nese ke shkallezim mbi-linear nga krijimi i pasurise dhe zbulimet e reja, atehere vertet nxjerr nga po e njejta teori nje grafik rrites eksponencial -- shume e bukur. Dhe ne fakt, nese e krahason kete grafik me te dhenat perputhet teresisht me zhvillimin e qyteteve dhe te ekonomise. Por ka nje aspekt te tmerrshem. Dhe ai eshte qe ky sistem eshte i destinuar te shembet. Dhe eshte i destinuar te shembet per shume arsye -- arsye pak a shume Maltusiane -- se mbarojne burimet. Po si ta shmangim kete? Epo, e kemi shmangur dhe me pare.
What we do is, as we grow and we approach the collapse, a major innovation takes place and we start over again, and we start over again as we approach the next one, and so on. So there's this continuous cycle of innovation that is necessary in order to sustain growth and avoid collapse. The catch, however, to this is that you have to innovate faster and faster and faster. So the image is that we're not only on a treadmill that's going faster, but we have to change the treadmill faster and faster. We have to accelerate on a continuous basis. And the question is: Can we, as socio-economic beings, avoid a heart attack?
Ajo qe bejme eshte qe ndersa rritemi dhe i afrohemi pikes se kolapsit, nje zbulim i madh ndodh dhe krejt procesi fillon nga fillimi. Dhe pastaj fillojme prape nga fillimi ndersa i afrohemi kolapsit tjeter, e keshtu vazhdon. Pra, eshte ky cikel i vazhdueshem zbulimesh qe eshte i nevojshem per te mbajtur gjalle rritjen dhe shmangur kolapsin. Problemi me kete, sidoqofte, eshte se te duhet te zbulosh gjithmone e me shpejt e me shpejt. Imazhi i kesaj eshte qe jo vetem qe gjendemi ne nje piste vrapimi automatike qe po shkon me shpejt, por qe edhe na duhet ta ndryshojme ate me shpejt e me shpejt. Na duhet te nxitojme ne menyre te vazhdueshme. Dhe ceshtja eshte: A mundemi ne, si qenie shoqeroro-ekonomike, ta shmangim nje sulm ne zemer?
So lastly, I'm going to finish up in this last minute or two asking about companies. See companies, they scale. The top one, in fact, is Walmart on the right. It's the same plot. This happens to be income and assets versus the size of the company as denoted by its number of employees. We could use sales, anything you like. There it is: after some little fluctuations at the beginning, when companies are innovating, they scale beautifully. And we've looked at 23,000 companies in the United States, may I say. And I'm only showing you a little bit of this.
Se fundmi, do ti mbyll keto nje ose dy minuta te mbetura duket shtruar pyetjen per kompanite. Edhe kompanite shkallezohen. Ajo me siper eshte, ne fakt eshte Walmart ne te djathte. Eshte i njejti grafik. Ketu tregohen te ardhurat dhe asetet perkundrejt madhesise se kompanise te matur ne baze te numrit te punonjesve. Mund te kishim perdorur dhe shitjet, cfaredo qe te donim. Ja ku eshte: pas disa luhatjeve te vogla ne fillim, kur kompanite bejne zbulime ato shkallezohen ne menyre shume te bukur. Dhe kemi vezhguar rreth 23 mije kompani ne Shtetet e Bashkuara, me duhet te them. Dhe une po ju tregoj vetem nje pjese te vogel te kesaj.
What is astonishing about companies is that they scale sublinearly like biology, indicating that they're dominated, not by super-linear innovation and ideas; they become dominated by economies of scale. In that interpretation, by bureaucracy and administration, and they do it beautifully, may I say. So if you tell me the size of some company, some small company, I could have predicted the size of Walmart. If it has this sublinear scaling, the theory says we should have sigmoidal growth. There's Walmart. Doesn't look very sigmoidal. That's what we like, hockey sticks. But you notice, I've cheated, because I've only gone up to '94. Let's go up to 2008. That red line is from the theory. So if I'd have done this in 1994, I could have predicted what Walmart would be now. And then this is repeated across the entire spectrum of companies. There they are. That's 23,000 companies. They all start looking like hockey sticks, they all bend over, and they all die like you and me.
Ajo cka eshte e habitshme rreth kompanive eshte se ato shkallezohen ne menyre nenlineare ashtu si biologjia, duke treguar se ato dominohen, jo nga idete dhe zbulimet mbi-lineare; ato dominohen nga ekonomite e shkallezimit. Ne kete interpretim, nga burokracia dhe administrimi, dhe kjo ndodh ne menyre shume te bukur, me duhet te them. Pra nese me tregoni madhesine e nje kompanie, te nje kompanie te vogel, une do te mund te kisha parashikuar madhesine e Walmart-it. Nese ka kete shkallezim nenlinear, teoria na sugjeron se duhet te kemi rritje sigmoidale. Ja ku eshte Walmart. Nuk duket dhe aq sigmoidale. Ja cfare na pelqen ne, shkopinjte e hokejit. Por vini re, une kam bere pak me hile, sepse kam shkuar deri ne vitin '94. Le te shkojme deri ne vitin 2008. Ajo vija e kuqe eshte nga teoria. Pra, nese do e grafikoja kete ne 1994, do mund ta parashikoja si do te ishte Walmart-i tani. Dhe pastaj kjo mund te perseritet per te gjithe spektrin e kompanive. Ja ku jane te gjitha. Te 23 mije kompanite. Ata te gjithe fillojne duke u dukur si shkopinj hokeji, pastaj te gjithe perkulen, dhe te gjithe vdesin si une e ti.
Thank you.
Faleminderit.
(Applause)
(Duartrokitje)