Hans Rosling: I'm going to ask you three multiple choice questions. Use this device. Use this device to answer. The first question is, how did the number of deaths per year from natural disaster, how did that change during the last century? Did it more than double, did it remain about the same in the world as a whole, or did it decrease to less than half? Please answer A, B or C. I see lots of answers. This is much faster than I do it at universities. They are so slow. They keep thinking, thinking, thinking. Oh, very, very good.
Hans Rosling: Pitat ću vas tri pitanja s više ponuđenih odgovora. Koristite ovaj uređaj. Koristite ovaj uređaj za odgovaranje. Prvo pitanje je, kako se broj smrti u godini od prirodnih katastrofa, kako se promijenio tijekom zadnjeg stoljeća? Je li se poduplao, je li ostao isti u cijelome svijetu, ili se smanjio za pola? Molim odgovorite A, B ili C. Vidim mnogo odgovora. Ovo ide brže nego na fakultetu. Oni su spori. Razmišljaju, razmišljaju, razmišljaju. Jako, jako dobro.
And we go to the next question. So how long did women 30 years old in the world go to school: seven years, five years or three years? A, B or C? Please answer.
Idemo na sljedeće pitanje. Koliko su dugo žene stare 30 godina išle u školu: sedam godina, pet godina ili tri godine? A, B ili C? Molim vas, odgovorite.
And we go to the next question. In the last 20 years, how did the percentage of people in the world who live in extreme poverty change? Extreme poverty — not having enough food for the day. Did it almost double, did it remain more or less the same, or did it halve? A, B or C?
I idemo na sljedeće pitanje. U zadnjih dvadeset godina, kako se promijenio postotak ljudi u svijetu koji žive u ekstremnom siromaštvu? Ekstremno siromaštvo — neimanje dovoljno hrane za dan. Je li se poduplao, je li ostao više-manje isti, ili se prepolovio? A, B ili C?
Now, answers. You see, deaths from natural disasters in the world, you can see it from this graph here, from 1900 to 2000. In 1900, there was about half a million people who died every year from natural disasters: floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruption, whatever, droughts. And then, how did that change?
Odgovorite. Vidite, smrti od prirodnih katastrofa u svijetu, možete to vidjeti na ovom grafu od 1900. do 2000. 1900. oko pola milijuna ljudi je umiralo svake godine od prirodnih katastrofa: poplava, potresa, vulkanskih erupcija, štogod, suša. A sad, kako se to promjenilo?
Gapminder asked the public in Sweden. This is how they answered. The Swedish public answered like this: Fifty percent thought it had doubled, 38 percent said it's more or less the same, 12 said it had halved. This is the best data from the disaster researchers, and it goes up and down, and it goes to the Second World War, and after that it starts to fall and it keeps falling and it's down to much less than half. The world has been much, much more capable as the decades go by to protect people from this, you know. So only 12 percent of the Swedes know this.
Gapminder je pitao javnost Švedske. Odgovorili su ovako. Javnost Švedske je odgovorila ovako: Pedeset posto misli da se udvostručio, 38 posto kaže da je uglavnom isti, 12 kaže da se prepolovio. Ovo su najbolji podatci istraživača nesreća, penju se i spuštaju, penju se do Drugog svjetskog rata, i poslije toga počinju opadati i nastavljaju padati i spustili su se na puno manje od pola. Svijet je postao više sposoban, kako desetljeća prolaze, zaštititi ljude od ovoga, znate. Samo 12 posto Švedske zna ovo.
So I went to the zoo and I asked the chimps. (Laughter) (Applause) The chimps don't watch the evening news, so the chimps, they choose by random, so the Swedes answer worse than random. Now how did you do? That's you. You were beaten by the chimps. (Laughter) But it was close. You were three times better than the Swedes, but that's not enough. You shouldn't compare yourself to Swedes. You must have higher ambitions in the world.
Otišao sam u zoološki i pitao čimpanze. (Smijeh) (Pljesak) Čimpanze ne gledaju večernje vijesti, pa su čimpanze, odgovarali su nasumično, pa je odgovor Šveđana gori no nasumičan. Kako ste vi odgovorili? Ovo ste vi. Pobijedile su vas čimpanze. (Smijeh) Ali bili ste blizu. Bili ste tri puta bolji od Šveđana, ali to nije dovoljno. Ne bi ste se trebali uspoređivati sa Šveđanima. Trebate imati više ambicije u svijetu.
Let's look at the next answer here: women in school. Here, you can see men went eight years. How long did women go to school? Well, we asked the Swedes like this, and that gives you a hint, doesn't it? The right answer is probably the one the fewest Swedes picked, isn't it? (Laughter) Let's see, let's see. Here we come. Yes, yes, yes, women have almost caught up. This is the U.S. public. And this is you. Here you come. Ooh. Well, congratulations, you're twice as good as the Swedes, but you don't need me —
Pogledajmo sljedeći odgovor: žene u školama. Možete vidjeti da su muškarci išli osam godina., Koliko dugo su žene išle u školu? Pitali smo Šveđane isto to, i to vam već pomaže, zar ne? Točan odgovor je vjerojatno onaj koji je odabralo najmanje Šveđana, zar ne? (Smijeh) Hajdemo vidjeti. Evo ga. Da, da, da, žene su skoro sustigle. Ovo je javnost SAD-a. A ovo ste vi. Evo vas. Ooh. Pa, čestitam, dvaput ste bolji no Šveđani, ali ne trebam vam ja —
So how come? I think it's like this, that everyone is aware that there are countries and there are areas where girls have great difficulties. They are stopped when they go to school, and it's disgusting. But in the majority of the world, where most people in the world live, most countries, girls today go to school as long as boys, more or less. That doesn't mean that gender equity is achieved, not at all. They still are confined to terrible, terrible limitations, but schooling is there in the world today. Now, we miss the majority. When you answer, you answer according to the worst places, and there you are right, but you miss the majority.
Otkud to? Mislim da je to ovako, svi su svjesni da postoje države i postoje regije gdje djevojke imaju puno poteškoća. Prekida se njihovo školovanje, i to je odvratno. Ali u većini svijeta, gdje živi većina ljudi, većina država, djevojke idu u školu jednako koliko i dečki, više-manje. To ne znači da je postignuta jednakost spolova, ni najmanje. I dalje postoje grozna ograničenja, ali školovanje je danas rašireno po svijetu. Nedostaje nam većina. Kada odgovarate, odgovarate prema najgorim mjestima i što se njih tiče, u pravu ste, ali promašili smo većinu.
What about poverty? Well, it's very clear that poverty here was almost halved, and in U.S., when we asked the public, only five percent got it right. And you? Ah, you almost made it to the chimps. (Laughter) (Applause) That little, just a few of you! There must be preconceived ideas, you know. And many in the rich countries, they think that oh, we can never end extreme poverty. Of course they think so, because they don't even know what has happened. The first thing to think about the future is to know about the present.
Što je sa siromaštvom? Očigledno je da je siromaštvo ovdje skoro pa prepolovljeno, pitali smo javnost u SAD-u, samo pet posto je točno odgovorilo. A vi? Skoro pa ste dosegli čimpanze. (Smijeh) (Pljesak) Ovako malo, samo nekoliko vas! Postoje unaprijed stvorene ideje, znate. Mnogi u bogatim zemljama, misle da ne možemo zaustaviti ekstremno siromaštvo. Naravno da to misle jer čak ni ne znaju sto se dogodilo. Prva stvar kada razmišljamo o budućnosti je da znamo sadašnjost.
These questions were a few of the first ones in the pilot phase of the Ignorance Project in Gapminder Foundation that we run, and it was started, this project, last year by my boss, and also my son, Ola Rosling. (Laughter) He's cofounder and director, and he wanted, Ola told me we have to be more systematic when we fight devastating ignorance. So already the pilots reveal this, that so many in the public score worse than random, so we have to think about preconceived ideas, and one of the main preconceived ideas is about world income distribution.
Ovo je bilo nekoliko prvih pitanja početne faze projekta Neznanje u Gapminder Fondaciji koju vodimo, a započeo je, ovaj projekt, prošle godine moj šef, koji je također moj sin, Ola Rosling. (Smijeh) On je suosnivač i direktor, i htio je, Ola mi je rekao da moramo biti više sistematični kada se borimo protiv velike neupućenosti. Zasad je projekt pokazao ovo, javnost odgovara gore nego nasumično pa moramo razmišljati o unaprijed stvorenim idejama, a jedna od glavnih unaprijed stvorenih ideja je o rasprostranjenosti prihoda u svijetu.
Look here. This is how it was in 1975. It's the number of people on each income, from one dollar a day — (Applause) See, there was one hump here, around one dollar a day, and then there was one hump here somewhere between 10 and 100 dollars. The world was two groups. It was a camel world, like a camel with two humps, the poor ones and the rich ones, and there were fewer in between.
Pogledajte. Ovako je bilo 1975. To je broj ljudi po svakom prihodu, od jednog dolara po danu — (Pljesak) Vidite, postoji jedno brdo ovdje, oko jednog dolara po danu, i onda postoji jedno brdo ovdje negdje između 10 i 100 dolara. Svijet je bio podijeljen u dvije grupe. Svijet je bio poput deve, deve s dvije grbe, siromašni i bogati, i bilo ih je manje između.
But look how this has changed: As I go forward, what has changed, the world population has grown, and the humps start to merge. The lower humps merged with the upper hump, and the camel dies and we have a dromedary world with one hump only. The percent in poverty has decreased. Still it's appalling that so many remain in extreme poverty. We still have this group, almost a billion, over there, but that can be ended now.
Pogledajte kako se to promijenilo: Kako idem naprijed, što se promijenilo svjetska populacija je narasla, i grbe su se počele spajati. Donja grba se spojila s gornjom grbom, i deva je umrla i sad imamo svijet samo s jednom grbom. Postotak siromaštva se smanjio. I dalje je grozno to što toliko ostaje u ekstremnom siromaštvu. I dalje imamo grupu, skoro pa milijardu, ovdje. ali to se može odmah prekinuti.
The challenge we have now is to get away from that, understand where the majority is, and that is very clearly shown in this question. We asked, what is the percentage of the world's one-year-old children who have got those basic vaccines against measles and other things that we have had for many years: 20, 50 or 80 percent? Now, this is what the U.S. public and the Swedish answered. Look at the Swedish result: you know what the right answer is. (Laughter) Who the heck is a professor of global health in that country? Well, it's me. It's me. (Laughter) It's very difficult, this. It's very difficult. (Applause)
Izazov koji sada imamo je odmaći se od toga, raumijeti gdje je većina i to se lijepo prikazuje u ovom pitanju. Pitali smo koliki je postotak jednogodišnje djece u svijetu koji su dobili osnovna cjepiva protiv ospica i drugih stvari koje imamo već godinama: 20,50 ili 80 posto? Ovo je odgovorila javnost SAD-a i Švedske. Pogledajte švedske rezultate: znate koji je točan odgovor. (Smijeh) Tko je profesor globalnog zdravlja tamo? Pa, ja sam. Ja sam. (Smijeh) Vrlo je teško, ovo. Vrlo je teško. (Pljesak)
However, Ola's approach to really measure what we know made headlines, and CNN published these results on their web and they had the questions there, millions answered, and I think there were about 2,000 comments, and this was one of the comments. "I bet no member of the media passed the test," he said.
Međutim, Olov pristup da stvarno izmjerimo što znamo dosegao je naslovnice, CNN je objavio ove rezultate na njihovoj stranici i postavili su pitanja tamo, milijuni su odgovorili, i mislim da je bilo oko 2000 komentara, a ovo je jedan od komentara. „Kladim se da nijedan član medija nije prošao test,“ rekao je.
So Ola told me, "Take these devices. You are invited to media conferences. Give it to them and measure what the media know." And ladies and gentlemen, for the first time, the informal results from a conference with U.S. media. And then, lately, from the European Union media. (Laughter) You see, the problem is not that people don't read and listen to the media. The problem is that the media doesn't know themselves.
Ola mi je rekao, „Uzmi ove uređaje. Pozvan si na konferenciju za medije. Daj ih im i izmjeri što mediji znaju.“ I dame i gospodo, po prvi put, neslužbeni rezultati s konferencije za medije SAD-a. A onda kasnije, za medije Europske Unije. (Smijeh) Vidite, problem nije u tome da ljudi ne čitaju i slušaju medije. Problem je u tome što mediji ni sami ne znaju.
What shall we do about this, Ola? Do we have any ideas? (Applause)
Što bi smo trebali učiniti, Ola? Imamo li kakvih ideja? (Pljesak)
Ola Rosling: Yes, I have an idea, but first, I'm so sorry that you were beaten by the chimps. Fortunately, I will be able to comfort you by showing why it was not your fault, actually. Then, I will equip you with some tricks for beating the chimps in the future. That's basically what I will do.
Ola Rosling: Da, imam ideja, ali prvo, žao mi je što vas je čimpanza pobijedila. Srećom, mogu vas utješiti pokazujući vam da nije vaša krivica, zapravo. Onda, snabdjet ću vas s nekim trikovima kako pobijediti čimpanze ubuduće. U osnovi to ću napraviti.
But first, let's look at why are we so ignorant, and it all starts in this place. It's Hudiksvall. It's a city in northern Sweden. It's a neighborhood where I grew up, and it's a neighborhood with a large problem. Actually, it has exactly the same problem which existed in all the neighborhoods where you grew up as well. It was not representative. Okay? It gave me a very biased view of how life is on this planet. So this is the first piece of the ignorance puzzle. We have a personal bias.
Ali prvo, pogledajmo zašto smo tako neupućeni, a sve počinje na ovom mjestu. To je Hudiksvall. To je grad u sjevernoj Švedskoj. To je susjedstvo u kojem sam odrastao, i to je susjedstvo s velikim problemom. Zapravo, ima upravo isti problem koji postoji u svim susjedstvima gdje ste i vi odrasli. Nije reprezentativno. Dobro? Dalo mi je pristran pogled o životu na ovom planetu. To je prvi djelić puzle neupućenosti. Imamo osobnu pristranost.
We have all different experiences from communities and people we meet, and on top of this, we start school, and we add the next problem. Well, I like schools, but teachers tend to teach outdated worldviews, because they learned something when they went to school, and now they describe this world to the students without any bad intentions, and those books, of course, that are printed are outdated in a world that changes. And there is really no practice to keep the teaching material up to date. So that's what we are focusing on. So we have these outdated facts added on top of our personal bias.
Stekli smo različita iskustva kroz društva i ljude koje smo sreli, i povrh svega, krećemo u školu, i dodajemo sljedeći problem. Volim škole, ali učitelji uče zastarjele svjetonazore jer naučili su nešto dok su išli u školu, i sad opisuju taj svijet učenicima bez zlih namjera, a te knjige, naravno, koje su tiskane su zastarjele u svijetu koji se mijenja, I ne postoji zapravo praksa koja nastavne materijale održava novima. Na to se mi fokusiramo. Imamo te zastarjele činjenice dodane našim osobnim pristranostima.
What happens next is news, okay? An excellent journalist knows how to pick the story that will make headlines, and people will read it because it's sensational. Unusual events are more interesting, no? And they are exaggerated, and especially things we're afraid of. A shark attack on a Swedish person will get headlines for weeks in Sweden.
Sljedeće su vijesti, dobro? Odličan novinar zna kako odabrati vijest koja će doći na naslovnice, a ljudi će ju čitati jer je senzacija. Neobični događaji su zanimljiviji, zar ne? A oni su preuveličani, posebno stvari kojih se bojimo. Napad morskog psa na Šveđana bi u Švedskoj ostao na naslovnicama tjednima.
So these three skewed sources of information were really hard to get away from. They kind of bombard us and equip our mind with a lot of strange ideas, and on top of it we put the very thing that makes us humans, our human intuition. It was good in evolution. It helped us generalize and jump to conclusions very, very fast. It helped us exaggerate what we were afraid of, and we seek causality where there is none, and we then get an illusion of confidence where we believe that we are the best car drivers, above the average. Everybody answered that question, "Yeah, I drive cars better."
Od ova tri iskrivljena izvora informacija teško je pobjeći. Na neki način nas bombardiraju i snabdjevaju naš um s mnogo čudnih ideja, a povrh svega stavljamo ono što nas čini ljudima, našu ljudsku intuiciju. Bila je dobra tijekom evolucije. Pomogla nam je generalizirati i doći do zaključaka vrlo, vrlo brzo. Pomogla nam je preuveličati ono čeg se bojimo, i tražiti uzročnost tamo gdje je nema, i tada dobijemo iluziju pouzdanja gdje vjerujemo da smo najbolji vozač auta, iznad prosjeka. Svi odgovaraju na pitanje, „Da, vozim bolje auto.“
Okay, this was good evolutionarily, but now when it comes to the worldview, it is the exact reason why it's upside down. The trends that are increasing are instead falling, and the other way around, and in this case, the chimps use our intuition against us, and it becomes our weakness instead of our strength. It was supposed to be our strength, wasn't it?
Dobro, to je bilo korisno evolucijski, ali sada kada se tiče svjetonazora, upravo je to razlog zašto je pogrešan. Trendovi koji rastu zapravo padaju, i obrnuto, i u ovom slučaju, čimpanze koriste našu intuiciju protiv nas, i to postaje naša slabost umjesto snage. Trebala bi biti naša snaga, zar ne?
So how do we solve such problems? First, we need to measure it, and then we need to cure it. So by measuring it we can understand what is the pattern of ignorance. We started the pilot last year, and now we're pretty sure that we will encounter a lot of ignorance across the whole world, and the idea is really to scale it up to all domains or dimensions of global development, such as climate, endangered species, human rights, gender equality, energy, finance. All different sectors have facts, and there are organizations trying to spread awareness about these facts. So I've started actually contacting some of them, like WWF and Amnesty International and UNICEF, and asking them, what are your favorite facts which you think the public doesn't know?
Kako da rješimo ovakav problem? Prvo, trebamo ga izmjeriti, i onda ga trebamo izliječiti. Mjerenjem možemo razumijeti koji je obrazak neupućenosti. Počeli smo s projektom prošle godine, i sad smo poprilično sigurni da ćemo susresti mnogo neupućenosti širom cijelog svijeta, i ideja je zapravo da stavimo u razmjer s domenama ili dimenzijama globalnog razvoja, poput klime, ugroženih vrsta, ljudskih prava, spolne jednakosti, energije, financija. Različiti sektori imaju činjenice, i postoje organizacije koje pokušavaju širiti svjesnost o tim činjenicama. Zapravo sam počeo kontaktirati neke od njih, poput WWF-a i Amensty Internationala i UNICEF-a, i ispitivati ih, koje su njihove najdraže činjenice za koje misle da ih javnost ne zna?
Okay, I gather those facts. Imagine a long list with, say, 250 facts. And then we poll the public and see where they score worst. So we get a shorter list with the terrible results, like some few examples from Hans, and we have no problem finding these kinds of terrible results. Okay, this little shortlist, what are we going to do with it? Well, we turn it into a knowledge certificate, a global knowledge certificate, which you can use, if you're a large organization, a school, a university, or maybe a news agency, to certify yourself as globally knowledgeable. Basically meaning, we don't hire people who score like chimpanzees. Of course you shouldn't. So maybe 10 years from now, if this project succeeds, you will be sitting in an interview having to fill out this crazy global knowledge.
OK, skupio sam te činjenice. Zamislite dugačku listu s, recimo 250 činjenica. I onda smo ispitali javnost i pogledali gdje su najlošije odgovarali. Dobili smo kraću listu s lošim razultatima, poput nekoliko Hansovih primjera, i nismo imali problema pronaći te primjere loših rezultata. OK, taj kratak popis, što ćemo učiniti s njim? Pretvorit ćemo ga u certifikat znanja, certifikat globalnog znanja, koji možete koristiti, ako ste velika organizacija, škola, sveučilište, ili možda novinska agencija, kako bi se certificirali kao znalci globalnoga. Jednostavno rečeno, nećemo zapošljavati ljude koji daju rezultate slične čimpanzama. Naravno da ne trebate. Stoga možda za jedno deset godina, ako ovaj projekt uspije, sjedit ćete na intervjuu i morat ćete popuniti ovo ludo globalno znanje.
So now we come to the practical tricks. How are you going to succeed? There is, of course, one way, which is to sit down late nights and learn all the facts by heart by reading all these reports. That will never happen, actually. Not even Hans thinks that's going to happen. People don't have that time. People like shortcuts, and here are the shortcuts. We need to turn our intuition into strength again. We need to be able to generalize. So now I'm going to show you some tricks where the misconceptions are turned around into rules of thumb.
Došli smo do praktičnih trikova. Kako ćete uspjeti? Postoji, naravno, jedan način, a to je da sjedite dugo u noć i jako dobro naučite sve činjenice čitajući sva ova izvješća. To se zapravo nikada neće dogoditi. Čak ni Hans ne misli da će se to dogoditi. Ljudi nemaju vremena. Ljudi vole prečace, a ovo su prečaci. Trebamo pretvoriti intuiciju u snagu ponovo. Trebamo moći generalizirati. Pokazat ću vam nekoliko trikova gdje se zablude preokrenu u pravila.
Let's start with the first misconception. This is very widespread. Everything is getting worse. You heard it. You thought it yourself. The other way to think is, most things improve. So you're sitting with a question in front of you and you're unsure. You should guess "improve." Okay? Don't go for the worse. That will help you score better on our tests. (Applause) That was the first one.
Počnimo s prvom zabludom. Ova je široko rasprostranjena. Sve postaje gore. Čuli ste to. Sami ste to pomislili. Drugi način mišljenja je, dosta toga se poboljšalo. Sjedite s pitanjem ispred sebe i nesigurni ste. Pogodite da se „poboljšalo“. Dobro? Nemojte ići za gorim. To će vam pomoći da bolje prođete na testu. (Pljesak) To je prva.
There are rich and poor and the gap is increasing. It's a terrible inequality. Yeah, it's an unequal world, but when you look at the data, it's one hump. Okay? If you feel unsure, go for "the most people are in the middle." That's going to help you get the answer right.
Postoje bogati i siromašni i razmjer se povećava. To je grozna nejednakost. Da, svijet je nejednak, ali kada pogledamo podatke, to je jedna grba. Ok? Ako se osjećate nesigurno, Odgovorite „većina ljudi je u sredini.“ To će vam pomoći da točno odgovorite.
Now, the next preconceived idea is first countries and people need to be very, very rich to get the social development like girls in school and be ready for natural disasters. No, no, no. That's wrong. Look: that huge hump in the middle already have girls in school. So if you are unsure, go for the "the majority already have this," like electricity and girls in school, these kinds of things. They're only rules of thumb, so of course they don't apply to everything, but this is how you can generalize.
Sljedeća unaprijed stvorena ideja je da prvo države i ljudi trebaju biti veoma bogati da bi došlo do društvenog razvoja poput djevojaka u školama i spremnosti za prirodne katastrofe. Ne, ne, ne. To je pogrešno. Pogledajte: ova velika grba u sredini već ima djevojke u školama. Ako ste nesigurni, odgovorite „većina već ima ovo,“ Poput struje i djevojaka u školama, te stvari. To su samo pravila, i naravno ne primjenjuju se svugdje, ali tamo možete generalizirati.
Let's look at the last one. If something, yes, this is a good one, sharks are dangerous. No — well, yes, but they are not so important in the global statistics, that is what I'm saying. I actually, I'm very afraid of sharks. So as soon as I see a question about things I'm afraid of, which might be earthquakes, other religions, maybe I'm afraid of terrorists or sharks, anything that makes me feel, assume you're going to exaggerate the problem. That's a rule of thumb. Of course there are dangerous things that are also great. Sharks kill very, very few. That's how you should think.
Pogledajmo zadnju. Ako nešto, da ovo je dobra, morski psi su opasni. Ne – pa, da, ali nisu toliko važni u globalnoj statistici, to želim reći. Zapravo, ja se jako bojim morskih pasa. Čim vidim pitanje o nečemu čega se bojim, poput zemljotresa, drugih religija, možda se bojim terorista ili morskih pasa, bilo što što će me navesti na osjećaj, pretpostavite da ćete preuveličati problem. To je pravilo. Naravno postoje opasne stvari koje su i super. Morski psi ubiju vrlo, vrlo malo. Tako trebate razmišljati.
With these four rules of thumb, you could probably answer better than the chimps, because the chimps cannot do this. They cannot generalize these kinds of rules. And hopefully we can turn your world around and we're going to beat the chimps. Okay? (Applause) That's a systematic approach.
S ova četiri pravila, možete vjerojatno odgovoriti bolje no čimpanze, jer čimpanze ne mogu ovo. One ne mogu generalizirati ovakva pravila. I nadam se, uspjet ćemo okrenuti vaš svijet i uspjet ćemo pobijediti čimpanze. Dobro? (Pljesak) To je sustavni pristup.
Now the question, is this important? Yeah, it's important to understand poverty, extreme poverty and how to fight it, and how to bring girls in school. When we realize that actually it's succeeding, we can understand it. But is it important for everyone else who cares about the rich end of this scale? I would say yes, extremely important, for the same reason. If you have a fact-based worldview of today, you might have a chance to understand what's coming next in the future.
A pitanje, je li to važno? Da, bitno je razumijeti siromaštvo, ekstremno siromaštvo i kako se boriti protiv, i kako dovesti djevojke u škole. Kada shvatimo da zapravo uspjevamo, možemo to razumjeti. Ali je li bitno i za druge koji brinu o bogatom kraju ove skale? Rekao bi da, vrlo važno zbog istog razloga. Ako danas imate svjetonazore zasnovane na činjenicama, imate šansu razumjeti što dolazi u budućnosti.
We're going back to these two humps in 1975. That's when I was born, and I selected the West. That's the current EU countries and North America. Let's now see how the rest and the West compares in terms of how rich you are. These are the people who can afford to fly abroad with an airplane for a vacation. In 1975, only 30 percent of them lived outside EU and North America. But this has changed, okay? So first, let's look at the change up till today, 2014. Today it's 50/50. The Western domination is over, as of today. That's nice. So what's going to happen next? Do you see the big hump? Did you see how it moved? I did a little experiment. I went to the IMF, International Monetary Fund, website. They have a forecast for the next five years of GDP per capita. So I can use that to go five years into the future, assuming the income inequality of each country is the same. I did that, but I went even further. I used those five years for the next 20 years with the same speed, just as an experiment what might actually happen. Let's move into the future. In 2020, it's 57 percent in the rest. In 2025, 63 percent. 2030, 68. And in 2035, the West is outnumbered in the rich consumer market. These are just projections of GDP per capita into the future. Seventy-three percent of the rich consumers are going to live outside North America and Europe. So yes, I think it's a good idea for a company to use this certificate to make sure to make fact- based decisions in the future.
Vratimo se nazad na dvije grbe iz 1975. Tada sam ja rođen, I odabrao sam zapad. To su trenutne države EU i Sjeverna Amerika. Pogledajmo sad kako se Zapad i ostatak svijeta uspoređuje uzeći u obzir koliko su bogati. Ovo su ljudi koji mogu priuštiti let avionom na odmor. U 1975, samo 30 posto njih je živjelo Izvan EU i Sjeverne Amerike. Ali to se promjenilo, dobro? Prvo pogledajmo promjene sve do danas, 2014. Danas je 50/50. Dominacija zapada je gotova, od danas. To je lijepo. Što će se dogoditi sljedeće? Vidite li veliku grbu? Vidite li kako se pomjerila? Uradio sam eksperiment, otišao sam na MMF - ovu internetsku stranicu. Prognozirali su BDP za sljedećih pet godina. Mogu to koristiti kako bi otišao pet godina u budućnost, pretpostavljajući da je nejednakost prihoda svake države ostala ista. Učinio sam to, ali otišao sam čak dalje. Iskoristio sam tih pet godina za sljedećih 20 godina Sa istom brzinom, samo kao eksperiment koji će se možda dogoditi. Idemo u budućnost. Sad je 2020., 57 posto je kod ostalih. 2025-e, 63 posto. 2030., 68. I u 2035. Zapad je nadmašen što se tiče tržišta bogatih. To su samo pretpostavke BDP-a u budućnosti. Sedamdeset tri posto bogatih potrošača će živjeti izvan Sjeverne Amerike i Europe. Zato da, mislim da je dobra ideja za tvrtke da koriste ovaj certifikat kako bi bili sigurni da stvaraju odluke zasnovane na činjenicama.
Thank you very much. (Applause)
Hvala vam puno. (Pljesak)
Bruno Giussani: Hans and Ola Rosling!
Bruno Giussani: Hans i Ola Rosling!