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: Postaviću vam tri pitanja s ponuđenim odgovorima. Koristite ovu spravu. Koristite ovu spravu za odgovore. Prvo pitanje glasi: koliko se broj smrti na godišnjem nivou od prirodnih katastrofa, koliko se promenio tokom poslednjeg veka? Da li se udvostručio, da li je ostao više-manje isti na svetskom nivou ili se smanjio za pola? Molim vas odgovorite pod A, B ili C. Vidim mnogo odgovora. Ovo ide mnogo brže nego kad to radim na univerzitetima. Oni su veoma spori. Samo misle, misle i misle. Ah, dobro, veoma 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.
Prelazimo na sledeće pitanje. Koliko je vremena tridesetogodišnja žena provela u školi, na svetskom nivou: 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?
Prelazimo na sledeće pitanje. U poslednjih 20 godina, koliko se procenat ljudi na svetu koji žive u ekstremnom siromaštvu, promenio? Ekstremno siromaštvo - nemanje dovoljno hrane za dan. Da li se skoro udvostručio, da li je 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?
Sad, odgovori. Vidite, smrti od prirodnih katastrofa, možete ih videti na ovom grafikonu, od 1900. do 2000. Godine 1900, oko pola miliona ljudi je umiralo godišnje od prirodnih nepogoda: poplava, zemljotresa, vulkanskih erupcija, suše, čega god. A onda, kako se to promenilo?
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.
Gepmajnder je pitao švedsku javnost. Evo kako su odgovorili. Švedska javnost je odgovorila ovako: 50% je mislilo da je udvostručen, 38% je reklo da je više-manje isti, 12% je reklo da je prepolovljen. Ovo su najtačniji podaci od proučavalaca katastrofa, i kriva ide gore-dole, raste do Drugog svetskog rata a onda počinje da pada i nastavlja da pada i spušta se daleko ispod polovine. Svet je postajao sve sposobniji, kako su decenije prolazile, da zaštiti ljude od ovoga, znate. Dakle, samo 12% Šveđana je znalo za 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.
Pa sam otišao u zoološki vrt i pitao šimpanze. (Smeh) (Aplauz) Šimpanze ne gledaju večernji dnevnik, zato su šimpanze odgovarale nasumično, pa su odgovori Šveđana ispali gori od nasumičnih. Kako ste vi prošli? Ovo ste vi. Pobedile su vas šimpanze. (Smeh) Ali bilo je blizu. Bili ste tri puta bolji od Šveđana, ali to nije dovoljno. Nemojte se porediti sa Šveđanima. Morate da budete ambiciozniji u životu.
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 sledeći odgovor: žene u školi. Ovde vidite da muškarci idu osam godina. Koliko su žene išle u školu? Pitali smo Šveđane isto to i evo vam nagoveštaja, zar ne? Tačan odgovor je verovatno onaj koji je izabralo najmanje Šveđana, zar ne? (Smeh) Da vidimo, da vidimo. Evo nas. Da, da, da, žene samo što nisu sustigle muškarce. Ovo je američka javnost. A ovo ste vi. Evo vas. Ooo. Čestitam, duplo ste bolji od Šveđana, ali ne treba ja da vam to kažem -
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.
Pa kako to? Mislim da je to zato što su svi svesni da postoje zemlje i područja u kojima je devojkama veoma teško. Sprečene su da idu u školu i to je odvratno. Ali u većem delu sveta, gde najviše ljudi živi, u većini država, devojke sada idu u školu podjednako dugo kao dečaci, više-manje. To ne znači da je postignuta rodna ravnopravnost, nikako. One su i dalje osuđene na užasna, užasna ograničenja, ali obrazovanje je tu u današnjem svetu. E sad, gubimo iz vida većinu. Kada odgovarate, odgovarate imajući u vidu najgora mesta i za njih ste u pravu, ali gubite iz vida 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.
Šta je sa siromaštvom? Pa, jasno je da je siromaštvo skoro prepolovljeno, a kada smo pitali javnost SAD-a, samo pet procenata je pogodilo. A vi? Ah, umalo da dosegnete šimpanze. (Smeh) (Aplauz) Tako je malo falilo, samo nekolicina! Mora da imate formirane predrasude, znate. Mnogi u bogatim zemljama misle kako, oh, nikada nećemo iskoreniti ekstremno siromaštvo. Naravno da tako razmišljaju jer oni ni ne znaju šta se dogodilo. Prvo, da biste razmišljali o budućnosti morate da poznajete 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 nekoliko prvih pitanja iz pilot faze projekta Neznalica koji vodimo u fondaciji Gepmajnder. Ovaj projekat je pokrenuo prošle godine moj šef, koji je takođe moj sin, Ola Rosling. (Smeh) On je suosnivač i direktor i želeo je, Ola mi je rekao moramo da budemo sistematičniji u borbi sa razarajućim neznanjem. Dakle, već u startu smo otkrili da većina javnosti ima gore rezultate od nasumičnog pogađanja, zato moramo da razmislimo o predrasudama a jedna od glavnih predrasuda je ona o raspodeli prihoda u svetu.
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 to bilo 1975. Vidimo ljude raspoređene po zaradama, od jednog dolara na dan - (Aplauz) Vidite, imali smo jednu grbu ovde, oko dolara na dan, a potom smo imali grbu ovde, negde između 10 i 100 dolara. Svet su činile dve grupe. Bio je to kamila svet, poput dvogrbe kamile, siromašni i bogati, a nekolicina je bila 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.
Ali pogledajte kako se to promenilo: kako idem napred, šta se promenilo, svetska populacija je porasla i grbe su počele da se stapaju. Donje grbe su se stopile s gornjom, i kamila je umrla, te sad imamo svet nalik na dromedara sa samo jednom grbom. Procenat siromašnih se smanjio. I dalje je užasavajuće da toliko ljudi i dalje živi u ekstremnom siromaštvu. I dalje imamo grupu, skoro milijardu ljudi je tu, ali to može da bude okončano odmah.
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)
Pred nama je izazov da pobegnemo od toga, da shvatimo gde je većina, a to je jasno pokazano u sledećem pitanju. Pitali smo: koji je procenat u svetu jednogodišnjaka koji su dobili osnovne vakcine protiv malih boginja i drugih stvari, koje postoje već mnogo godina. 20, 50 ili 80 posto? Evo kako je javnost SAD-a i Švedske odgovorila. Pogledajte Šveđane, odmah znate koji je tačan odgovor. (Smeh) Ko je dovraga profesor globalnog zdravlja u toj državi? Pa, to sam ja. Ja sam. (Smeh) Teško je sve ovo. Veoma je teško. (Aplauz)
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, Olin pristup kako da zaista izmerimo koliko znamo je stigao u glavne vesti. Si-En-En je objavio ove rezultate na svom sajtu, postavili su i pitanja, milioni su odgovarali, i mislim da je bilo oko 2000 komentara. Ovo je bio jedan od komentara. "Kladim se da niko iz medija ne bi položio ovaj 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.
Pa mi je Ola rekao: "Uzmi ove sprave. Tebe pozivaju na konferencije. Postavi im pitanja i izmeri koliko mediji znaju." I, dame i gospodo, prvi put, nezvanični rezultati sa konferencije američkih medija. A kasnije i od medija iz Evropske unije. (Smeh) Vidite, nije problem u tome da ljudi ne čitaju i ne slušaju medije. Problem je da ni mediji nemaju pojma.
What shall we do about this, Ola? Do we have any ideas? (Applause)
Šta ćemo da uradimo s tim, Ola? Imamo li neke ideje? (Aplauz)
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 ideju, ali prvo, žao mi je što su vas pobedile šimpanze. Srećom, mogu da vas utešim tako što ću da vam pokažem kako to nije uistinu vaša krivica. Potom ću da vam pokažem neke trikove uz koje ćete u buduće pobeđivati šimpanze. To je u suštini ono što ću da uradim.
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 takve neznalice, a sve počinje na ovom mestu. Ovo je Hudiksval. Grad u severnoj Švedskoj. To je komšiluk u kom sam odrastao i to je komšiluk s ogromnim problemom. Zapravo, ima potpuno isti problem kao i svi komšiluci u kojima ste vi odrasli. Nije bio reprezentativan primerak. U redu? Dao mi je veoma jednostran pogled na to kakav je život na ovoj planeti. Dakle, ovo je prvo mesto u slagalici neznanja. Imamo lična ograničenja.
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.
Svi imamo različita iskustva od zajednica i ljudi koje srećemo, i povrh svega, pođemo u školu, te se tome pridoda sledeći problem. Ja volim škole, ali nastavnici nas često podučavaju zastarelim pogledima na svet, jer su oni nešto naučili kad su išli u školu i sada taj svet opisuju đacima, bez ikakvih zadnjih namera, i te knjige, naravno, koje su štampane su zastarele u svetu koji se menja. I zaista ne postoji praksa u održavanju nastavnog plana aktuelnim. Dakle, na to smo se usredsredili. Dakle, imamo ove zastarele podatke povrh naših ličnih predrasuda.
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.
Sledeće na redu su vesti, u redu? Odličan novinar zna kako da odabere priču koja će da postane glavna vest, a ljudi će je čitati jer je senzacija. Neobični događaji su zanimljiviji, zar ne? Oni su preuveličani, naročito stvari koje nas plaše. Napad ajkule na Šveđanina će da bude glavna vest nedeljama u Švedskoj.
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 naopaka izvora informacija zaista je teško pobeći. Nekako nas bombarduju, snabdevaju naš um gomilom čudnih ideja, a povrh svega toga dolazi baš ono što nas čini ljudima, naša ljudska intuicija. Bila je korisna tokom evolucije. Doprinela je uopštavanju i ishitrenom zaključivanju, veoma, veoma brzo. Pomogla nam je da uveličamo ono čega se plašimo i da tražimo posledičnost tamo gde je nema, te smo tako dobili iluzorno samopouzdanje gde verujemo da smo najbolji vozači, iznad proseka. Svi su tako odgovorili: "Da, ja vozim bolje."
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?
U redu, ovo je bilo dobro tokom evolucije, ali sad kad se radi o pogledu na svet, baš to je razlog što je on naopak. Trendovi koji su u porastu, zapravo padaju i obratno. U ovom slučaju šimpanze koriste našu intuiciju protiv nas, te ona postaje naša slabost, a ne snaga. Trebalo bi da bude 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?
Pa kako da rešimo takve probleme? Prvo, moramo da ih izmerimo, a onda da ih lečimo. Mereći ih možemo da razumemo koji je šablon neznanja. Pokrenuli smo pilot prošle godine i sada smo prilično sigurni da ćemo naići na mnogo neznanja širom sveta, a zamisao je da ga razvrstamo u sve domene ili dimenzije globalnog razvoja, poput klime, ugroženih vrsta, ljudskih prava, rodne ravnopravnosti, energije, finansija. Svi ti različiti sektori poseduju činjenice a postoje organizacije koje pokušavaju da šire svest o ovim činjenicama. Ja sam zapravo pokušao da kontaktiram neke od njih, poput Svetske organizacije za prirodu, Amnesti internešnela i UNICEF-a, i pitao sam ih, koje su vam omiljene činjenice koje smatrate da nisu poznate javnosti?
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.
U redu, sakupio sam te činjenice. Zamislite dugačku listu, recimo, od 250 činjenica. Zatim smo anketirali javnost i videli gde su najgori rezultati. Tako smo dobili kraću listu s očajnim rezultatima, poput nekoliko Hansovih primera, i nije nam bio problem da nađemo slične očajne rezultate. U redu, ova malena kratka lista, šta ćemo s njom? Pa, pretvorićemo je u sertifikat znanja, sertifikat globalnog znanja, koji možete da koristite, ako ste velika organizacija, škola, univerzitet ili možda novinska agencija, kako biste bili sertifikovani poznavalac sveta. To u suštini znači, ne zapošljavamo ljude koji imaju rezultate poput šimpanzi. Naravno da ne bi trebalo. Možda za deset godina, ako ovaj projekat uspe, bićete na razgovoru za posao, moraćete da ispunite ovaj ludi test globalnog znanja.
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.
Sada stižemo do praktičnih trikova. Kako da budete uspešni? Postoji, naravno, jedan način, a to je da sedite do kasno uveče i da učite sve činjenice napamet, čitajući sve ove izveštaje. To se zapravo, nikada neće desiti. Čak ni Hans ne veruje u to. Ljudi nemaju toliko vremena. Ljudi vole prečice, a evo ih i prečice. Moramo da pretvorimo intuiciju u snagu. Moramo znati da uopštavamo. Sad ću vam pokazati neke trikove gde se zablude mogu preokrenuti 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.
Počećemo s prvom zabludom. Ovo je rasprostranjena zabluda. Sve je gore i gore. Čuli ste to. I sami ste to pomislili. Drugi način da mislite je da se većina stvari popravlja. Sedite s pitanjem ispred vas, niste sigurni. Pretpostvite "napredak". U redu? Ne odgovarajte "pogoršanje". To će vam pomoći da budete uspešniji na testovima. (Aplauz) To je bilo prvo pitanje.
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, a jaz među njima raste. Nejednakost je užasna. Da, ovo je svet nejednakosti, ali ako pogledate podatke, samo jedna je grba. U redu? Ako niste sigurni, pokušajte sa "većina ljudi je u sredini". To će vam pomoći da pogodite tačan odgovor.
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.
Sad, sledeća predrasuda je da države i ljudi moraju da postanu veoma, veoma bogati kako bi došlo do društvenog napretka, poput obrazovanja devojaka i spremnosti na prirodne katastrofe. Ne, ne, ne. To je pogrešno. Pogledajte: ta ogromna grba u sredini već ima obrazovane devojke. Zato ako niste sigurni, pokušajte sa "većini je ovo već dostupno", poput struje, obrazovanja za devojke i sličnih stvari. To su sve samo pravila, naravno da nisu primenjiva na sve, ali ovako možete da uopštavate.
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 poslednje pitanje. Ako je nešto tačno, da, ovo je dobro, to je da su ajkule opasne. Ne - dobro, jesu, ali to nije tako važno u globalnoj statistici, na to mislim. Ja se zapravo veoma plašim ajkula. Zato čim vidim pitanje o stvarima kojih se plašim, to mogu da budu zemljotresi, druge religije, možda me je strah terorista ili ajkula, sve što izaziva emocije utiče na to da preuveličate problem. To je pravilo. Naravno da ima opasnih, a sjajnih stvari. Ajkule ubijaju veoma, veoma retko. Tako bi trebalo da razmišljate.
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.
Sa ova četiri pravila, verovatno ćete odgovarati bolje od šimpanzi, jer šimpanze ne mogu da izvedu ovo. Ne mogu da uopštavaju pravila poput ovih. I nadam se da možemo da preokrenemo vaš svet i da pobedimo šimpanze. U redu? (Aplauz) To je sistematski 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 sad pitanje: da li je ovo važno? Da, važno je razumeti siromaštvo, ekstremno siromaštvo, i znati kako se boriti protiv njega i kako dovesti devojke u školu. Kada shvatimo da tu zapravo postižemo uspeh, možemo to da shvatimo. Ali da li je važno i za druge, koga je briga za bogate na kraju ove lestvice? Rekao bih da jeste, izuzetno je važno, iz istog razloga. Ako trenutno imate pogled na svet zasnovan na činjenicama, možda ćete imati šansu da razumete šta nam donosi budućnost.
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.
Vraćamo se na ove dve grbe iz 1975. Ja sam tad rođen i izabrao sam Zapad. To su trenutno članice EU i Severna Amerika. Pogledajmo kako se ostali drže u poređenju sa zapadnim zemljama prema bogatstvu. Ovo su ljudi koji mogu da priušte putovanje avionom u inostranstvo, na odmor. Godine 1975, samo 30 procenata njih je živelo van EU i Severne Amerike. Ali došlo je do promene, u redu? Prvo, pogledajmo dosadašnje promene, do 2014. Danas je to 50/50. Dominacija Zapada je završena, za sad. To je lepo. Pa šta će sledeće da se desi? Da li vidite veliku grbu? Jeste li videli kako se pomerala? Napravio sam mali eksperiment. Otišao sam na sajt Međunarodnog monetarnog fonda. Oni imaju prognozu za BDP u narednih pet godina. Mogu to da koristim i da odem pet godina u budućnost, pretpostavljajući da je nejednakost u prihodu ista za sve zemlje. To sam uradio, ali sam otišao i dalje. Koristio sam ovih pet godina kao odraz za narednih 20 godina, istom brzinom, samo kao eksperiment šta bi se zaista moglo desiti. Krenimo u budućnost. Godine 2020, 57 procenata ostatka sveta. Godine 2025, 63 procenta. Godine 2030, 68. A 2035, Zapad je prevaziđen na tržištu po bogatstvu. Ovo su samo projekcije BDP-a po stanovniku u budućnosti. 73 procenta bogatih potrošača će da žive van Severne Amerike i Evrope. Zato, da, mislim da je dobra ideja da kompanije koriste ove sertifikate kako bi bile sigurne da u buduće donose odluke zasnovane na činjenicama.
Thank you very much. (Applause)
Mnogo vam hvala. (Aplauz)
Bruno Giussani: Hans and Ola Rosling!
Bruno Đusani: Hans i Ola Rosling!