We are here today because [the] United Nations have defined goals for the progress of countries. They're called Millennium Development Goals. And the reason I really like these goals is that there are eight of them. And by specifying eight different goals, the United Nations has said that there are so many things needed to change in a country in order to get the good life for people. Look here -- you have to end poverty, education, gender, child and maternal health, control infections, protect the environment and get the good global links between nations in every aspect from aid to trade.
Danas smo ovdje zato što su Ujedinjeni narodi definirali ciljeve za napredak zemalja. Zovu se Milenijski razvojni ciljevi. A razlog zašto stvarno volim te ciljeve jest što ih je osam. I određivanjem osam različitih ciljeva, Ujedinjeni narodi su poručili kako ima tako puno stvari koje se trebaju promijeniti u zemlji da bismo imali dobar život za ljude. Pogledajte ovdje, trebate riješiti siromaštvo, obrazovanje, spol, zdravlje djece i majki, kontrolirati infekcije, zaštititi okoliš i ostvariti dobre globalne veze među narodima u svakom pogledu od pomoći do trgovine.
There's a second reason I like these development goals, and that is because each and every one is measured. Take child mortality; the aim here is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds, from 1990 to 2015. That's a four percent reduction per year -- and this, with measuring. That's what makes the difference between political talking like this and really going for the important thing, a better life for people. And what I'm so happy about with this is that we have already documented that there are many countries in Asia, in the Middle East, in Latin America and East Europe that [are] reducing with this rate. And even mighty Brazil is going down with five percent per year, and Turkey with seven percent per year. So there's good news. But then I hear people saying, "There is no progress in Africa. And there's not even statistics on Africa to know what is happening." I'll prove them wrong on both points.
Postoji i drugi razlog zašto mi se sviđaju ti razvojni ciljevi, a to je zato što je svaki do jednoga mjerljiv. Uzmimo smrtnost djece. Cilj je smanjiti dječju smrtnost za dvije trećine, od 1990. do 2015. To je smanjenje od 4% na godinu. I to s mjerenjem. To je ono što čini razliku između političkog govora poput ovog i stvarno raditi na važnoj stvari, na boljem životu za ljude. A razlog zašto sam tako sretan zbog toga je taj što smo već dokazali kako postoje mnoge zemlje u Aziji, na Bliskom Istoku, u Latinskoj Americi i Istočnoj Europi koje smanjuju ovom brzinom. Čak i moćni Brazil smanjuje s 5% na godinu, a Turska sa 7% na godinu. Dakle ima dobrih vijesti. A ipak ljudi mi kažu: "Nema napretka u Africi. A čak nema niti statistike o Africi za saznati što se događa." Dokazat ću da su u krivu za obje stvari.
Come with me to the wonderful world of statistics. I bring you to the webpage, ChildMortality.org, where you can take deaths in children below five years of age for all countries -- it's done by U.N. specialists. And I will take Kenya as an example. Here you see the data. Don't panic -- don't panic now, I'll help you through this. It looks nasty, like in college when you didn't like statistics. But first thing, when you see dots like this, you have to ask yourself: from where do the data come? What is the origin of the data? Is it so that in Kenya, there are doctors and other specialists who write the death certificate at the death of the child and it's sent to the statistical office? No -- low-income countries like Kenya still don't have that level of organization. It exists, but it's not complete because so many deaths occur in the home with the family, and it's not registered. What we rely on is not an incomplete system. We have interviews, we have surveys. And this is highly professional female interviewers who sit down for one hour with a woman and ask her about [her] birth history. How many children did you have? Are they alive? If they died, at what age and what year? And then this is done in a representative sample of thousands of women in the country and put together in what used to be called a demographic health survey report. But these surveys are costly, so they can only be done [in] three- to five-year intervals. But they have good quality. So this is a limitation. And all these colored lines here are results; each color is one survey. But that's too complicated for today, so I'll simplify it for you, and I give you one average point for each survey.
Pođite sa mnom u čudesni svijet statistike. Vodim vas na internetsku stranicu, ChildMortality.org, gdje možete uzeti broj smrti djece ispod pet godina starosti za sve zemlje. Napravili su je UN-ovi stručnjaci. I uzet ću Keniju kao primjer. Ovdje vidite podatke. Nemojte paničariti. Nemojte sada paničariti. Pomoći ću vam u tome. Izgleda grozno, kao na fakultetu kada niste voljeli statistiku. Ali prva stvar, kada vidite točke poput ovih, koju se trebate pitati, je: odakle podaci dolaze? Koje je porijeklo podataka? Je li tako da u Keniji postoje liječnici i drugi stručnjaci koji pišu potvrdu o smrti čim dijete umre, i koja se šalje u statistički ured? Ne. Zemlje s niskim standardom kao Kenija još uvijek nemaju tu razinu organiziranosti. Ona postoji ali nije potpuna, jer se puno smrti događa u kući s obitelji, i ne bilježe se. Ono na što se oslanjamo nije nepotpun sustav. Imamo intervjue, ankete. I to su strogo profesionalne ženske ispitivačice koje će sjesti sa ženom jedan sat i pitati je o povijesti njezinih poroda. Koliko ste djece imali? Jesu li živi? Ako su umrli, u kojoj dobi i koje godine? I to je onda rađeno na reprezentativnom uzorku tisuća žena u zemlji i objedinjeno u onome što se ranije zvalo izvještaj o demografskom ispitivanju zdravlja. Ali ta ispitivanja koštaju, i mogu biti napravljene tek u intervalima od 3 do 5 godina. Ali su jako kvalitetna. Tako da je to ograničenje. I sve ove obojene linije su rezultati; svaka boja je jedno ispitivanje. No to je prekomplicirano za danas, pa ću vam pojednostaviti, i dati vam po jednu prosječnu točku svakog ispitivanja.
This was 1977, 1988, 1992, '97 and 2002. And when the experts in the U.N. have got these surveys in place in their database, then they use advanced mathematical formulas to produce a trend line, and the trend line looks like this. See here -- it's the best fit they can get of this point. But watch out -- they continue the line beyond the last point out into nothing. And they estimated that in 2008, Kenya had per child mortality of 128. And I was sad, because we could see this reversal in Kenya with an increased child mortality in the 90s. It was so tragic. But in June, I got a mail in my inbox from Demographic Health Surveys, and it showed good news from Kenya. I was so happy. This was the estimate of the new survey. Then it just took another three months for [the] U.N. to get it into their server, and on Friday we got the new trend line -- it was down here. Isn't it nice -- isn't it nice, yeah? I was actually, on Friday, sitting in front of my computer, and I saw the death rate fall from 128 to 84 just that morning. So we celebrated.
To je bila 1977., 1988., 1992., '97. i 2002. I kad su stručnjaci u Ujedinjenim narodima stavili ispitivanja na svoje mjesto u bazama podataka, tada su upotrijebili napredne matematičke formule da dobiju liniju smjera, a linija smjera izgleda ovako. Pogledajte. Ovo je najbolje podudaranje koje mogu ovdje dobiti. Ali pazite. Oni produžuju liniju iza zadnje točke u ništa. I procijenili su kako će, 2008, Kenija imati smrtnost djece od 128. I bio sam tužan, jer smo mogli vidjeti taj obrat u Keniji s porastom dječje smrtnosti u 90-tima. To je bilo baš tragično. Ali u lipnju sam dobio e-mail poruku od Demografskih ispitivanja zdravlja i imala je dobre vijesti iz Kenije. I bio sam tako sretan. Ovo je bila procjena novog ispitivanja. I onda je trebalo samo idućih tri mjeseca kako bi ih UN stavio na svoj server, I u petak smo dobili novu liniju smjera. I bila je ovdje dolje. Nije li to lijepo? Nije li to lijepo, ha? Ja sam zapravo u petak sjedio ispred svog računala, i vidio broj smrti kako pada s 128 na 84 samo tog jutra. Pa smo slavili.
But now, when you have this trend line, how do we measure progress? I'm going into some details here, because [the] U.N. do it like this. They start [in] 1990 -- they measure to 2009. They say, "0.9 percent, no progress." That's unfair. As a professor, I think I have the right to propose something differently. I would say, at least do this -- 10 years is enough to follow the trend. It's two surveys, and you can see what's happening now. They have 2.4 percent. Had I been in the Ministry of Health in Kenya, I may have joined these two points. So what I'm telling you is that we know the child mortality. We have a decent trend. It's coming into some tricky things then when we are measuring MDGs. And the reason here for Africa is especially important, because '90s was a bad decade, not only in Kenya, but across Africa. The HIV epidemic peaked. There was resistance for the old malaria drugs, until we got the new drugs. We got, later, the mosquito netting. And there was socio-economic problems, which are now being solved at a much better scale. So look at the average here -- this is the average for all of sub-Saharan Africa. And [the] U.N. says it's a reduction with 1.8 percent.
Ali sada, kada imamo ovu liniju smjera, kako mjerimo napredak? Sada idem malo u detalje, jer UN voli to raditi. Počnu 1990. mjere do 2009. Kažu: "0,9%, nema napretka." To nije pošteno. Kao profesor, mislim kako imam pravo predložiti nešto drugačije. Rekao bih, učinite barem ovo. 10 godina je dovoljno za pratiti trend. To su dva ispitivanja, i možete vidjeti što se sada događa. Imaju 2,4% Da sam ja u Ministarstvu zdravstva u Keniji, možda bih spojio ove dvije točke. Tako da ono što vam govorim je da mi znamo smrtnost djece. Imamo pristojan trend. Dolazimo do varljivih stvari kad mjerimo Milenijske razvojne ciljeve Iako je razlog za Afriku izuzetno važan, jer su 90-te bile loše desetljeće, ne samo u Keniji, nego po cijeloj Africi. Epidemija HIV-a došla je do vrhunca. Bilo je rezistencije na stare lijekove za malariju, dok nismo dobili nove. A kasnije smo dobili i mreže protiv komaraca. Bilo je i društveno-ekonomskih problema, koji se sada rješavaju u puno većem opsegu. Tako da pogledajte ovdje prosjek. Ovo je prosjek cijele Afrike južno od Sahare. I Ujedinjeni narodi kažu kako je to smanjenje od 1,8%.
Now this sounds a little theoretical, but it's not so theoretical. You know, these economists, they love money, they want more and more of it, they want it to grow. So they calculate the percent annual growth rate of [the] economy. We in public health, we hate child death, so we want less and less and less of child deaths. So we calculate the percent reduction per year, but it's sort of the same percentage. If your economy grows with four percent, you ought to reduce child mortality four percent; if it's used well and people are really involved and can get the use of the resources in the way they want it. So is this fair now to measure this over 19 years? An economist would never do that. I have just divided it into two periods. In the 90s, only 1.2 percent, only 1.2 percent. Whereas now, second gear -- it's like Africa had first gear, now they go into second gear. But even this is not a fair representation of Africa, because it's an average, it's an average speed of reduction in Africa.
Ovo sada zvuči pomalo teoretski, ali nije toliko teoretski. Znate, ti ekonomisti, vole novac, i žele ga sve više i više, žele rasti. Pa računaju postotak godišnjeg porasta ekonomije. Mi u javnom zdravstvu, mi mrzimo dječje smrti, stoga želimo sve manje i manje dječjih smrti. Pa računamo postotak smanjenja po godini. Ali i to je ista vrsta postotaka. Ako vaša ekonomija raste za 4%, trebate smanjiti dječju smrtnost za 4%, ako je dobro upotrijebljen i ako su ljudi stvarno uključeni i mogu koristiti sredstva na način koji žele. Je li onda pošteno to mjeriti kroz 19 godina? Ekonomist to nikad ne bi napravio. Podijelio sam to na dva dijela. U 90-tima, samo 1,2%, samo 1,2%. Za razliku od sada, druga brzina -- to je kao da je Afrika imala prvu brzinu, i sada su krenuli u drugoj brzini. Ali čak i to nije pošteno predstavljenje Aftrike, jer je to prosjek, to je prosječna brzina smanjenja u Africi.
And look here when I take you into my bubble graphs. Still here, child death per 1,000 on that axis. Here we have [the] year. And I'm now giving you a wider picture than the MDG. I start 50 years ago when Africa celebrated independence in most countries. I give you Congo, which was high, Ghana -- lower. And Kenya -- even lower. And what has happened over the years since then? Here we go. You can see, with independence, literacy improved and vaccinations started, smallpox was eradicated, hygiene was improved, and things got better. But then, in the '80s, watch out here. Congo got into civil war, and they leveled off here. Ghana got very ahead, fast. This was the backlash in Kenya, and Ghana bypassed, but then Kenya and Ghana go down together -- still a standstill in Congo. That's where we are today. You can see it doesn't make sense to make an average of this zero improvement and this very fast improvement. Time has come to stop thinking about sub-Saharan Africa as one place. Their countries are so different, and they merit to be recognized in the same way, as we don't talk about Europe as one place. I can tell you that the economy in Greece and Sweden are very different -- everyone knows that. And they are judged, each country, on how they are doing.
Pogledajte ovdje, kada vas odvedem u moje grafove s balončićima. Još uvijek ovdje broj smrti djece na 1.000 je na onoj osi. Ovdje imamo godinu. I sad vam dajem širu sliku od Milenijskih razvojnih ciljeva. Počinjem od prije 50 godina kada je Afrika slavila nezavisnost u većini zemalja. Evo vam Kongo, koji je bio visoko, Gana, niže, a Kenija još niže. I što se događalo od tada kroz godine? Idemo. Vidite, s nezavisnosti, popravila se pismenost i počela su cijepljenja, velike boginje su iskorijenjene, higijena se popravila, i stvari su se poboljšale. Ali onda, u 80-tima, pogledajte ovdje. Kongo je ušao u građanski rat, i stali su na toj razini. Gana je brzo napredovala. Kenija ovdje usporava, Gana je pretječe, no onda Kenija i Gana zajedno kreću prema dolje -- još je uvijek zastoj u Kongu. Ovdje smo danas. Možete vidjeti, ovo nema smisla raditi prosjek ovih nikakvih poboljšanja i ovih jako brzih poboljšanja. Došlo je doba kada moramo prestati razmišljati o Africi južno od Sahare kao jednom mjestu. Te su zemlje tako različite, i zaslužuju da ih se takvima i prepozna, kao što ni o Europi ne govorimo kao o jednom mjestu. Mogu vam reći kako su ekonomija u Grčkoj i Švedskoj vrlo različite. Svi to znaju. I procjenjuje ih se kako stoje, svaku zemlju zasebno.
So let me show the wider picture. My country, Sweden: 1800, we were up there. What a strange personality disorder we must have, counting the children so meticulously in spite of a high child death rate. It's very strange. It's sort of embarrassing. But we had that habit in Sweden, you know, that we counted all the child deaths, even if we didn't do anything about it. And then, you see, these were famine years. These were bad years, and people got fed up with Sweden. My ancestors moved to the United States. And eventually, soon they started to get better and better here. And here we got better education, and we got health service, and child mortality came down. We never had a war; Sweden was in peace all this time. But look, the rate of lowering in Sweden was not fast. Sweden achieved a low child mortality because we started early. We had primary school actually started in 1842. And then you get that wonderful effect when we got female literacy one generation later. You have to realize that the investments we do in progress are long-term investments. It's not about just five years -- it's long-term investments. And Sweden never reached [the] Millennium Development Goal rate, 3.1 percent when I calculated. So we are off track -- that's what Sweden is. But you don't talk about it so much. We want others to be better than we were, and indeed, others have been better.
Dajte da vam pokažem širu sliku. Moja zemlja, Švedska: 1800. bili smo ovdje gore. Kakav mi to čudan poremećaj osobnosti moramo imati, kada brojimo djecu tako pedantno usprkos visokim stopama njihove smrtnosti. To je jako čudno. Na neki način za posramiti se. Ali mi u Švedskoj imamo tu naviku, znate, tako da smo brojali sve dječje smrti, čak i ako nismo ništa oko toga poduzimali. A onda, vidite, ovo su godine gladi. To su bile loše godine, i ljudima je bilo dosta Švedske. Moji preci su se preselili u SAD. I konačno, ubrzo se situacija ovdje počela popravljati. Dobili smo bolje obrazovanje, i zdravstvo, smrtnost djece se smanjila. Mi nikad nismo imali rat, Švedska je bila u miru cijelo to vrijeme. No pogledajte, smanjivanje u Švedskoj nije bilo brzo. Švedska je dosegnula nisku smrtnost djece zato što je počela rano. Osnovna škola kod nas počela je 1842. I tada dobijete taj prekrasan učinak kada je narasla ženska pismenost jednu generaciju nakon toga. Morate shvatiti da su ulaganja u napredak koja radimo, dugoročna ulaganja. Ne radi se samo o pet godina. To su dugoročna ulaganja. I Švedska nikada nije dosegnula brzinu iz Milenijskih razvojnih ciljeva, 3,1% kako sam ja to izračunao. Dakle skrenuli smo s puta. To je znači Švedska. Ali o tome baš ne govorimo. Želimo da drugi budu bolji od nas. I zaista, drugi su bili bolji.
Let me show you Thailand, see what a success story, Thailand from the 1960s -- how they went down here and reached almost the same child mortality levels as Sweden. And I'll give you another story -- Egypt, the most hidden, glorious success in public health. Egypt was up here in 1960, higher than Congo. The Nile Delta was a misery for children with diarrheal disease and malaria and a lot of problems. And then they got the Aswan Dam. They got electricity in their homes, they increased education and they got primary health care. And down they went, you know. And they got safer water, they eradicated malaria. And isn't it a success story. Millennium Development Goal rates for child mortality is fully possible. And the good thing is that Ghana today is going with the same rate as Egypt did at its fastest. Kenya is now speeding up. Here we have a problem. We have a severe problem in countries which are at a standstill.
Dozvolite da vam pokažem Tajland, pogledajte koja je to uspješna priča, Tajland od 1960-ih -- kako su ovdje krenuli dolje i dosegnuli skoro istu smrtnost djece kao Švedska. Dat ću vam drugu priču, Egipat, najbolje skriven, postiže slavni uspjeh u javnom zdravstvu. Egipat je bio ovdje gore 1960., više od Konga. Nilska delta bila je za djecu patnja s dijarejom i malarijom i puno problema. Onda su dobili asuansku branu. Dobili su struju u svoje kuće. Povećali su edukaciju. I dobili su primarnu zdravstvenu zaštitu. I došli su dolje, znate. I dobili su čišću vodu, iskorijenili su malariju. Nije li to priča o uspjehu. Milenijski razvojni ciljevi za smanjenje dječje smrtnosti sasvim su mogući. I dobre vijesti su da Gana danas ide istom brzinom kao Egipat kada je bio najbrži. Sada i Kenija ubrzava. Tu imamo problem. Imamo ozbiljan problem u zemljama koje su u zastoju.
Now, let me now bring you to a wider picture, a wider picture of child mortality. I'm going to show you the relationship between child mortality on this axis here -- this axis here is child mortality -- and here I have the family size. The relationship between child mortality and family size. One, two, three, four children per woman: six, seven, eight children per woman. This is, once again, 1960 -- 50 years ago. Each bubble is a country -- the color, you can see, a continent. The dark blue here is sub-Saharan Africa. And the size of the bubble is the population. And these are the so-called "developing" countries. They had high, or very high, child mortality and family size, six to eight. And the ones over there, they were so-called Western countries. They had low child mortality and small families. What has happened? What I want you [to do] now is to see with your own eyes the relation between fall in child mortality and decrease in family size. I just want not to have any room for doubt -- you have to see that for yourself. This is what happened. Now I start the world. Here we come down with the eradication of smallpox, better education, health service. It got down there -- China comes into the Western box here. And here Brazil is in the Western Box. India is approaching. The first African countries coming into the Western box, and we get a lot a new neighbors. Welcome to a decent life. Come on. We want everyone down there. This is the vision we have, isn't it. And look now, the first African countries here are coming in. There we are today.
Dajte da vam sad pokažem širu sliku, širu sliku dječje smrtnost. Pokazat ću vam odnos smrtnosti djece na ovoj osi - ova ovdje os je dječja smrtnost - a ovdje imamo veličinu obitelji. Odnos između dječje smrtnosti i veličine obitelji. Jedno, dvoje, troje, četvero djece po ženi. Šestero, sedmero, osmero djece po ženi. Ovo je, još jednom, 1960., pred 50 godina. Svaki balončić je jedna zemlja. Boje koje vidite, su kontinenti. Ovaj tamno plavi je Afrika južno od Sahare. Veličina balončića je ukupno stanovništvo. A ovo su takozvane zemlje "u razvoju". Imale su visoku ili vrlo visoku smrtnost djece veličina obitelji, šest do osam. A ovo ovdje su takozvane zapadne zemlje One su imale nisku smrtnost djece i male obitelji. Što se dogodilo? Želim da sada vidite vlastitim očima odnos između pada smrtnosti djece i smanjenja obitelji. Jednostavno ne želim ostaviti mjesta za ikakvu sumnju. Morate vidjeti sami. Ovo se dogodilo. Sad pokrećem svijet. Ovdje smo išli dolje s iskorjenjivanjem velikih boginja, boljim obrazovanjem, zdravstvenom zaštitom. Do ovdje dolje se došlo -- Kina dolazi u zapadnjačku kućicu. A ovdje je Brazil u zapadnjačkoj kućici Indija stiže. Prve afričke zemlje stižu u zapadnjačku kućicu. Dobivamo mnogo novih susjeda. Dobrodošli u pristojan život. Hajde. Želimo da svi dođu ovdje dolje. To je vizija koju imamo, zar ne? I pogledajte sada, prve afričke zemlje stižu. Tu smo danas.
There is no such thing as a "Western world" and "developing world." This is the report from [the] U.N., which came out on Friday. It's very good -- "Levels and Trends in Child Mortality" -- except this page. This page is very bad; it's a categorization of countries. It labels "developing countries," -- I can read from the list here -- developing countries: Republic of Korea -- South Korea. Huh? They get Samsung, how can they be [a] developing country? They have here Singapore. They have the lowest child mortality in the world, Singapore. They bypassed Sweden five years ago, and they are labeled a developing country. They have here Qatar. It's the richest country in the world with Al Jazeera. How the heck could they be [a] developing country? This is crap. (Applause) The rest here is good -- the rest is good.
Ne postoji ništa kao "zapadni svijet" i "svijet u razvoju". Ovo je izvještaj UN-a, koji je izašao u petak. Jako je dobar -- "Razine i kretanja dječje smrtnosti" - osim ove stranice. Ova stranica je jako loša. To je kategorizacija zemalja. Navodi "zemlje u razvoju" -- mogu vam pročitati s popisa -- zemlje u razvoju: Republika Koreja -- Južna Koreja. Molim? Imaju Samsung, kako mogu biti zemlja u razvoju? Ovdje imaju i Singapur. Oni imaju najnižu smrtnost djece na svijetu, Singapur. Pretekli su Švedsku pred pet godina, a označeni su kao zemlja u razvoju. Ovdje imaju i Katar. To je najbogatija zemlja u svijetu s Al Jazeerom. Kako dovraga oni mogu biti zemlja u razvoju? Ovo je smeće. (Pljesak) Ostatak ovoga je u redu. Ostatak je dobar.
We have to have a modern concept, which fits to the data. And we have to realize that we are all going to into this, down to here. What is the importance now with the relations here. Look -- even if we look in Africa -- these are the African countries. You can clearly see the relation with falling child mortality and decreasing family size, even within Africa. It's very clear that this is what happens. And a very important piece of research came out on Friday from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle showing that almost 50 percent of the fall in child mortality can be attributed to female education. That is, when we get girls in school, we'll get an impact 15 to 20 years later, which is a secular trend which is very strong. That's why we must have that long-term perspective, but we must measure the impact over 10-year periods. It's fully possible to get child mortality down in all of these countries and to get them down in the corner where we all would like to live together.
Moramo imati moderni koncept, koji odgovara podacima. Moramo shvatiti da svi idemo ovuda, do ovdje dolje. To je važnost ovih ovdje odnosa. Pogledajte. Čak i ako pogledamo Afriku. Ovo su afričke zemlje. Jasno možete vidjeti povezanost smanjenja dječje smrtnosti i smanjenja veličine obitelji, čak unutar Afrike. Vrlo je jasno da je to ono što se događa. I jako važno istraživanje izašlo je u petak iz Instituta za mjerenje i procjenu zdravstva u Seattleu, koji pokazuje da se skoro 50% pada dječje smrtnosti može se pripisati obrazovanju žena. To znači, kada dobijemo djevojčice u škole, učinak ćemo vidjeti 15 do 20 godina kasnije, što je vremenski trend i vrlo je jak. Zato moramo imati dugoročnu perspektivu, ali moramo mjeriti utjecaj u razdobljima od 10 godina. To je sasvim moguće smanjiti smrtnost djece u svim ovim zemljama i spustiti ih u ovaj kutak gdje bismo svi željeli zajedno živjeti.
And of course, lowering child mortality is a matter of utmost importance from humanitarian aspects. It's a decent life for children, we are talking about. But it is also a strategic investment in the future of all mankind, because it's about the environment. We will not be able to manage the environment and avoid the terrible climate crisis if we don't stabilize the world population. Let's be clear about that. And the way to do that, that is to get child mortality down, get access to family planning and behind that drive female education. And that is fully possible. Let's do it.
Naravno, smanjenje dječje smrtnosti stvar je najveće važnosti iz humanitarnog gledišta. Pristojan život djece, o tome govorimo. Ali to je također i strateško ulaganje u budućnost cijelog čovječanstva, jer se radi i o okolišu. Nećemo moći riješiti okoliš i izbjeći užasnu klimatsku krizu ako ne stabiliziramo svjetsku napučenost. Budimo u tome jasni. A način kako da to učinimo je da smanjimo dječju smrtnost, osiguramo pristup planiranju obitelji i iza toga provodimo obrazovanje žena. To je posve moguće. Učinimo to!
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)