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.
Danes smo tukaj, ker so Združeni narodi določili cilje za napredek držav. Imenujejo se Razvojni cilji tisočletja. In razlog, da so mi ti cilji res všeč, je da jih je osem. In z določitvijo osmih različnih ciljev, so Združeni narodi dejali, da je toliko stvari potrebno spremeniti v državi, da bi ljudem zagotovili dobro življenje. Poglejte--odpraviti moramo revščino, izobrazba, spol, zdravje otroka in matere, nadzorovati okužbe, zaščititi okolje in pridobiti dobre globalne povezave med narodi v vseh pogledih, od pomoči do trga.
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.
Imam še drug razlog zakaj so mi ti razvojni cilji všeč, in sicer zato, ker vsakega lahko merimo. Vzemimo na primer umrljivost otrok; naš cilj je zmanjšati umrljivost otrok za dve tretjini od leta 1990 do 2015. To pomeni 4 procentno znižanje vsako leto-- in to, z merjenjem. V tem je razlika med političnim govorjenjem-takole in resničnim trudom za pomembno stvar, boljše življenje za ljudi. In tako zadovoljen sem s tem, ker smo že zabeležili, da so mnoge države v Aziji, na Srednjem Vzhodu v Latinski Ameriki in Vzhodni Evropi kjer se smrtnost zmanjšuje s to hitrostjo. In celo mogočna Brazilija se znižuje pet procentov na leto, in Turčija sedem procentov na leto. Torej imamo dobre novice. Ampak potem slišim ljudi, ki pravijo: "V Afriki ni nobenega napredka. In Afriki sploh ni statistik, da bi vedeli, kaj se dogaja." Dokazal bom da se motijo v obeh stvareh.
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.
Pridite z mano v čudoviti svet statistik. Prinašam vam stran, Childmortality.org (umrljivost otrok), kjer lahko vzamete število smrti otrok starih manj kot 5 let za vse države-- to so naredili strokovnjaki ZN. Kot primer bom vzel Kenijo. Tukaj vidite podatke. Brez panike-- brez panike, pomagal vam bom. Izgleda grozno, kot na fakulteti, ko niste marali statistike. Ampak prvo, kar morate narediti, ko vidite take pike, se morate vprašati: Od kod so prišli ti podatki? Kje je izvor teh podatkov? So v Keniji tu doktorji in drugi specialisti ki napišejo potrdilo o smrti ob smri otroka in ga pošljejo na statistični urad? Ne--v državah z nizkim dohodkom, kot je Kenija še zmeraj nimajo te ravni organizacije. Obstaja, ampak ni popolna ker se toliko smrti zgodi doma v krogu družine in je neregistrirana. Mi se ne zanašamo na nepopoln sistem. Imamo intervjuje, vprašalnike. In to so visoko profesionalne ženske spraševalke ki sedijo eno uro z žensko in jo sprašujejo o njeni preteklosti. Koliko otrok ste imeli? So živi? Če so umrli, katerega leta in koliko stari? In to se opravi na reprezentativnem vzorcu tisočih žensk v državi in združi v nečem, čemur smo včasih rekli poročilo o demografski analizi zdravja. Ampak take raziskave stanejo, zato jih lahko opravljamo le v tri do pet-letnih intervalih. Ampak so pa kvalitetne. To je torej omejitev. In vse te barvne črte so rezultati; vsaka barva je ena raziskava. Ampak to je preveč zapleteno za danes, zato vam bom poenostavil, in vam dal eno povprečno točko za vsako raziskavo.
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 bilo leta 1977, 1988, 1992, '97 in 2002. In ko imajo strokovnjaki v Z.N. te raziskave v svoji bazi podatkov, potem uporabijo napredne matematične formule da naredijo linijo trendov, in trend izgleda takole. Vidite tu-- to je najboljše ujemanje, ki ga lahko dobijo na tej točki. ampak pazite-- črto nadaljujejo prek zadnje točke naprej v nič. In predvidevali so, da bo imela leta 2008 Kenija smrtnost otrok 128. In bil sem žalosten ker smo lahko videli ta obrat v Keniji s povečano umrljivostjo otrok v devetdesetih. Bilo je tako tragično. Ampak junija, je v moj nabiralnik prispelo pismo iz Demografskih raziskav zdravja in kazalo je dobre novice za Kenijo. Bil sem tako srečen. To so bila predvidevanja nove raziskave. Potem je trajalo še tri mesece da so Z.N. to dali v svoj server in ta petek smo dobili novo linijo trendov -- bila je tu spodaj. Kaj ni lepo-- kaj ni lepo, kaj? V petek sem sedel pred računalnikom in videl padec umrljivosti z 128 na 84 prav tisto jutro. Zato smo praznovali.
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.
Ampak sedaj, ko imate to linijo trendov, kako mermo napredek? Šel bom v detajle tukaj, ker to tako počnejo Z.N. Začnejo v letu 1990--in merijo do leta 2009. In rečejo, "0.9%, ni napredka." To je nepošteno. Kot profesor, mislim da imam pravico, da predlagam nekaj drugega. Rekel bom, storite vsaj to-- 10 let je dovolj da sledite trendu. To sta dve raziskavi, in lahko vidite kaj se dogaja sedaj. imajo 2.4 procenta. Če bi bil na Ministrstvu za zdravje v Keniji, bi morda združil ti dve točki. Kar vam torej govorim je, da poznamo umrljivost otrok. Imamo spodoben trend. Postane pa malo bolj zapleteno ko merimo MDG. In razlog za Afriko je tu še posebej pomemben, ker so bila devetdeseta slabo desetletje, ne samo v Keniji, ampak po vsej Afriki. HIV epidemija je dosegla vrhunec imeli smo rezistenco na stara zdravila proti malariji, dokler nismo dobili novih. Dobili smo, kasneje, mreže proti komarjem. in tu so bilo socio-ekonomski problemi, ki jih sedaj rešujemo na veliko boljši ravni. Poglejte torej povprečje tukaj-- to je povprečje za vso Podsaharsko Afriko. In Z.N. pravijo da gre za 1.8 procentno zmanjšanje.
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.
To zveni malo teoretično, ampak ni tako teoretično. Veste, ti ekonomisti, ljubijo denar, hočejo vedno več in več, hočejo, da raste. Zato izračunajo procentno letno rast gospodarstva. Mi v javnem zdravju sovražimo smrt otrok, zato hočemo manj in manj smrti otrok. Zato izračunamo procentno zmanjašnje na leto, ampak gre za nekako iste procente. Če tvoje gospodarstvo naraste za štiri procente naj bi se umrljivost otrok zmanjšala za 4 procente; če je dobro izkoriščena in so ljudje res vpleteni in lahko izkoristijo vire kot si želijo. Je torej pravično, da merimo to v razponu 19 let? Ekonomist tega ne bi storil. Jaz sem ga samo razdelil v dve obdobji. V 90ih, samo 1.2 procenta, samo 1.2 procenta. Ampak zdaj, v drugi prestavi-- kot če bi bila Afrika v prvi prestavi, zdaj gredo pa v drugo prestavo. Ampak celo to ni pravičen prikaz Afrike, ker je povprečje, povprečna hitrost zmanjšanja v Afriki.
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.
In poglejte tu, ko vas peljem k mojim prikazom z mehurčki. Še zmeraj imamo smrti otrok na tisoč prebivalcev na tej osi. Tu imamo leta. Zdaj vam dajem širšo sliko kot MDG. Začnem 50 let nazaj ko je Afrika praznovala samostojnost v večini držav. kažem vam Kongo, ki je visoko, Gana--nižje. In Kenija--še nižje. In kaj se je zgodilo skozi leta od takrat? Gremo. Kot vidite, s samostojnostjo, se je izboljšala pismenost in začelo se je cepljenje, koze so izbrisane, higiena se je izboljšala in stvari so se izboljšale. Ampak potem, v osemdesetih, pazite zdaj. v Kongu se je začela državljanska vojna, in ustalili so se tu. Ghana jih je prehitela, zelo hitro. To je bil zaostanek v Keniji, in Gana jih je prehitela, Ampak potem se Kenija in Gana spustita skupaj-- Kongo še zmeraj stoji. Tu smo danes. Vidite da nima smisla da naredimo povprečje iz nič napredka in tega zelo hitrega napredka. Prišel je čas da nehamo razmišljato o Podsaharski Afriki kot enoti. Te države so tako različne, in zaslužijo si, da jih kot take tudi prepoznamo, tako kot ne govorimo o Evropi kot o enem kraju. Lahko vam povem da je gospodarstvo Grčije in Švedske zelo različno-- vsi to vedo. In vsake državo posebej ocenimo, kako ji gre.
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.
Naj vam pokažem širšo sliko. Moja država, Švedska: 1800, smo tu gor. Kakšno čudno motnjo osebnosti moramo imeti, da štejemo otroke tako skrbno kljub tako visoki umrljivosti otrok. Zelo je čudno. Nekako sramotno je. Ampak imeli smo to navado na Švedskem, veste, da smo prešteli vse smrti otrok, čeprav nismo glede tega storili nič. In potem, vidite, to so bila leta lakote. To so bila slaba leta, in ljudje so imeli Švedske dovolj. Moji predniki so se preselili v Združene države. In sčasoma, kmalu so se stvari izboljšale. In tu imamo boljšo izobrazbo, zdravstveno oskrbo, in umrljivost otrok se je zmanjšala. Nikoli nismo imeli vojne, Švedska je bila v miru ves ta čas. Ampak poglejte, hitrost zniževanja na Švedskem ni bila hitra. Švedska je dosegla nizko umrljivost otrok ker smo zgodaj začeli. Osnovno šolo smo dobili leta 1842. In potem dobiš ta čudoviti učinek ko smo dobili pismene ženske eno generacijo kasneje. Zavedati se morate da so te investicije dolgoročne investicije. Ne gre za samo 5 let-- to so dolgoročne investicije. In Švedska ni nikoli dosegla Razvojnega cilja tisočletja, 3.1 procent ko sem to izračunal. Zato smo izven poti--to je Švedska. Ampak o tem se ne govori veliko. Hočemo, da bi bili drugi boljši od nas, in res, drugi so bili boljši.
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.
Naj vam pokažem Tajsko, poglejte kakšna zgodba o uspehu, Tajska iz leta 1960-- kako so prišli semdol in dosegli skoraj enako umrljivost otrok kot Švedska. Še eno zgodbo vam pokažem--Egipt, najbolj skrit, veličasten uspeh v javnem zdravju. Egipt je bil tu leta 1960, višje kot Kongo. Delta Nila je bila beda za otroke z diarejo in malarijo in veliko problemi. Potem so dobili Asuanski jez. Dobili so elektriko v domovih, povečali so izobrazbo in dobili primarno zdravstveno oskrbo. In šli so dol, veste. In dobili so varnejšo vodo in izbrisali malarijo. Kaj ni to zgodba o uspehu. Milenijski razvojni cilj za umrljivost otrok je popolnoma mogoč. In dobra stvar je, da Gana danes napreduje z istjo hitrostjo, kot Egipt v najhitrejših časih. Kenija je sedaj pospešila. Tu imamo problem. Imamo resen problem v državah ki se ne premaknejo.
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.
Naj vam sedaj pokažem širšo sliko, širšo sliko umrljivosti otrok. Pokazal vam bom povezavo med umrljivostjo otrok na tej osi tu-- ta os tu je umrljivost otrok-- in tu imam velikost družine. Povezava med umrljivostjo otrok in velikostjo družine. En, dva trije otroci na žensko: šest, sedem, osem otrok na žensko. To je, spet, leto 1960-- 50 let nazaj. Vsak mehurček je država-- Barva, kot vidite, je kontinent. Temno modra tu je Podsaharska Afrika. In velikost mehurčka je populacija. In to so tako imenovane države "v razvoju". Imele so visoko, ali pa zelo visoko, umrljivost otrok in velikost družine, šest do osem. In te tu, to so bilo tako imenovane Zahodne države. Imele so nizko umrljivost otrok in majhne družine. Kaj se je zgodilo? Sedaj hočem da vidite to na lastne oči, povezavo med padcem umrljivosti otrok in zmanjšano velikostjo družine. Hočem samo, da ni nič prostora za dvom-- sami morate videti. To se je zgodilo. Sedaj zaženem svet. Tukaj se znižamo z izkoreninjenjem koz, boljšo izobrazbo, zdravstveno oskrbo. Do sem dol smo prišli-- Kitajska pride v zahodni kvadratek tu. in Brazilija pride v zahodni kvadratek. India se približuje. prve afriške države prihajajo v zahodni kvadratek, in dobimo veliko novih sosedov. Dobrodošli v spodobnem življenju. Dajmo. Hočemo vse tu spodaj. To je naša vizija, kajne. In poglejte zdaj, prve afriške države prihajajo sem. Tu smo danes.
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 obstaja "Zahodni svet" in "svet v razvoju". To je poročilo Z.N., ki je bilo izdano v petek. Zelo je dobro--"Stopnje in trendi v umrljivosti otrok"- razen te strani. Ta stran je zelo slaba; gre za kategorizacijo držav. Označuje "države v razvoju"--lahko vam preberem seznam tu-- države v razvoju:Korejska republika--Južna Koreja. Kaj? Oni imajo Samsung, kako so lahko država v razvoju? Tu je Singapur. Najnižjo umrljivost na svetu imajo v Singapurju. Prehiteli so Švedsko pred petimi leti, in so označeni kot država v razvoju. Tu je Katar. To je najbogatejša država na svetu, z Al Jazeero. Kako za hudiča so lahko država v razvoju? To je sranje. (Aplavz) ostalo tu je dobro--ostalo je dobro.
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.
Imeti moramo moderen koncept ki se ujema s podatki. In zavedati se moramo da gremo vsi sem dol. Kaj je sedaj pomembno pri povezavah tu. poglejte--celo če pogledamo Afriko-- to so afriške države. Tu lahko jasno vidite povezavo s padajočo umrljivostjo otrok in zmanjševanjem velikosti družine, celo v Afriki. Zelo jasno je, da se to zgodi. in zelo pomemben del raziskave je bil izdan v petek iz Inštituta za Merjenje zdravja in ocenjevanje v Seattlu ki kaže da skoraj 50 procentov padca umrljivosti otrok lahko pripišemo izobrazbi žensk. To je, ko gredo deklice v šolo, dobimo vpliv 15 do 20 let kasneje, to je sekularni trend, ki je zelo močan. zato moramo imeti dolgoročno perspektivo, ampak moramo meriti vpliv v desetletnih obdobjih. Popolnoma mogoče je, da zmanjšamo umrljivost trok v teh državah in jih spravimo dol v ta kot, kjer bi vsi radi živeli skupaj.
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.
In seveda, zmanjševanje umrljivosti otrok je zelo pomembno iz humantarnega vidika. Pomeni spodobno življenje za otroke, o tem govorimo. Prav tako pa je to strateška investicija v prihodnost človeštva, ker zadeva okolje. Ne bomo sposobni obvladati okolja in se izogniti grozljivi klimatski krizi če ne uravnovesimo svetovne populacije. Bodimo jasni glede tega. In to lahko storimo tako, da zmanjšamo umrljivost otrok, omogočimo dostop do načrtovanja družine in za vsem tem omogočimo izobrazbo žensk. In to je popolnoma mogoče. Storimo to.
Thank you very much.
Najlepša hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)