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 ovde zato što su Ujedinjene nacije definisale ciljeve za napredak zemalja. Zovu se Milenijumski razvojni ciljevi. A razlog zašto stvarno volim te ciljeve je što ih ima osam. I određivanjem osam različitih ciljeva, Ujedinjene nacije su poručile kako ima tako puno stvari koje bi trebalo da se promene u nekoj zemlji, da bismo imali dobar život za ljude. Pogledajte ovde, treba zaustaviti siromaštvo, obrazovanje, rod, zdravlje dece i majki, kontrolisati infekcije, zaštititi okolinu i ostvariti dobre globalne veze među narodima u svakom pogledu, od pomoći do trgovanja.
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 merljiv. Uzmimo smrtnost dece. Cilj je smanjiti dečju smrtnost za dve trećine, od 1990. do 2015. To je smanjenje od četiri procenta godišnje. I ovo, s merenjem. To je ono što čini razliku između ovakvog političkog govora i stvarnog rađenja na važnoj stvari, na boljem životu za ljude. A razlog zašto sam tako srećan zbog toga je taj što smo već dokazali da postoje mnoge zemlje u Aziji, na Bliskom istoku, u Latinskoj Americi i Istočnoj Evropi koje smanjuju ovom brzinom. Čak i moćni Brazil smanjuje sa 5 procenata godišnje, a Turska sa sedam procenata godišnje. Dakle ima dobrih vesti. A ipak ljudi mi kažu: "Nema napretka u Africi. A čak nema niti statistike o Africi da se sazna šta se događa." Dokazaću da nisu u pravu za obe 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 svet statistike. Vodim vas na internet stranicu ChildMortality.org, gde možete uzeti broj smrti dece ispod pet godina starosti za sve zemlje. Napravili su je UN-ovi stručnjaci. I uzeću Keniju kao primer. Ovde vidite podatke. Nemojte da paničite. Pomoćiću vam u tome. Izgleda grozno, kao na fakultetu kada niste voleli statistiku. Ali prva stvar, kada vidite tačke poput ovih, treba da se pitate: odakle podaci dolaze? Koje je poreklo podataka? Je li tačno da u Keniji postoje doktori i drugi stručnjaci koji pišu potvrdu o smrti čim dete umre, i koja se šalje u statističku kancelariju? Ne. Zemlje s niskim standardom kao Kenija još uvek nemaju taj nivo organizovanosti. Ona postoji ali nije potpuna, jer se puno smrti događa u kući s porodicom, i ne beleže se. Ono na šta se oslanjamo nije nepotpun sistem. Imamo intervjue, ankete. I to su strogo profesionalne ženske ispitivačice koje će sedeti sa ženom jedan sat i pitati je o istoriji njenih rađanja. Koliko ste imali dece? Jesu li živa? Ako su umrla, koliko su godina imala i koje godine? I to je onda rađeno na reprezentativnom uzorku hiljada žena u zemlji i objedinjeno u onome što se ranije zvalo izveštaj o demografskom ispitivanju zdravlja. Ali ta ispitivanja koštaju, i mogu biti urađena tek u intervalima od tri do pet godina. Ali su jako kvalitetna. Tako da je to ograničenje. I sve ove obojene linije su rezultati; svaka boja je jedno ispitivanje. Ali to je previše komplikovano za danas, pa ću vam pojednostaviti i daću vam po jednu prosečnu tačku 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 nacijama postavili ispitivanja u bazama podataka, tada su upotrebili napredne matematičke formule da dobiju liniju smera, a linija smera izgleda ovako. Pogledajte. Ovo je najbolje podudaranje koje mogu ovde da dobijem. Ali pazite. Oni produžuju liniju iza zadnje tačke u ništa. I procenili su kako će, 2008, Kenija imati smrtnost dece od 128. I bio sam tužan, jer smo mogli da vidimo taj preokret u Keniji s porastom dečije smrtnosti u '90-im. To je bilo baš tragično. Ali u junu sam dobio e-mail od Demografskih ispitivanja zdravlja i bile su dobre vesti iz Kenije. I bio sam tako srećan. Ovo je bila procena novog ispitivanja. I onda je trebalo samo još tri meseca kako bi ih UN stavio na svoj server, i u petak smo dobili novu liniju trenda. I bila je ovde dole. Nije li to lepo? Nije li to lepo, ha? Ja sam zapravo u petak sedeo ispred svog računara, i video 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 trenda, kako merimo napredak? Sada idem malo u detalje, jer UN to tako radi. Počnu 1990. mere do 2009. Kažu: "0,9 procenata, nema napretka." To nije pošteno. Kao profesor, mislim da imam pravo da predložim nešto drugačije. Rekao bih, učinite barem ovo. Deset godina je dovoljno za praćenje trenda. To su dva ispitivanja i možete videti šta se sada događa. Imaju 2,4 procenta. Da sam ja u Ministarstvu zdravlja u Keniji, možda bih spojio ove dve tačke. Govorim vam da mi znamo smrtnost dece. Imamo pristojan trend. Dolazimo do varljivih stvari kad merimo Milenijumske razvojne ciljeve. Iako je razlog za Afriku izuzetno važan, jer su '90. bile loša decenija, ne samo u Keniji, nego u celoj Africi. Epidemija HIV-a došla je do vrhunca. Bilo je otpora na stare lekove za malariju, dok nismo dobili nove. A kasnije smo dobili i mreže protiv komaraca. Bilo je i društveno-ekonomskih problema, koji se sada rešavaju u puno većem opsegu. Pogledajte ovde prosek. Ovo je prosek cele Afrike južno od Sahare. I Ujedinjene nacije kažu da je to smanjenje od 1,8 procenata.
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 da raste. Pa računaju procenat godišnjeg porasta ekonomije. Mi u javnom zdravstvu, mi mrzimo dečije smrti, stoga želimo sve manje i manje dečijih smrti. Pa računamo procenat smanjenja po godini. Ali i to je ista vrsta procenta. Ako vaša ekonomija raste za četiri procenta, treba smanjiti dečiju smrtnost za četiri procenta, ako je dobro upotrebljeno i ako su ljudi stvarno uključeni i mogu koristiti sredstva na način koji žele. Je li onda pošteno to meriti kroz 19 godina? Ekonomista to nikada ne bi uradio. Podelio sam to na dva dela. U '90-im, samo 1,2 pšrocenta, samo 1,2 procenta. A sada, druga brzina - to je kao da je Afrika imala prvu brzinu, i sada su krenuli u drugu brzinu. Ali čak i to nije pošteno predstavljanje Aftrike, jer je to prosek, to je prosečna 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 ovde, kada vas odvedem u moje grafike s balončićima. Još uvek ovde broj smrti dece na 1.000 je na onoj osi. Ovde imamo godinu. I sad vam dajem širu sliku od Milenijumskih razvojnih ciljeva. Počinjem od pre 50 godina kada je Afrika slavila nezavisnost u većini zemalja. Evo vam Kongo, koji je bio visoko, Gana, niže, a Kenija još niže. I šta se događalo od tada kroz godine? Idemo. Vidite, s nezavisnosti, popravila se pismenost i počela su vakcinisanja, velike boginje su iskorenjene, higijena se popravila i stvari su se poboljšale. Ali onda, u '80-im, pogledajte ovde. Kongo je ušao u građanski rat, i stali su na tom nivou. Gana je brzo napredovala. Kenija ovde usporava, Gana je pretiče, ali onda Kenija i Gana zajedno kreću prema dole - još uvek je zastoj u Kongu. Ovde smo danas. (Smeh) Možete videti, nema smisla praviti prosek ovih nikakvih poboljšanja i ovih jako brzih poboljšanja. Došlo je doba kada moramo prestati da razmišljamo o podsaharskoj Africi kao o jednom mestu. Te su zemlje tako različite, i zaslužuju da se kao takve i prepoznaju, kao što ni o Evropi ne govorimo kao o jednom mestu. Mogu vam reći kako su ekonomije u Grčkoj i Švedskoj vrlo različite. Svi to znaju. I o svakoj zemlji se sudi pojedinačno kako im je.
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 ovde gore. Kakav mi to čudan poremećaj ličnosti mora da imamo, kada brojimo decu tako pedantno uprkos visokim stopama njihove smrtnosti. To je jako čudno. Na neki način je sramota. Ali mi smo u Švedskoj imali tu naviku, znate, da smo brojali sve dečije smrti, čak i ako nismo ništa oko toga preduzimali. 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 je situacija ovde počela da se popravlja. Dobili smo bolje obrazovanje i zdravstvo, smrtnost dece se smanjila. Mi nikad nismo imali rat, Švedska je bila u miru svo to vreme. Ali pogledajte, stopa smanjivanja u Švedskoj nije bila brza. Švedska je dosegla nisku smrtnost dece zato što je počela rano. Osnovna škola kod nas počela je 1842. I tada dobijete taj predivan 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 dosegla brzinu iz Milenijumskih razvojnih ciljeva, 3,1 posto, 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 uspešna priča, Tajland od 1960-ih - kako su ovde krenuli dole i dosegli skoro istu smrtnost dece kao Švedska. Daću vam drugu priču, Egipat, najbolje skriven, slavni uspeh u javnom zdravstvu. Egipat je bio ovde gore 1960, više od Konga. Delta Nila bila je patnja za decu s dijarejom i malarijom i puno problema. Onda su dobili asuansku branu. Dobili su struju u svojim kućama. Povećali su obrazovanje. I dobili su primarnu zdravstvenu zaštitu. I došli su dole, znate. I dobili su čišću vodu, iskorenili su malariju. Zar to nije priča o uspehu. Stope milenijumskih razvojnih ciljeva za dečiju smrtnost su sasvim moguće. I dobre vesti 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.
Dopustite da vam sad pokažem širu sliku, širu sliku dečije smrtnost. Pokazaću vam odnos između smrtnosti dece na ovoj osi - ova ovde osa je dečija smrtnost - a ovde imamo veličinu porodice. Odnos između dečije smrtnosti i veličine porodice. Jedno, dvoje, troje, četvoro dece po ženi. Šestoro, sedmoro, osmoro dece po ženi. Ovo je, još jednom, 1960, pred 50 godina. Svaki balončić je jedna zemlja. Boje koje vidite, su kontinenti. Ovaj tamno plavi je podsaharska Afrika. Veličina balončića je ukupno stanovništvo. A ovo su takozvane zemlje "u razvoju". Imale su visoku ili vrlo visoku smrtnost dece a veličina porodice, šest do osam. A ovo ovde su takozvane Zapadne zemlje. One su imale nisku smrtnost dece i male porodice. Šta se dogodilo? Želim da sada vidite sopstvenim očima odnos između pada smrtnosti dece i smanjenja veličine porodice. Jednostavno ne želim da ostavim mesta za sumnju. Morate videti sami. Ovo se dogodilo. Sad pokrećem svet. Ovde smo išli dole, s iskorenjivanjem velikih boginja, boljim obrazovanjem, zdravstvenom zaštitom. Dovde dole se došlo - Kina dolazi u zapadnjačku kućicu. A ovde je Brazil u zapadnjačkoj kućici. Indija stiže. Prve afričke zemlje stižu u zapadnjačku kućicu. Dobijamo mnogo novih suseda. Dobrodošli u pristojan život. Hajde. Želimo da svi dođu ovde dole. 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 taj "zapadni svet" i "svet u razvoju". Ovo je izveštaj UN-a, koji je izašao u petak. Jako je dobar - "Nivoi i kretanja dečije smrtnosti" - osim ove stranice. Ova stranica je jako loša. To je kategorizacija zemalja. Navodi "zemlje u razvoju" - mogu vam pročitati sa liste - zemlje u razvoju: Republika Koreja - Južna Koreja. Molim? Imaju Samsung, kako mogu biti zemlja u razvoju? Ovde imaju i Singapur. Oni imaju najnižu smrtnost dece na svetu, Singapur. Pretekli su Švedsku pre pet godina, a označeni su kao zemlja u razvoju. Ovde imaju i Katar. To je najbogatija zemlja u svetu sa Al Džazirom. Kako dođavola oni mogu biti zemlja u razvoju? Ovo je budalaština. (Smeh) (Aplauz) 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 ćemo svi živeti ovde, ovde dole. Kakva je važnost ovih ovde odnosa, pogledajte. Čak i ako pogledamo Afriku. Ovo su afričke zemlje. Jasno možete videti povezanost smanjenja dečije smrtnosti i smanjenja veličine porodice, čak i unutar Afrike. Vrlo je jasno da je to ono što se događa. I jako važno istraživanje izašlo je u petak iz Instituta za merenje i procenu zdravstva u Sijetlu, koje pokazuje da se skoro 50 procenata pada dečije smrtnosti može pripisati obrazovanju žena. To znači, kada devojčice idu u škole, uticaj ćemo videti 15 do 20 godina kasnije, što je vremenski trend i vrlo je jak. Zato moramo imati dugoročnu perspektivu, ali moramo meriti uticaj u razdobljima od 10 godina. Sasvim je moguće smanjiti smrtnost dece u svim ovim zemljama i spustiti ih u ovaj ugao gde bismo svi želeli zajedno da živimo.
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 dečije smrtnosti stvar je od najveće važnosti sa humanitarnog gledišta. Govorimo o pristojnom životu dece. Ali to je takođe i strateško ulaganje u budućnost celog čovečanstva, jer se radi i o okolini. Nećemo moći da upravljamo okolinom i izbegnemo užasnu klimatsku krizu ako ne stabilizujemo svetsku populaciju. Budimo u tome jasni. A način kako da to učinimo je da smanjimo dečiju smrtnost, osiguramo pristup planiranju porodice i iza toga sprovodimo obrazovanje žena. To je sasvim moguće. Učinimo to!
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam mnogo.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)