All right. So, like all good stories, this starts a long, long time ago when there was basically nothing. So here is a complete picture of the universe about 14-odd billion years ago. All energy is concentrated into a single point of energy. For some reason it explodes, and you begin to get these things. So you're now about 14 billion years into this. And these things expand and expand and expand into these giant galaxies, and you get trillions of them. And within these galaxies you get these enormous dust clouds. And I want you to pay particular attention to the three little prongs
U redu. Kao sve dobre priče i ova počinje jako, jako davno kada praktično nije bilo ničega. Evo dakle kompletne slike svemira pre otprilike 14 milijardi godina. Sva energija je skoncentrisana u jednoj tački. Iz nekog razloga ona eksplodira i počinjete da dobijate ove stvari. Tako ste sada već 14 milijardi godina u ovome. I te stvari se šire i šire i šire u ove ogromne galaksije, i dobijate bilione njih. I u tim galaksijama imate ove ogromne oblake prašne. I želim da obratite posebnu pažnju na tri mala kraka
in the center of this picture. If you take a close-up of those, they look like this. And what you're looking at is columns of dust where there's so much dust -- by the way, the scale of this is a trillion vertical miles -- and what's happening is there's so much dust, it comes together and it fuses and ignites a thermonuclear reaction. And so what you're watching is the birth of stars. These are stars being born out of here. When enough stars come out, they create a galaxy. This one happens to be a particularly important galaxy, because you are here. (Laughter) And as you take a close-up of this galaxy, you find a relatively normal, not particularly interesting star.
u cenrtu slike. Ako ih pažljivo pogledate, izgledaju ovako. I to što vidite su stubovi prašine u kojima ima toliko prašine - inače, ova skala ima bilion vertikalnih milja - i tu je toliko prašine, da se ona spaja i usijava do termonuklearne reakcije. I ono što gledate jeste rođenje zvezda. Ovo su zvezde koje su rođene tamo. Kada nastane dovoljan broj zvezda, one stvaraju galaksiju. Ova ovde je jedna posebno značajna galaksija, jer je naša. (Smeh) I ako pažljivo pogledate ovu galaksiju, naći ćete prilično uobičajenu, ne posebno interesantnu zvezdu.
By the way, you're now about two-thirds of the way into this story. So this star doesn't even appear until about two-thirds of the way into this story. And then what happens is there's enough dust left over that it doesn't ignite into a star, it becomes a planet. And this is about a little over four billion years ago.
Inače, sada ste na dve trećine puta u ovoj priči. Znači ova zvezda se ne pojavljuje do otprilike dve trećine ove priče. I potom se dešava to da je preostalo dovoljno prašine da se ona ne usija do zvezde, već postaje planeta. To se dešava pre nešto više od četiri milijarde godina.
And soon thereafter there's enough material left over that you get a primordial soup, and that creates life. And life starts to expand and expand and expand, until it goes kaput.
I ubrzo nakon toga postoji dovoljno materijala da se formira praiskonska supa i nastaje život. I život počinje da se širi i širi, dok ne ode bestraga.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Now the really strange thing is life goes kaput, not once, not twice, but five times. So almost all life on Earth is wiped out about five times. And as you're thinking about that, what happens is you get more and more complexity, more and more stuff to build new things with. And we don't appear until about 99.96 percent of the time into this story, just to put ourselves and our ancestors in perspective.
E sad, vrlo čudna stvar jeste da je život otišao bestraga, ne jednom, ne dva puta, već pet puta. Tako je život na Zemlji pet puta u potpunosti zbrisan. I dok razmišljate o tome, dobijate sve veću i veću složenost, više i više stvari kojima pravite nove stvari. I mi se ne pojavljujemo do otprilike 99,96 procenata ove priče, taman toliko da uporedimo nas i naše pretke sa pričom.
So within that context, there's two theories of the case as to why we're all here. The first theory of the case is that's all she wrote. Under that theory, we are the be-all and end-all of all creation. And the reason for trillions of galaxies, sextillions of planets, is to create something that looks like that and something that looks like that. And that's the purpose of the universe; and then it flat-lines, it doesn't get any better.
I u tom kontekstu, postoje dve teorije o tome zašto smo mi svi ovde. Prva teorija jeste da je to to. Prema toj teoriji, mi smo sve što jeste i kraj svega što postoji. I razlog biliona galaksija, triliona planeta, jeste da bi stvorili nešto što izgleda ovako i nešto što izgleda ovako. I to je svrha univerzuma; i kada dođe do kraja, neće postati ništa bolje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
The only question you might want to ask yourself is, could that be just mildly arrogant? And if it is -- and particularly given the fact that we came very close to extinction. There were only about 2,000 of our species left. A few more weeks without rain, we would have never seen any of these.
Jedino pitanje koje možete sebi postaviti je, da to nije možda malo arogantno? I ako jeste -- posebno jer znamo da smo došli jako blizu istrebljenju. Bilo je svega oko 2000 vrsta preostalo. Još par nedelja bez kiše, i nikada ne bismo videli nikog od ovih.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
So maybe you have to think about a second theory if the first one isn't good enough. Second theory is: Could we upgrade? (Laughter) Well, why would one ask a question like that? Because there have been at least 29 upgrades so far of humanoids. So it turns out that we have upgraded. We've upgraded time and again and again. And it turns out that we keep discovering upgrades. We found this one last year. We found another one last month.
Tako bi možda trebalo da razmotrite drugu teoriju ako prva nije dovoljno dobra. Druga teorija je: možemo li se poboljšati? (Smeh) Zašto bi neko postavio takvo pitanje? Jer do sada je bilo najmanje 29 poboljšanja humanoida. Ispostavlja se da se jesmo poboljšali. Poboljšavamo se iznova i iznova. I ispostavlja se da nastavljamo sa otkrivanjem mogućih poboljšanja. Pronašli smo ovu prošle godine. Pronašli smo drugu prošlog meseca.
And as you're thinking about this, you might also ask the question: So why a single human species? Wouldn't it be really odd if you went to Africa and Asia and Antarctica and found exactly the same bird -- particularly given that we co-existed at the same time with at least eight other versions of humanoid at the same time on this planet? So the normal state of affairs is not to have just a Homo sapiens; the normal state of affairs is to have various versions of humans walking around.
I dok razlišljate o ovome, možete postaviti pitanje: zašto postoji jedna ljudska vrsta? Zar ne bi bilo čudno kad bi otišli do Afrike, Azije ili Antarktika i pronašli identičnu pticu -- posebno jer znamo da smo postojali uporedo sa još najmanje osam različitih vrsta humanoida u isto vreme na ovoj planeti? Normalno stanje stvari nije da imamo samo Homo sapiensa; normalno stanje stvari je da imamo različite varijante humanoida naokolo.
And if that is the normal state of affairs, then you might ask yourself, all right, so if we want to create something else, how big does a mutation have to be? Well Svante Paabo has the answer. The difference between humans and Neanderthal is 0.004 percent of gene code. That's how big the difference is one species to another. This explains most contemporary political debates.
I ako je to normalno stanje stvari, možete se zapitati, u redu, ako želimo da stvorimo nešto drugo, koliko velika bi mutacija morala da bude? Pa Svante Pabo ima odgovor. Razlika između ljudi i Neandertalaca je 0,004 procenta genetskog koda. Toliko je velika razlika između dve vrste. Ovo objašnjava najskorije političke debate.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But as you're thinking about this, one of the interesting things is how small these mutations are and where they take place. Difference human/Neanderthal is sperm and testis, smell and skin. And those are the specific genes that differ from one to the other. So very small changes can have a big impact.
Ali dok razmišljate o ovome, jedna od zanimljivih stvari je koliko su te mutacije male i gde se dešavaju. Razlika između ljudi i Neandertalaca je u spermi i testisima, mirisu i koži. A to su specifični geni koji se međusobno razlikuju. Tako da veoma male promene dovode do velikih posledica.
And as you're thinking about this, we're continuing to mutate. So about 10,000 years ago by the Black Sea, we had one mutation in one gene which led to blue eyes. And this is continuing and continuing and continuing.
I dok razmišljate o tome, mi nastavljamo da mutiramo. Pre 10 000 godina pored Crnog Mora, desila se mutacija u jednom genu koja je dovela do plavih očiju. I to nastavlja da se dešava.
And as it continues, one of the things that's going to happen this year is we're going to discover the first 10,000 human genomes, because it's gotten cheap enough to do the gene sequencing. And when we find these, we may find differences.
I dok se to nastavlja, jedna od stvari koja će se desiti ove godine je to da ćemo otkriti prvih 10 000 ljudskih genoma, jer je sekvencioniranje gena postalo dovoljno jeftino. A kada to otkrijemo, moći ćemo da pronađemo razlike.
And by the way, this is not a debate that we're ready for, because we have really misused the science in this. In the 1920s, we thought there were major differences between people. That was partly based on Francis Galton's work. He was Darwin's cousin. But the U.S., the Carnegie Institute, Stanford, American Neurological Association took this really far. That got exported and was really misused. In fact, it led to some absolutely horrendous treatment of human beings. So since the 1940s, we've been saying there are no differences, we're all identical. We're going to know at year end if that is true.
I inače, ovo nije debata za koju smo još spremni, jer smo zloupotrebili nauku za ovo. 1920. smatrali smo da postoje ogromne razlike među ljudima. To je delom bila posledica rada Frensisa Galtona. On je bio Darvinov rođak. Ali SAD, Karnegi Institut, Stanford, Američka neurološka asocijacija otišli su u ovome jako daleko. Ideja je izvezena i veoma zloupotrebljena. Zapravo, dovela je do nekih potpuno užasnih ophođenja prema ljudskim bićima. I od 1940. tvrdimo da ne postoje razlike, da smo svi identični. Do kraja godine znaćemo da li je to tačno.
And as we think about that, we're actually beginning to find things like, do you have an ACE gene? Why would that matter? Because nobody's ever climbed an 8,000-meter peak without oxygen that doesn't have an ACE gene. And if you want to get more specific, how about a 577R genotype? Well it turns out that every male Olympic power athelete ever tested carries at least one of these variants.
I kako razmišljamo o tome, počinjemo da nalazimo stvari kao, da li imate ACE gen? Zašto bi to bilo važno? Jer niko ne može da se popne na visinu od 8 000 metara bez kiseonika ukoliko nema ACE gen. I ako želite da budete još precizniji, šta je sa 577R genotipom? Ispostavilo se da svaki muški olimpijski atletičar koji je ikada testiran ima bar jednu od ovih varijanti.
If that is true, it leads to some very complicated questions for the London Olympics. Three options: Do you want the Olympics to be a showcase for really hardworking mutants? (Laughter) Option number two: Why don't we play it like golf or sailing? Because you have one and you don't have one, I'll give you a tenth of a second head start. Version number three: Because this is a naturally occurring gene and you've got it and you didn't pick the right parents, you get the right to upgrade. Three different options. If these differences are the difference between an Olympic medal and a non-Olympic medal.
Ako je to tačno, to vodi do nekih veoma komplikovanih pitanja za londonsku Olimpijadu. Tri mogućnosti: želite li da Olimpijada bude izložba izuzetno vrednih mutanata? (Smeh) Mogućnost broj dva: zašto se ne bi takmičili kao u golfu ili jedrenju? Zato što ga ti imaš, a ti ga nemaš, daću ti prednost od desetine sekunde na startu. Mogućnost broj tri: zato što je to gen koji se javlja prirodno, ti ga imaš, a ti si izabrao pogrešne roditelje, ti imaš pravo da se poboljšaš. Tri različite mogućnosti. Ukoliko su te razlike zapravo razlike između osvajača olimpijskih medalja i onih koji to nisu.
And it turns out that as we discover these things, we human beings really like to change how we look, how we act, what our bodies do. And we had about 10.2 million plastic surgeries in the United States, except that with the technologies that are coming online today, today's corrections, deletions, augmentations and enhancements are going to seem like child's play.
I ispostavlja se da, kako otkrivamo ove stvari, mi ljudi zaista uživamo da menjamo način na koji izgledamo, kako se ponašamo, šta naša tela mogu da urade. Imali smo oko 10,2 miliona plastičnih operacija u Americi, ne računajući one sa tehnologijama koje se pojavljuju danas, današnje korekcije, brisanja, uvećanja i poboljšanja činiće se kao dečja igra.
You already saw the work by Tony Atala on TED, but this ability to start filling things like inkjet cartridges with cells are allowing us to print skin, organs and a whole series of other body parts. And as these technologies go forward, you keep seeing this, you keep seeing this, you keep seeing things -- 2000, human genome sequence -- and it seems like nothing's happening, until it does. And we may just be in some of these weeks.
Već ste na TED-u videli rad Tonija Atale, ali ova sposobnost za punjenje stvari poput kertridža za mastilo ćelijama omogućava nam da štampamo kožu, organe i čitav niz drugih delova tela. I kako se ove tehnologije razvijaju, vi nastavljate da viđate ovo i ovo, nastavljate da viđate stvari -- 2000, ljudska genetska sekvenca -- i čini se kao da se ništa ne dešava, dok se ne desi. I možda smo upravo u jednoj od tih sedmica.
And as you're thinking about these two guys sequencing a human genome in 2000 and the Public Project sequencing the human genome in 2000, then you don't hear a lot, until you hear about an experiment last year in China, where they take skin cells from this mouse, put four chemicals on it, turn those skin cells into stem cells, let the stem cells grow and create a full copy of that mouse.
I dok razmišljate o ovoj dvojici koji sekvencioniraju ljudski genom 2000. i o javnom projektu sekvencioniranja ljudskog genoma 2000., onda niste čuli mnogo, dok ne saznate za prošlogodišnji eksperiment u Kini, gde uzimaju ćelije kože ovog miša, dodaju četiri hemikalije, pretvore ih u matične ćelije, puste ih da rastu i stvore potpunu kopiju prvobitnog miša.
That's a big deal. Because in essence what it means is you can take a cell, which is a pluripotent stem cell, which is like a skier at the top of a mountain, and those two skiers become two pluripotent stem cells, four, eight, 16, and then it gets so crowded after 16 divisions that those cells have to differentiate. So they go down one side of the mountain, they go down another. And as they pick that, these become bone, and then they pick another road and these become platelets, and these become macrophages, and these become T cells. But it's really hard, once you ski down, to get back up. Unless, of course, if you have a ski lift. And what those four chemicals do is they take any cell and take it way back up the mountain so it can become any body part.
To je velika stvar. Jer u suštini to znači da možete uzeti ćeliju, koja je u suštini pluripotentna matična ćelija, koja je poput skijaša na vrhu planine, i ova dva skijaša postaju dve pluripotentne matične ćelije, četiri, osam, 16, i potom nastane takva gužva da posle 16 deljenja moraju da se diferenciraju. I tako idu niz jednu stranu planine, i niz drugu. I kada to odaberu, ove postaju kosti, onda odaberu drugi put i postaju trombociti, onda ove postaju makrofage, i od ovih nastaju T ćelije. Ali veoma je teško, kada se jednom spustite, da se ponovo vratite gore. Osim, naravno, ako imate žičaru. I ono što ova četiri elementa rade jeste da uzimaju bilo koju ćeliju i vraćaju je na vrh planine tako da ona može postati bilo koji deo tela.
And as you think of that, what it means is potentially you can rebuild a full copy of any organism out of any one of its cells. That turns out to be a big deal because now you can take, not just mouse cells, but you can human skin cells and turn them into human stem cells. And then what they did in October is they took skin cells, turned them into stem cells and began to turn them into liver cells. So in theory, you could grow any organ from any one of your cells.
I dok razmišljate o tome, to može značiti da možete rekonstruisati čitavu kopiju bilo kog organizma od bilo koje njegove ćelije. To se ispostavilo da je velika stvar jer sada možete uzeti, ne samo ćeliju miša, već ćeliju ljudske kože i pretvoriti je u ljudsku matičnu ćeliju. Ono što su uradili u oktobru jeste da su uzeli ćeliju kože, pretvorili je u matičnu ćeliju i počeli da ih pretvaraju u ćelije jetre. Tako u teoriji, možete uzgajiti bilo koji organ od bilo koje vaše ćelije.
Here's a second experiment: If you could photocopy your body, maybe you also want to take your mind. And one of the things you saw at TED about a year and a half ago was this guy. And he gave a wonderful technical talk. He's a professor at MIT. But in essence what he said is you can take retroviruses, which get inside brain cells of mice. You can tag them with proteins that light up when you light them. And you can map the exact pathways when a mouse sees, feels, touches, remembers, loves. And then you can take a fiber optic cable and light up some of the same things. And by the way, as you do this, you can image it in two colors, which means you can download this information as binary code directly into a computer.
Evo drugog eksperimenta: kada biste fotokopirali vaše telo, možda biste takođe želeli da uzmete i svoju svest. Jedna od stvari koju ste videli na TED-u pre otprilike godinu ipo dana je ovaj momak. I on je imao predivan tehnički govor. On je profesor na MIT-u. Ali suština onoga što je on rekao je da možete uzeti retroviruse, koji se ubace u moždane ćelije miša. Možete ih označiti proteinima koji zasvetle kada ih upalite. I možete mapirati tačne puteve kada miš vidi, oseća, dodiruje, pamti, voli, I potom možete uzeti kabl sa optičkim vlaknima i upaliti neke od njih. I uzgred, kako to radite, možete označiti sa dve boje, što znači da možete preuzeti tu informaciju u vidu binarnog koda direktno u vaš računar.
So what's the bottom line on that? Well it's not completely inconceivable that someday you'll be able to download your own memories, maybe into a new body. And maybe you can upload other people's memories as well. And this might have just one or two small ethical, political, moral implications. (Laughter) Just a thought.
I šta je konačna svrha toga? Pa, nije potpuno nezamislivo da ćete jednoga dana biti u mogućnosti da preuzimate sopstvene uspomene, možda u novo telo. A možda ćete takođe moći i da učitate uspomene drugih ljudi. I ovo bi moglo da ima samo jednu ili dve male etičke, političke, moralne posledice. (Smeh) To je samo ideja.
Here's the kind of questions that are becoming interesting questions for philosophers, for governing people, for economists, for scientists. Because these technologies are moving really quickly.
Evo pitanja koja postaju interesantna filozofima, ljudima na vlasti, ekonomistima, naučnicima. Jer se ove tehnologije razvijaju jako brzo.
And as you think about it, let me close with an example of the brain. The first place where you would expect to see enormous evolutionary pressure today, both because of the inputs, which are becoming massive, and because of the plasticity of the organ, is the brain.
I dok razmišljate o tome, završiću sa primerom o mozgu. Prvo mesto na kom biste očekivali da vidite ogromni evolutivni pritisak danas, zbog velike količine ulaznih informacija, i zbog plastičnosti samog organa s druge strane, jeste mozak.
Do we have any evidence that that is happening? Well let's take a look at something like autism incidence per thousand. Here's what it looks like in 2000. Here's what it looks like in 2002, 2006, 2008. Here's the increase in less than a decade. And we still don't know why this is happening. What we do know is, potentially, the brain is reacting in a hyperactive, hyper-plastic way, and creating individuals that are like this. And this is only one of the conditions that's out there. You've also got people with who are extraordinarily smart, people who can remember everything they've seen in their lives, people who've got synesthesia, people who've got schizophrenia. You've got all kinds of stuff going on out there, and we still don't understand how and why this is happening.
Imamo li ikakav dokaz da se to dešava? Pogledajmo pojavu autizma na 1000 ljudi. Evo kako je to izgledalo 2000. Evo kako je izgledalo 2002., 2006., 2008. Vidimo povećanje za manje od decenije. Ali i dalje ne znamo zašto se to dešava. Ono što znamo jeste da, verovatno, mozak reaguje na hiperaktivan, hiper-plastičan način i stvara pojedince koji su poput ovoga. I ovo je samo jedan od uslova koji su tamo negde. Imate takođe i ljude koji su natprosečno pametni, ljude koji se mogu setiti svega što su videli u svom životu, ljude koji imaju sinesteziju, ljude koji imaju šizofreniju. Svakakve stvari se dešavaju tamo, a mi i dalje ne razumemo kako i zašto se dešavaju.
But one question you might want to ask is, are we seeing a rapid evolution of the brain and of how we process data? Because when you think of how much data's coming into our brains, we're trying to take in as much data in a day as people used to take in in a lifetime. And as you're thinking about this, there's four theories as to why this might be going on, plus a whole series of others. I don't have a good answer. There really needs to be more research on this.
Ali možete se zapitati da li mi to vidimo ubrzanu evoluciju mozga i toga kako obrađujemo podatke? Jer kad pomislite koliko podataka dolazi u naš mozak, pokušavamo da primimo toliko podataka na dan koliko su ljudi primali za ceo život. I dok razmišljate o ovome, postoje četiri teorije zbog čega se to dešava, plus čitava serija drugih. Nemam dobar odgovor. Zaista bi moralo da postoji još istraživanja o ovome.
One option is the fast food fetish. There's beginning to be some evidence that obesity and diet have something to do with gene modifications, which may or may not have an impact on how the brain of an infant works.
Jedna opcija je strast ka brzoj hrani. Počinjemo da dobijamo neke podatke da gojaznost i dijeta imaju neke veze sa modifikacijom gena, koji mogu ili ne moraju imati uticaj na to kako mozak novorođenčeta radi.
A second option is the sexy geek option. These conditions are highly rare. (Laughter) (Applause) But what's beginning to happen is because these geeks are all getting together, because they are highly qualified for computer programming and it is highly remunerated, as well as other very detail-oriented tasks, that they are concentrating geographically and finding like-minded mates. So this is the assortative mating hypothesis of these genes reinforcing one another in these structures.
Druga opcija je opcija seksi štrebera. Ovi uslovi su izuzetno retki. (Smeh) (Aplauz) Ali ono što počinje da se dešava jeste da se ovi štreberi približavaju jedni drugima, jer su visoko kvalifikovani za kompjutersko programiranje što je veoma isplativo, kao i drugi poslovi koji su orjentisani na detalje, i koncentrišu se geografski i pronalaze slične partnere. Ovo je hipoteza udruživanja sličnih prema kojoj geni podržavaju jedni druge u ovim strukturama.
The third, is this too much information? We're trying to process so much stuff that some people get synesthetic and just have huge pipes that remember everything. Other people get hyper-sensitive to the amount of information. Other people react with various psychological conditions or reactions to this information. Or maybe it's chemicals.
Treće, da li je ovo previše informacija? Pokušavamo da obradimo toliko stvari da neki ljudi dobijaju sinesteziju i imaju ogromne cevi kako bi zapamtili sve. Drugi ljudi postaju preosetljivi na toliku količinu informacija. Drugi ljudi reaguju različitim psihološkim stanjima ili reakcijama na ove informacije. Ili je to možda hemijski.
But when you see an increase of that order of magnitude in a condition, either you're not measuring it right or there's something going on very quickly, and it may be evolution in real time.
Ali kada vidite uvećanje te veličine kod nekih stanja to znači da ih ili ne merite dobro ili da se nešto dešava vrlo brzo i to bi mogla biti evolucija u stvarnom vremenu.
Here's the bottom line. What I think we are doing is we're transitioning as a species. And I didn't think this when Steve Gullans and I started writing together. I think we're transitioning into Homo evolutis that, for better or worse, is not just a hominid that's conscious of his or her environment, it's a hominid that's beginning to directly and deliberately control the evolution of its own species, of bacteria, of plants, of animals. And I think that's such an order of magnitude change that your grandkids or your great-grandkids may be a species very different from you.
Evo zaključka. Ono šta ja mislim da se dešava jeste da se menjamo kao vrsta. I nisam mislio ovako kada smo Stiv Galans i ja počeli da radimo zajedno. Mislim da se menjamo u Homo Evolutis koji, u dobru i zlu, nije samo humanoid koji je svestan sebe u okruženju, to je humanoid koji počinje da direktno i namerno kontroliše evoluciju sopstvene vrste, bakterija, biljaka, životinja. I mislim da je to promena takvih razmera da bi vaši unuci i vaši praunuci mogli biti vrlo različita vrsta od vas.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)