Each of you possesses the most powerful, dangerous and subversive trait that natural selection has ever devised. It's a piece of neural audio technology for rewiring other people's minds. I'm talking about your language, of course, because it allows you to implant a thought from your mind directly into someone else's mind, and they can attempt to do the same to you, without either of you having to perform surgery. Instead, when you speak, you're actually using a form of telemetry not so different from the remote control device for your television. It's just that, whereas that device relies on pulses of infrared light, your language relies on pulses, discrete pulses, of sound.
Vsak od vas ima najmočnejšo, najnevarnejšo in najbolj subverzivno lastnost, ki jo je naravna selekcija kdajkoli razvila. Gre za del nevralne avdio tehnologije za vplivanje na misli drugih ljudi. Govorim seveda o jeziku, kajti ta omogoča, da misel iz svojih možganov posadite neposredno v možgane nekoga drugega; ta nekdo drug lahko enako naredi vam, ne da bi kdorkoli od vaju za to potreboval operacijo. Namesto tega, ko govorite, pravzaprav uporabljate obliko telemetrije, ki ni zelo drugačna od daljinskega upravljalca vaše televizije. Razlika je le v tem, da medtem ko se daljinec zanaša na impulze infrardeče luči, se jezik zanaša na impulze, diskretne impulze zvoka.
And just as you use the remote control device to alter the internal settings of your television to suit your mood, you use your language to alter the settings inside someone else's brain to suit your interests. Languages are genes talking, getting things that they want. And just imagine the sense of wonder in a baby when it first discovers that, merely by uttering a sound, it can get objects to move across a room as if by magic, and maybe even into its mouth.
In prav tako kot lahko z daljincem spremenite notranje nastavitve svoje televizije, da odgovarjajo vašemu počutju, uporabljate jezik, da z njim spreminjate nastavitve v možganih nekoga drugega, da so v skladu z vašimi interesi. Jeziki so govoreči geni, ki dosežejo tisto, kar hočejo. Zamislite si, kako se dojenček čudi, ko odkrije, da lahko z uporabo določenega zvoka doseže, da se predmeti v sobi kot po čarovniji premaknejo, morda celo pristanejo v njegovih ustih.
Now language's subversive power has been recognized throughout the ages in censorship, in books you can't read, phrases you can't use and words you can't say. In fact, the Tower of Babel story in the Bible is a fable and warning about the power of language. According to that story, early humans developed the conceit that, by using their language to work together, they could build a tower that would take them all the way to heaven. Now God, angered at this attempt to usurp his power, destroyed the tower, and then to ensure that it would never be rebuilt, he scattered the people by giving them different languages -- confused them by giving them different languages. And this leads to the wonderful irony that our languages exist to prevent us from communicating. Even today, we know that there are words we cannot use, phrases we cannot say, because if we do so, we might be accosted, jailed, or even killed. And all of this from a puff of air emanating from our mouths.
Subverzivno moč jezika so skozi stoletja priznavali s cenzuro: knjigami, ki jih ne smete brati, frazami, ki jih ne smete uporabljati, in besedami, ki jih ne smete izreči. Pravzaprav je biblijska zgodba o babilonskem stolpu basen in opozorilo o moči jezika. Zgodba pravi, da so si prvi ljudje zamislili, da bi ob uporabi jezika za sodelovanje lahko zgradili stolp, ki bi vodil vse do nebes. Boga je ta poskus prevzema njegove moči razjezil in je unčil stolp. Da bi preprečil, da bi ga še kdaj zgradili, je ljudi razpršil tako, da jim je dal različne jezike -- zmedel jih je z različnimi jeziki. V tem je čudovita ironija, da jeziki obstajajo zato, da preprečujejo komunikacijo med nami. Celo dandanes vemo, da nekaterih besed ne smemo izreči, ne uporabljati določenih fraz, kajti če bi jih, bi nas lahko napadli, vrgli v ječo ali celo umorili. In vse to zaradi sapice, ki izhaja iz naših ust.
Now all this fuss about a single one of our traits tells us there's something worth explaining. And that is how and why did this remarkable trait evolve, and why did it evolve only in our species? Now it's a little bit of a surprise that to get an answer to that question, we have to go to tool use in the chimpanzees. Now these chimpanzees are using tools, and we take that as a sign of their intelligence. But if they really were intelligent, why would they use a stick to extract termites from the ground rather than a shovel? And if they really were intelligent, why would they crack open nuts with a rock? Why wouldn't they just go to a shop and buy a bag of nuts that somebody else had already cracked open for them? Why not? I mean, that's what we do.
Vse to razburjenje zaradi ene same človeške lastnosti nam pove, da si tu nekaj zasluži razlago. In to je, kako in zakaj se je ta izjemna lastnost razvila ter zakaj se je razvila samo pri naši vrsti? Mogoče je malo presenetljivo, da bomo odgovor na to vprašanje dobili s pogledom na uporabo orodij pri šimpanzih. Tile šimpanzi uporabljajo orodja in to jemljemo kot znak njihove inteligence. Ampak če bi bili zares inteligentni, zakaj bi termite bezali iz zemlje s palico, namesto z lopato? In če bi bili res inteligentni, zakaj bi trli orehe s kamnom? Zakaj ne bi enostavno šli v trgovino in kupili vrečko orehov, ki jih je že strl nekdo drug? Zakaj ne? Saj mi to počnemo.
Now the reason the chimpanzees don't do that is that they lack what psychologists and anthropologists call social learning. They seem to lack the ability to learn from others by copying or imitating or simply watching. As a result, they can't improve on others' ideas or learn from others' mistakes -- benefit from others' wisdom. And so they just do the same thing over and over and over again. In fact, we could go away for a million years and come back and these chimpanzees would be doing the same thing with the same sticks for the termites and the same rocks to crack open the nuts.
Razlog, da šimpanzi ne delujejo tako, je v tem, da nimajo tistega, čemur psihologi in antropologi pravijo socialno učenje. Kaže, da nimajo sposobnosti učiti se od drugih s kopiranjem ali imitiranjem ali enostavno z opazovanjem. Posledica tega je, da ne morejo izboljšati idej drugih ali se učiti na napakah drugih -- imeti koristi od modrosti drugih. Tako vedno znova in znova ponavljajo iste stvari. Pravzaprav bi lahko šli milijon let nazaj in se spet vrnili pa bi ti šimpanzi še vedno počeli isto stvar z isto palico za termite in istimi kamni za trenje orehov.
Now this may sound arrogant, or even full of hubris. How do we know this? Because this is exactly what our ancestors, the Homo erectus, did. These upright apes evolved on the African savanna about two million years ago, and they made these splendid hand axes that fit wonderfully into your hands. But if we look at the fossil record, we see that they made the same hand axe over and over and over again for one million years. You can follow it through the fossil record. Now if we make some guesses about how long Homo erectus lived, what their generation time was, that's about 40,000 generations of parents to offspring, and other individuals watching, in which that hand axe didn't change. It's not even clear that our very close genetic relatives, the Neanderthals, had social learning. Sure enough, their tools were more complicated than those of Homo erectus, but they too showed very little change over the 300,000 years or so that those species, the Neanderthals, lived in Eurasia.
Morda to zveni arogantno ali celo objestno. Kako to vemo? Ker je to točno tisto, kar je počel naš prednik homo erectus. Te pokončne opice so se razvile v afriški savani pred približno dvema milijonoma let in so izdelovale tele odlične ročne sekire, ki se lepo prilegajo v roko. A če si ogledamo fosilni zapis, vidimo, da so enake sekire delali vedno znova in znova celih milijon let. Temu lahko sledite skozi fosilni zapis. Lahko ugibamo, kako dolgo je homo erectus živel, kakšen je bil njegov generacijski čas, to je okoli 40.000 generacij od staršev do naraščaja in drugih posameznikov, v katerem se tista ročna sekira ni spremenila. Jasno ni niti, ali so naši bližnji genetski sorodniki, neandertalci, poznali socialno učenje. Seveda so bila njihova orodja bolj zapletena kot tista od homo erectusa, ampak tudi ta so se le malo spremenila, in to v približno 300.000 letih, kolikor je ta vrsta, neandertalec, živela v Evraziji.
Okay, so what this tells us is that, contrary to the old adage, "monkey see, monkey do," the surprise really is that all of the other animals really cannot do that -- at least not very much. And even this picture has the suspicious taint of being rigged about it -- something from a Barnum & Bailey circus.
V redu, to nam torej pove, da stari rek "Kar se Janezek nauči, to Janezek zna", zares velja samo za človeka in da druge živali tega v resnici ne zmorejo -- vsaj ne v veliki meri. Celo tale fotografija je sumljiva -- smrdi po ponaredku -- deluje precej cirkusantsko.
But by comparison, we can learn. We can learn by watching other people and copying or imitating what they can do. We can then choose, from among a range of options, the best one. We can benefit from others' ideas. We can build on their wisdom. And as a result, our ideas do accumulate, and our technology progresses. And this cumulative cultural adaptation, as anthropologists call this accumulation of ideas, is responsible for everything around you in your bustling and teeming everyday lives. I mean the world has changed out of all proportion to what we would recognize even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. And all of this because of cumulative cultural adaptation. The chairs you're sitting in, the lights in this auditorium, my microphone, the iPads and iPods that you carry around with you -- all are a result of cumulative cultural adaptation.
V primerjavi z živalmi pa se ljudje lahko učimo. Lahko se naučimo z opazovanjem drugih in kopiranjem ali imitiranjem tega, kar počnejo. Potem lahko med kopico možnosti izberemo najboljšo. Od idej drugih imamo lahko koristi. Lahko gradimo na njihovi modrosti. Rezultat tega je, da se ideje kopičijo in tehnologija napreduje. In ta kumulativna kulturna adaptacija, kakor antropologi poimenujejo tovrstno kopičenje idej, je odgovorna za vse okoli vas v vašem živahnem vsakdanu. Hočem reči, da se je svet spremenil preko vsake mere v primerjavi s tem, kar so poznali tisoč ali dva tisoč let nazaj. Vse to je zaradi kumulativne kulturne adaptacije. Stoli, na katerih sedite, luči v tej dvorani, moj mikrofon, iPadi in iPodi, ki jih nosite s seboj, vse to je rezultat kumulativne kulturne adaptacije.
Now to many commentators, cumulative cultural adaptation, or social learning, is job done, end of story. Our species can make stuff, therefore we prospered in a way that no other species has. In fact, we can even make the "stuff of life" -- as I just said, all the stuff around us. But in fact, it turns out that some time around 200,000 years ago, when our species first arose and acquired social learning, that this was really the beginning of our story, not the end of our story. Because our acquisition of social learning would create a social and evolutionary dilemma, the resolution of which, it's fair to say, would determine not only the future course of our psychology, but the future course of the entire world. And most importantly for this, it'll tell us why we have language.
Za marsikaterega komentatorja je kumulativna kulturna adaptacija, ali socialno učenje konec zgodbe. Naša vrsta lahko izdeluje stvari, zato smo napredovali na način, na kakršnega ni nobena druga vrsta. Pravzaprav lahko naredimo celo "življenjske stvari" -- kot sem rekel, stvari okoli nas. A pravzaprav se izkaže, da je bil okoli 200.000 let nazaj, ko se je naša vrsta pojavila in spoznala socialno učenje, to pravzaprav začetek naše zgodbe, ne pa njen konec. Zaradi socialnega učenja smo ustvarili socialno in evolucijsko dilemo, razrešitev katere bi, če smo pošteni, določila ne samo prihodnji tok naše psihologije, ampak tudi prihodnji tok celotnega sveta. Najpomembneje pa je, da nam razloži, zakaj imamo jezik.
And the reason that dilemma arose is, it turns out, that social learning is visual theft. If I can learn by watching you, I can steal your best ideas, and I can benefit from your efforts, without having to put in the time and energy that you did into developing them. If I can watch which lure you use to catch a fish, or I can watch how you flake your hand axe to make it better, or if I follow you secretly to your mushroom patch, I can benefit from your knowledge and wisdom and skills, and maybe even catch that fish before you do. Social learning really is visual theft. And in any species that acquired it, it would behoove you to hide your best ideas, lest somebody steal them from you.
Razlog za to dilemo pa je v tem, da se je izkazalo, da gre pri socialnem učenju za krajo videnega. Če se lahko učim tako, da vas gledam, lahko kradem vaše najboljše ideje in imam koristi od vaših naporov, ne da bi moral vlagati čas in energijo, ki ste ju vložili vi, da ste ideje razvili. Če vas lahko gledam, ko lovite ribe ali kako naostrite svojo sekiro, da bi bolje delovala, ali če vam skrivaj sledim do vaše grede gob, imam lahko korist od vašega znanja, modrosti in sposobnosti in mogoče bom tisto ribo ujel celo pred vami. Socialno učenje je res kraja videnega. In pri katerikoli vrsti, ki ga pozna, je pametno skriti najboljše zamisli, drugače jih bo nekdo ukradel.
And so some time around 200,000 years ago, our species confronted this crisis. And we really had only two options for dealing with the conflicts that visual theft would bring. One of those options was that we could have retreated into small family groups. Because then the benefits of our ideas and knowledge would flow just to our relatives. Had we chosen this option, sometime around 200,000 years ago, we would probably still be living like the Neanderthals were when we first entered Europe 40,000 years ago. And this is because in small groups there are fewer ideas, there are fewer innovations. And small groups are more prone to accidents and bad luck. So if we'd chosen that path, our evolutionary path would have led into the forest -- and been a short one indeed.
Nekoč pred približno 200.000 leti se je naša vrsta soočila s to krizo. In dejansko imamo samo dve možnosti za reševanje konfliktov, ki jih prinaša kraja videnega. Ena od teh možnosti je umik v majhne družinske skupnosti. Kajti v tem primeru se koristi od idej in znanja delijo samo s sorodniki. Ko bi bili izbrali to možnost, pred kakšnimi 200.000 leti, bi verjetno še vedno živeli kot neandertalci ob prvem prihodu v Evropo pred 40.000 leti. To pa zato, ker v majhnih skupnostih obstaja manj idej, manj inovacij. Majhne skupnosti so tudi bolj nagnjene k nezgodam in nesreči. Torej, če bi bili izbrali to pot, bi naša evolucijska pot vodila v gozd -- in bi bila dokaj kratka.
The other option we could choose was to develop the systems of communication that would allow us to share ideas and to cooperate amongst others. Choosing this option would mean that a vastly greater fund of accumulated knowledge and wisdom would become available to any one individual than would ever arise from within an individual family or an individual person on their own. Well, we chose the second option, and language is the result.
Druga možnost je bila, da razvijemo sisteme komunikacije, ki bi nam omogočili in sodelovanje z drugimi. Izbrati to pot bi pomenilo, da bi bil vsakemu posamezniku na voljo mnogo večji izbor nakopičenega znanja in modrosti, kot bi ju kdajkoli lahko proizvedla posamezna družina, kaj šele vsak posameznik. No, izbrali smo drugo možnost in rezultat tega je jezik.
Language evolved to solve the crisis of visual theft. Language is a piece of social technology for enhancing the benefits of cooperation -- for reaching agreements, for striking deals and for coordinating our activities. And you can see that, in a developing society that was beginning to acquire language, not having language would be a like a bird without wings. Just as wings open up this sphere of air for birds to exploit, language opened up the sphere of cooperation for humans to exploit. And we take this utterly for granted, because we're a species that is so at home with language,
Jezik se je razvil, da bi rešil krizo kraje videnega. Jezik je del socialne tehnologije za krepitev koristi sodelovanja -- za doseganje dogovorov, za sklepanje sporazumov in za usklajevanje naših dejavnosti. Tako lahko vidite, da bi družba v razvoju, ki je začela razvijati jezik, brez njega bila kot ptica brez kril. Kot krila odprejo pot v zračne sfere, da jih ptice lahko izkoriščajo, je jezik odprl sfere sodelovanja, ki jih lahko izkoriščajo ljudje. In to jemljemo kot samoumevno, ker smo vrsta, ki ji je jezik nekaj tako domačega.
but you have to realize that even the simplest acts of exchange that we engage in are utterly dependent upon language. And to see why, consider two scenarios from early in our evolution. Let's imagine that you are really good at making arrowheads, but you're hopeless at making the wooden shafts with the flight feathers attached. Two other people you know are very good at making the wooden shafts, but they're hopeless at making the arrowheads. So what you do is -- one of those people has not really acquired language yet. And let's pretend the other one is good at language skills.
A vedeti morate, da so celo naša najbolj enostavna dejanja izmenjave popolnoma odvisna od jezika. Da bi videli, zakaj, poglejmo dva scenarija iz zgodnjega obdobja evolucije. Predstavljajte si, da ste odličen izdelovalec konic za puščice, ste pa brezupni pri izdelovanju lesenega dela puščice, na katerega so pritrjena krilca. Dve drugi osebi, ki ju poznate, sta zelo dobri pri izdelavi lesenih delov, izdelava konic jima pa ne gre od rok. Torej, kaj storite... ena od teh oseb še ne pozna jezika. Predstavljajmo si, da ga druga pozna.
So what you do one day is you take a pile of arrowheads, and you walk up to the one that can't speak very well, and you put the arrowheads down in front of him, hoping that he'll get the idea that you want to trade your arrowheads for finished arrows. But he looks at the pile of arrowheads, thinks they're a gift, picks them up, smiles and walks off. Now you pursue this guy, gesticulating. A scuffle ensues and you get stabbed with one of your own arrowheads. Okay, now replay this scene now, and you're approaching the one who has language. You put down your arrowheads and say, "I'd like to trade these arrowheads for finished arrows. I'll split you 50/50." The other one says, "Fine. Looks good to me. We'll do that." Now the job is done.
Nekega dne torej vzamete kup konic in greste do osebe, ki ne govori prav dobro, ter postavite konice prednjo, v upanju, da bo razumela, da jih hočete zamenjati za dokončane puščice. Ta človek pa pogleda na kup pred njim, misli, da gre za darilo, pobere konice, se nasmehne in odide. Stečete za njim in mahate z rokami. Pride do prepira in ta človek vas zabode z eno vaših lastnih konic. Prav. Zdaj pa znova odigrajmo to sceno; tokrat se približate tisti osebi, ki pozna jezik. Prednjo položite svoje konice in rečete: "Tele konice bi rad zamenjal za dokončane puščice. Dam vam jih polovico". Druga oseba odgovori: "Prav, sliši se v redu. Pa dajva". Tokrat ste namero uresničili.
Once we have language, we can put our ideas together and cooperate to have a prosperity that we couldn't have before we acquired it. And this is why our species has prospered around the world while the rest of the animals sit behind bars in zoos, languishing. That's why we build space shuttles and cathedrals while the rest of the world sticks sticks into the ground to extract termites. All right, if this view of language and its value in solving the crisis of visual theft is true, any species that acquires it should show an explosion of creativity and prosperity. And this is exactly what the archeological record shows.
Ko enkrat imamo jezik, lahko združimo ideje in sodelujemo, da dosežemo blaginjo, ki je brez jezika ne bi mogli. Zato je naša vrsta napredovala po vsem svetu, medtem ko ostale živali životarijo v kletkah v živalskih vrtovih. Zato gradimo vesoljske ladje in katedrale, medtem ko ostali svet beza s palicami v tla, da pride do termitov. Prav, če ta pogled na jezik in njegovo vrednost pri reševanju krize kraje videnega drži, potem bi vsaka vrsta, ki ga uporablja, morala eksplodirati od kreativnosti in razvoja. In prav to kažejo arheološke najdbe.
If you look at our ancestors, the Neanderthals and the Homo erectus, our immediate ancestors, they're confined to small regions of the world. But when our species arose about 200,000 years ago, sometime after that we quickly walked out of Africa and spread around the entire world, occupying nearly every habitat on Earth. Now whereas other species are confined to places that their genes adapt them to, with social learning and language, we could transform the environment to suit our needs. And so we prospered in a way that no other animal has. Language really is the most potent trait that has ever evolved. It is the most valuable trait we have for converting new lands and resources into more people and their genes that natural selection has ever devised.
Če se ozremo k našima prednikoma, neandertalcu in homo erectusu, našima neposrednima prednikoma, sta bila oba omejena na majhne regije. Ko pa se je naša vrsta pred okoli 200.000 leti pojavila, je kmalu potem odkorakala iz Afrike in se razširila po vsem svetu ter zavzela skoraj vse habitate na Zemlji. Medtem ko so druge vrste omejene na kraje, na katere so prilagojeni njihovi geni, smo mi lahko s pomočjo socialnega učenja in jezika spremenili okolje tako, da ustreza našim potrebam. Tako smo napredovali na način, na kakršnega ni nobena druga žival. Jezik je res najmočnejša lastnost, ki se je kdajkoli razvila. Je najpomembnejša pomoč za spreminjanje novih krajev in virov v več ljudi in njihovih genov, kot si je naravni izbor kadarkoli zamislil.
Language really is the voice of our genes. Now having evolved language, though, we did something peculiar, even bizarre. As we spread out around the world, we developed thousands of different languages. Currently, there are about seven or 8,000 different languages spoken on Earth. Now you might say, well, this is just natural. As we diverge, our languages are naturally going to diverge. But the real puzzle and irony is that the greatest density of different languages on Earth is found where people are most tightly packed together.
Jezik je res glas naših genov. Z razvojem jezika pa smo napravili nekaj nenavadnega, celo bizarnega. Ko smo se razširili po svetu, smo razvili na tisoče različnih jezikov. Trenutno na Zemlji govorimo okoli sedem ali osem tisoč različnih jezikov. Rekli boste, ja, to je naravno. Kot se razlikujemo mi, se bodo razlikovali tudi jeziki. Uganka in ironija pa je, da je največ različnih jezikov na Zemlji tam, kjer so ljudje naseljeni tesno skupaj.
If we go to the island of Papua New Guinea, we can find about 800 to 1,000 distinct human languages, different human languages, spoken on that island alone. There are places on that island where you can encounter a new language every two or three miles. Now, incredible as this sounds, I once met a Papuan man, and I asked him if this could possibly be true. And he said to me, "Oh no. They're far closer together than that." And it's true; there are places on that island where you can encounter a new language in under a mile. And this is also true of some remote oceanic islands.
Pojdimo na otok Papua Nova Gvineja in našli bomo med 800 in 1.000 različnih jezikov, različnih jezikov, in to na enem samem otoku. Obstajajo kraji na tem otoku, kjer na novi jezik naletite vsaki dve ali tri milje. Naj se to sliši še tako neverjetno, nekoč sem srečal Papuanca in ga vprašal, če je to res. Odgovoril je: "O, ne. Celo veliko bližje so si". In res: na otoku obstajajo kraji, kjer nov jezik srečate manj kot na vsako miljo. To velja tudi za nekatere oddaljene oceanske otoke.
And so it seems that we use our language, not just to cooperate, but to draw rings around our cooperative groups and to establish identities, and perhaps to protect our knowledge and wisdom and skills from eavesdropping from outside. And we know this because when we study different language groups and associate them with their cultures, we see that different languages slow the flow of ideas between groups. They slow the flow of technologies. And they even slow the flow of genes. Now I can't speak for you, but it seems to be the case that we don't have sex with people we can't talk to. (Laughter) Now we have to counter that, though, against the evidence we've heard that we might have had some rather distasteful genetic dalliances with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans.
In tako kaže, da jezika ne uporabljamo samo za sodelovanje, ampak tudi za sklepanje obročev okoli svojih skupin sodelovanja, in da ustvarjamo identitete ter morda ščitimo svoje znanje, modrost in sposobnosti pred prisluškovanjem od zunaj. To vemo, ker pri raziskovanju različnih jezikovnih skupin in povezovanju z njihovimi kulturami vidimo, da različni jeziki upočasnijo tok idej med skupinami. Upočasnijo pretok tehnologij. Upočasnijo celo pretok genov. Lahko govorim samo zase, a zdi se, da ne spimo z ljudmi, s katerimi ne moremo govoriti. (Smeh) Temu seveda oporeka dejstvo, da se je izkazalo, da smo bili vpleteni v določeno dokaj neokusno genetsko flirtanje z neandertalci in denisovanci.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Okay, this tendency we have, this seemingly natural tendency we have, towards isolation, towards keeping to ourselves, crashes head first into our modern world. This remarkable image is not a map of the world. In fact, it's a map of Facebook friendship links. And when you plot those friendship links by their latitude and longitude, it literally draws a map of the world. Our modern world is communicating with itself and with each other more than it has at any time in its past. And that communication, that connectivity around the world, that globalization now raises a burden. Because these different languages impose a barrier, as we've just seen, to the transfer of goods and ideas and technologies and wisdom. And they impose a barrier to cooperation.
No, to naše nagnjenje, to nekako naravno nagnjenje k izolaciji, k zaprtosti vase, čelno trči v naš moderni svet. Tale zanimiva podoba ni zemljevid sveta. Gre za zemljevid prijateljskih povezav na Facebooku. Ko sestavite te povezave po zemljepisni širini in dolžini, dobesedno nastane zemljevid sveta. V našem modernem svetu komuniciramo sami s seboj in drug z drugim bolj kot kdajkoli v preteklosti. In ta komunikacija, ta globalna povezanost, ta globalizacija, sedaj postaja breme. Zaradi različnih jezikov, ki postavljajo ovire, kot smo ravno videli, prenosu blaga in idej ter tehnologij in modrosti. Postavljajo ovire sodelovanju.
And nowhere do we see that more clearly than in the European Union, whose 27 member countries speak 23 official languages. The European Union is now spending over one billion euros annually translating among their 23 official languages. That's something on the order of 1.45 billion U.S. dollars on translation costs alone. Now think of the absurdity of this situation. If 27 individuals from those 27 member states sat around table, speaking their 23 languages, some very simple mathematics will tell you that you need an army of 253 translators to anticipate all the pairwise possibilities. The European Union employs a permanent staff of about 2,500 translators. And in 2007 alone -- and I'm sure there are more recent figures -- something on the order of 1.3 million pages were translated into English alone.
In to ni nikjer bolj očitno kot v Evropski uniji, katere 27 držav članic govori 23 uradnih jezikov. Evropska unija letno porabi preko milijardo evrov za prevode med 23 uradnimi jeziki. To je okoli 1,45 milijarde dolarjev, samo za stroške prevajanja. Pomislite na absurdnost te situacije. Če bi 27 posameznikov iz teh 27 držav članic sedelo okoli mize in govorilo v svojih 23 jezikih, vam bo preprost izračun povedal, da bi potrebovali vojsko 253 prevajalcev, da bi bili pripravljeni na vse možne jezikovne pare. Evropska unija stalno zaposluje okoli 2.500 prevajalcev. In samo leta 2007 -- prepričan sem, da obstajajo novejši podatki -- so samo v angleščino prevedli okoli 1,3 milijona strani.
And so if language really is the solution to the crisis of visual theft, if language really is the conduit of our cooperation, the technology that our species derived to promote the free flow and exchange of ideas, in our modern world, we confront a question. And that question is whether in this modern, globalized world we can really afford to have all these different languages.
Če je torej jezik resnično pot do rešitve krize kraje videnega, če je jezik dejansko vodilo našega sodelovanja, če je tehnologija, ki jo je naša vrsta razvila, da bi spodbudila prost pretok in izmenjavo idej v tem modernem svetu, potem se moramo soočiti z vprašanjem. In to je, ali si v tem modernem globaliziranem svetu res lahko privoščimo imeti vse te raznolike jezike.
To put it this way, nature knows no other circumstance in which functionally equivalent traits coexist. One of them always drives the other extinct. And we see this in the inexorable march towards standardization. There are lots and lots of ways of measuring things -- weighing them and measuring their length -- but the metric system is winning. There are lots and lots of ways of measuring time, but a really bizarre base 60 system known as hours and minutes and seconds is nearly universal around the world. There are many, many ways of imprinting CDs or DVDs, but those are all being standardized as well. And you can probably think of many, many more in your own everyday lives.
Naj pojasnim takole: narava ne pozna nobenega drugega primera, kjer bi sobivale funkcionalno enakovredne lastnosti. Ena bo vedno pognala druge v izumrtje. In to vidimo v neusmiljenem pohodu v smeri standardizacije. Obstaja ogromno načinov za merjenje stvari -- za tehtanje in merjenje dolžine -- ampak metrični sistem prevladuje. Obstaja veliko načinov merjenja časa, ampak zelo bizarni sistem z osnovo 60, znan kot ure, minute in sekunde, je skoraj univerzalen. Obstaja mnogo načinov snemanja CD-jev in DVD-jev, ampak tudi ti postajajo standardizirani. Verjetno lahko pomislite še na številne take primere iz svojega vsakdana.
And so our modern world now is confronting us with a dilemma. And it's the dilemma that this Chinese man faces, who's language is spoken by more people in the world than any other single language, and yet he is sitting at his blackboard, converting Chinese phrases into English language phrases. And what this does is it raises the possibility to us that in a world in which we want to promote cooperation and exchange, and in a world that might be dependent more than ever before on cooperation to maintain and enhance our levels of prosperity, his actions suggest to us it might be inevitable that we have to confront the idea that our destiny is to be one world with one language.
In tako se v našem modernem svetu soočamo z dilemo. To je dilema tegale Kitajca, čigar jezik govori več ljudi kot katerikoli drugi jezik, a vseeno sedi pred svojo tablo in pretvarja kitajske fraze v angleške fraze. In to nam povečuje možnosti, da v svetu, v katerem hočemo spodbujati sodelovanje in izmenjavo, v svetu, ki je morda bolj kot kdajkoli prej odvisen od sodelovanja, da bi ohranil in okrepil blaginjo, njegova dejanja nam pravijo, da je mogoče neizogibno, da se moramo soočiti z idejo, da nas čaka usoda enega sveta z enim jezikom.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
Matt Ridley: Mark, one question. Svante found that the FOXP2 gene, which seems to be associated with language, was also shared in the same form in Neanderthals as us. Do we have any idea how we could have defeated Neanderthals if they also had language?
Matt Ridley: Mark, eno vprašanje. Svante je ugotovil, da so gen FOXP2, ki naj bi bil povezan z jezikom, v isti obliki kot mi imeli tudi neandertalci. Ali morda vemo, kako bi bili lahko premagali neandertalce, če bi tudi oni imeli jezik?
Mark Pagel: This is a very good question. So many of you will be familiar with the idea that there's this gene called FOXP2 that seems to be implicated in some ways in the fine motor control that's associated with language. The reason why I don't believe that tells us that the Neanderthals had language is -- here's a simple analogy: Ferraris are cars that have engines. My car has an engine, but it's not a Ferrari. Now the simple answer then is that genes alone don't, all by themselves, determine the outcome of very complicated things like language. What we know about this FOXP2 and Neanderthals is that they may have had fine motor control of their mouths -- who knows. But that doesn't tell us they necessarily had language.
Mark Pagel: To je dobro vprašanje. Mnogi med vami poznate idejo o genu FOXP2, ki naj bi bil na nek način povezan z nadzorom fine motorike, potrebne za jezik. Ne verjamem, da nam to pove, da so neandertalci imeli jezik, in sicer zaradi enostavne analogije: Ferrari je avto, ki ima motor. Moj avto ima motor, ampak ni Ferrari. Enostaven odgovor na to je, da geni sami po sebi ne določajo rezultata tako zapletene stvari, kot je jezik. Kar vemo o FOXP2 in neandertalcih, je, da so morda imeli fino motoriko ust -- kdo ve. A to nam ne pove nujno, da so imeli jezik.
MR: Thank you very much indeed.
MR: Najlepša hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)