So we humans have an extraordinary potential for goodness, but also an immense power to do harm. Any tool can be used to build or to destroy. That all depends on our motivation. Therefore, it is all the more important to foster an altruistic motivation rather than a selfish one.
Mi ljudi imamo izuzetan potencijal za dobrotu, ali takođe i neizmernu moć da naškodimo. Bilo koji alat može se koristiti da gradi ili da uništi. To zavisi od naše motivacije. Prema tome, važno je negovati altruističku motivaciju pre nego sebičnu.
So now we indeed are facing many challenges in our times. Those could be personal challenges. Our own mind can be our best friend or our worst enemy. There's also societal challenges: poverty in the midst of plenty, inequalities, conflict, injustice. And then there are the new challenges, which we don't expect. Ten thousand years ago, there were about five million human beings on Earth. Whatever they could do, the Earth's resilience would soon heal human activities. After the Industrial and Technological Revolutions, that's not the same anymore. We are now the major agent of impact on our Earth. We enter the Anthropocene, the era of human beings. So in a way, if we were to say we need to continue this endless growth, endless use of material resources, it's like if this man was saying -- and I heard a former head of state, I won't mention who, saying -- "Five years ago, we were at the edge of the precipice. Today we made a big step forward." So this edge is the same that has been defined by scientists as the planetary boundaries. And within those boundaries, they can carry a number of factors. We can still prosper, humanity can still prosper for 150,000 years if we keep the same stability of climate as in the Holocene for the last 10,000 years. But this depends on choosing a voluntary simplicity, growing qualitatively, not quantitatively.
Zaista se suočavamo sa mnogim izazovima u današnje vreme. To mogu biti izazovi lične prirode. Naš sopstveni um može biti naš najbolji prijatelj ili najgori neprijatelj. Tu su i društveni izazovi: siromaštvo usred obilja, nejednakosti, konflikti, nepravda. Zatim tu su novi izazovi koje nismo očekivali. Pre deset hiljada godina, na Zemlji je bilo oko pet miliona ljudskih bića. Šta god da bi uradili, otpornost Zemlje bi ubrzo popravila ljudsko dejstvo. Nakon industrijske i tehnološke revolucije, to više nije isto. Mi smo sada najveći faktor uticaja na našoj Zemlji. Ulazimo u antropocen, eru ljudskih bića. Na neki način, ako kažemo da moramo da nastavimo sa ovim beskonačnim razvojem, beskonačnim korišćenjem materijalnih resursa, to je kao kad bi ovaj čovek rekao - a čuo sam bivšeg vođu države, neću reći kog, kako govori - "Pre pet godina smo bili na ivici provalije. Danas činimo veliki korak napred." Ova ivica je isto ono što su naučnici definisali kao planetarna ograničenja. A u okviru tih ograničenja može se nalaziti bezbroj faktora. Još možemo da napredujemo, čovečanstvo može da napreduje još 150 000 godina ako održimo istu stabilnost klime kao u holocenu poslednjih 10 000 godina. Ali ovo zavisi od odabira dobrovoljne jednostavnosti,
So in 1900, as you can see, we were well within the limits of safety. Now, in 1950 came the great acceleration. Now hold your breath, not too long, to imagine what comes next. Now we have vastly overrun some of the planetary boundaries. Just to take biodiversity, at the current rate, by 2050, 30 percent of all species on Earth will have disappeared. Even if we keep their DNA in some fridge, that's not going to be reversible. So here I am sitting in front of a 7,000-meter-high, 21,000-foot glacier in Bhutan. At the Third Pole, 2,000 glaciers are melting fast, faster than the Arctic.
razvijanja kvalitativno, ne kvantitativno. 1900. godine, kao što vidite, bili smo u okvirima sigurnosti. 1950. godine je došlo veliko ubrzanje. Sada zadržite dah, ne predugo, da zamislite šta sledi. Sada smo znatno prešli neke od planetarnih ograničenja. Ako uzmemo samo bioraznolikost, trenutnom stopom, do 2050. godine, 30 posto svih vrsta na Zemlji će nestati. Čak i ako sačuvamo njihovu DNK u nekom frižideru, to se neće preokrenuti. Evo mene kako sedim ispred lednika u Butanu visokog 7 000 metara.
So what can we do in that situation?
Na Trećem polu se 2 000 lednika ubrzano topi, brže nego na Arktiku.
Well, however complex politically, economically, scientifically the question of the environment is, it simply boils down to a question of altruism versus selfishness. I'm a Marxist of the Groucho tendency. (Laughter) Groucho Marx said, "Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?" (Laughter) Unfortunately, I heard the billionaire Steve Forbes, on Fox News, saying exactly the same thing, but seriously. He was told about the rise of the ocean, and he said, "I find it absurd to change my behavior today for something that will happen in a hundred years." So if you don't care for future generations, just go for it.
Šta možemo da učinimo u toj situaciji? Pa, koliko god da je složeno politički, ekonomski, naučno, pitanje životne sredine, jednostavno se svodi na pitanje altruizma naspram sebičnosti. Ja sam marksista sa Graučo tendencijom. (Smeh) Graučo Marks je rekao: "Zašto bi me bilo briga za buduće generacije?" Šta su one ikad uradile za mene?" (Smeh) Nažalost, čuo sam milijardera Stiva Forbsa, na Foks vestima, kako govori istu stvar, ali ozbiljno. Rečeno mu je za podizanje nivoa okeana, a on je rekao: "Smatram da je apsurdno da menjam svoje ponašanje danas zbog nečega što će se dogoditi za sto godina." Tako da, ako vas nije briga za buduće generacije, samo nastavite.
So one of the main challenges of our times is to reconcile three time scales: the short term of the economy, the ups and downs of the stock market, the end-of-the-year accounts; the midterm of the quality of life -- what is the quality every moment of our life, over 10 years and 20 years? -- and the long term of the environment. When the environmentalists speak with economists, it's like a schizophrenic dialogue, completely incoherent. They don't speak the same language. Now, for the last 10 years, I went around the world meeting economists, scientists, neuroscientists, environmentalists, philosophers, thinkers in the Himalayas, all over the place. It seems to me, there's only one concept that can reconcile those three time scales. It is simply having more consideration for others. If you have more consideration for others, you will have a caring economics, where finance is at the service of society and not society at the service of finance. You will not play at the casino with the resources that people have entrusted you with. If you have more consideration for others, you will make sure that you remedy inequality, that you bring some kind of well-being within society, in education, at the workplace. Otherwise, a nation that is the most powerful and the richest but everyone is miserable, what's the point? And if you have more consideration for others, you are not going to ransack that planet that we have and at the current rate, we don't have three planets to continue that way.
Jedan od najvećih izazova u naše vreme jeste pomiriti tri vremenska merila: kratkoročno ekonomsko, uspone i padove na berzi, proračune na kraju godine; srednjoročno vezano za kvalitet života - kakav je kvalitet svakog trenutka našeg života, tokom 10 i 20 godina? - i dugoročno merilo životne sredine. Kada ekolozi govore sa ekonomistima, to liči na šizofreni dijalog, potpuno nepovezan. Oni ne govore istim jezikom. Poslednjih 10 godina, išao sam svetom srećući se sa ekonomistima, naučnicima, neurolozima, ekolozima, filozofima, misliocima na Himalajima, svuda, Čini mi se da postoji samo jedan koncept koji može pomiriti ta tri vremenska merila. To je prosto imati više obzira prema drugima. Ako imate više obzira prema drugima, imaćete ekonomiju kojoj je stalo, gde su finansije u službi društva a nije društvo u službi finansija. Nećete igrati u kazinu sa sredstvima koja su vam ljudi poverili. Ako imate više obzira prema drugima, potrudićete se da otklanjate nejednakost, da dajete društvu neku vrstu dobrobiti, u obrazovanju, na radnom mestu. U suprotnom, imate naciju koja je najmoćnija i najbogatija ali svi su nesrećni, pa ima li onda svrhe? I ako imate više obzira prema drugima, nećete poremetiti planetu koju imamo trenutnom stopom, nemamo tri planete da bismo tako nastavili.
So the question is, okay, altruism is the answer, it's not just a novel ideal, but can it be a real, pragmatic solution? And first of all, does it exist, true altruism, or are we so selfish? So some philosophers thought we were irredeemably selfish. But are we really all just like rascals? That's good news, isn't it? Many philosophers, like Hobbes, have said so. But not everyone looks like a rascal. Or is man a wolf for man? But this guy doesn't seem too bad. He's one of my friends in Tibet. He's very kind. So now, we love cooperation. There's no better joy than working together, is there? And then not only humans. Then, of course, there's the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, social Darwinism. But in evolution, cooperation -- though competition exists, of course -- cooperation has to be much more creative to go to increased levels of complexity. We are super-cooperators and we should even go further.
Dakle pitanje je, okej, altruizam je odgovor, to nije novi ideal, ali može li biti realno, pragmatično rešenje? I pre svega, da li postoji istinski altruizam ili smo toliko sebični? Neki filozofi su smatrali da smo nepopravljivo sebični. Ali da li smo stvarno svi nitkovi? To su dobre vesti, zar ne? Mnogi filozofi, poput Hobsa, su to govorili. Ali ne izgleda svako kao nitkov. Ili je čovek čoveku vuk? Ali ovaj tip ne izgleda tako loše. On je jedan od mojih prijatelja na Tibetu. Veoma je dobar. Mi volimo saradnju. Nema većeg zadovoljstva nego zajednički raditi, zar ne? I to ne samo kod ljudi. Zatim, naravno, tu je borba za život, preživljavanje najsposobnijih, socijalni darvinizam. Ali u evoluciji, saradnja - mada nadmetanje postoji, naravno - saradnja mora da bude mnogo kreativnija da bi se prešlo na veći nivo složenosti. Mi smo super-saradnici i trebalo bi da još više napredujemo.
So now, on top of that, the quality of human relationships. The OECD did a survey among 10 factors, including income, everything. The first one that people said, that's the main thing for my happiness, is quality of social relationships. Not only in humans. And look at those great-grandmothers. So now, this idea that if we go deep within, we are irredeemably selfish, this is armchair science. There is not a single sociological study, psychological study, that's ever shown that. Rather, the opposite. My friend, Daniel Batson, spent a whole life putting people in the lab in very complex situations. And of course we are sometimes selfish, and some people more than others. But he found that systematically, no matter what, there's a significant number of people who do behave altruistically, no matter what. If you see someone deeply wounded, great suffering, you might just help out of empathic distress -- you can't stand it, so it's better to help than to keep on looking at that person. So we tested all that, and in the end, he said, clearly people can be altruistic. So that's good news. And even further, we should look at the banality of goodness. Now look at here. When we come out, we aren't going to say, "That's so nice. There was no fistfight while this mob was thinking about altruism." No, that's expected, isn't it? If there was a fistfight, we would speak of that for months. So the banality of goodness is something that doesn't attract your attention, but it exists.
Povrh toga, kvalitet ljudskih odnosa. OECD je obavio istraživanje sa 10 faktora, uključujući prihod, sve. Prvo za šta su ljudi rekli da je to glavna stvar za njihovu sreću je kvalitet društvenih odnosa. Ne samo kod ljudi. Pogledajte te prabake. E sad, ta ideja da ako se zagledamo u dubinu, nepopravljivo smo sebični, to je pseudonauka. Ne postoji nijedno sociološko istraživanje, psihološko istraživanje, koje je to ikada pokazalo. Upravo suprotno. Moj prijatelj Danijel Betson je proveo čitav život stavljajući ljude u laboratoriji u vrlo složene situacije. Naravno da smo ponekad sebični, a neki ljudi više od drugih. Ali on je otkrio da sistematično, bez obzira na sve, postoji značajan broj ljudi koji se ponašaju altruistično, šta god da se desi. Ako vidite nekoga duboko ranjenog, u velikoj patnji, možda ćete pomoći samo iz empatične uznemirenosti - ne možete to podneti, pa je bolje da pomognete nego da i dalje gledate tu osobu. Proverili smo sve to, i na kraju, rekao je, jasno je da ljudi mogu biti altruistični. To su dobre vesti. Štaviše, trebalo bi da pogledamo banalnost dobrote. Pogledajte sad ovde. Kada izađemo, nećemo reći: "To je tako lepo. Nije bilo tuče dok je ova rulja mislila o altruizmu." Ne, to je očekivano, zar ne? Ako bi bilo tuče, pričali bismo o tome mesecima. Banalnost dobrote je nešto što ne privlači vašu pažnju, ali postoji.
Now, look at this. So some psychologists said, when I tell them I run 140 humanitarian projects in the Himalayas that give me so much joy, they said, "Oh, I see, you work for the warm glow. That is not altruistic. You just feel good." You think this guy, when he jumped in front of the train, he thought, "I'm going to feel so good when this is over?" (Laughter) But that's not the end of it. They say, well, but when you interviewed him, he said, "I had no choice. I had to jump, of course." He has no choice. Automatic behavior. It's neither selfish nor altruistic. No choice? Well of course, this guy's not going to think for half an hour, "Should I give my hand? Not give my hand?" He does it. There is a choice, but it's obvious, it's immediate. And then, also, there he had a choice. (Laughter)
Sada pogledajte ovo. Neki psiholozi su rekli, kada im kažem da vodim 140 humanitarnih projekata na Himalajima koji mi pružaju toliko radosti, kažu mi: "O, shvatam, radiš za osećaj topline. To nije altruistično. Samo se dobro osećaš." Mislite da je ovaj tip, kada je skočio ispred voza, pomislio: "Da li ću se osećati dobro kada se ovo završi?" (Smeh) Ali to nije kraj. Kažu, ali kada ste ga intervjuisali, rekao je: "Nisam imao izbora. Morao sam da skočim, naravno." Nije imao izbora. Automatizovano ponašanje. Nije ni sebično ni altruistično. Nije imao izbora? Pa naravno, ovaj tip neće da razmišlja pola sata: "Da li da pružim ruku? Da li da ne pružim ruku?" On to čini. Postoji izbor, ali je očigledno, u trenutku. I takođe, on je imao izbora. (Smeh)
There are people who had choice, like Pastor André Trocmé and his wife, and the whole village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon in France. For the whole Second World War, they saved 3,500 Jews, gave them shelter, brought them to Switzerland, against all odds, at the risk of their lives and those of their family. So altruism does exist.
Postoje ljudi koji su imali izbora, kao što je pastor Andre Trokme i njegova žena, i celo selo Le Šambon-sur-Linjon u Francuskoj. Tokom celog Drugog svetskog rata spasili su 3500 Jevreja, pružili im utocište, vratili ih u Švajcarsku, suprotno svim očekivanjima, rizikujući svoje živote i živote svoje porodice.
So what is altruism? It is the wish: May others be happy and find the cause of happiness. Now, empathy is the affective resonance or cognitive resonance that tells you, this person is joyful, this person suffers. But empathy alone is not sufficient. If you keep on being confronted with suffering, you might have empathic distress, burnout, so you need the greater sphere of loving-kindness. With Tania Singer at the Max Planck Institute of Leipzig, we showed that the brain networks for empathy and loving-kindness are different. Now, that's all well done, so we got that from evolution, from maternal care, parental love, but we need to extend that. It can be extended even to other species.
Dakle altruizam postoji. Šta je altruizam? To jr želja: neka drugi budu srećni i pronađu razlog za sreću. Empatija je afektivna rezonanca ili kognitivna rezonanca koja vam govori: ova osoba je vesela, ova osoba pati. Ali sama empatija nije dovoljna. Ako nastavljate da se suočavate sa patnjom, možete imati empatijski slom, izgaranje, pa vam treba veći delokrug dobrote. Sa Tanjom Singder i Maksom Plankom sa Instituta u Lajpcigu, pokazali smo da su moždane mreže za empatiju i dobrotu različite. To je sve dobro urađeno, pa to dobijamo evolucijom, majčinskom negom, roditeljskom ljubavlju, ali moramo to da proširimo.
Now, if we want a more altruistic society, we need two things: individual change and societal change. So is individual change possible? Two thousand years of contemplative study said yes, it is. Now, 15 years of collaboration with neuroscience and epigenetics said yes, our brains change when you train in altruism. So I spent 120 hours in an MRI machine. This is the first time I went after two and a half hours. And then the result has been published in many scientific papers. It shows without ambiguity that there is structural change and functional change in the brain when you train the altruistic love. Just to give you an idea: this is the meditator at rest on the left, meditator in compassion meditation, you see all the activity, and then the control group at rest, nothing happened, in meditation, nothing happened. They have not been trained.
Može se proširiti čak i na druge vrste. Ako želimo altruističnije društvo, potrebne su nam dve stvari: individualna promena i društvena promena. Da li je individualna promena moguća? Dve hiljade godina dubokoumnih istraživanja kažu da, moguća je. 15 godina saradnje sa neurologijom i epigenetikom reklo je da, naši mozgovi se menjaju kada vežbamo altruizam. Zato sam proveo 120 sati u MRI mašini. Ovo je prvi put kada sam išao posle dva i po sata. Zatim su rezultati objavljeni u mnogim naučnim časopisima. Pokazuju nedvosmisleno da dolazi do strukturalne i funkcionalne promene u mozgu kada vežbate altruističnu ljubav. Samo da imate predstavu: ovo je meditator u mirovanju sa leve strane, meditator u saosećajnoj meditaciji, vidite sve aktivnosti, i zatim kontrolna grupa u mirovanju, ništa se nije dogodilo, u medijaciji, ništa se nije desilo. Nisu se vežbali.
So do you need 50,000 hours of meditation? No, you don't. Four weeks, 20 minutes a day, of caring, mindfulness meditation already brings a structural change in the brain compared to a control group. That's only 20 minutes a day for four weeks.
Da li vam je potrebno 50 000 sati meditacije? Ne, nije. Četiri nedelje, 20 minuta dnevno, brižne, svesne meditacije već donosi strukturalnu promenu mozga u poređenju sa kontrolnom grupom. To je samo 20 minuta dnevno tokom četiri nedelje.
Even with preschoolers -- Richard Davidson did that in Madison. An eight-week program: gratitude, loving- kindness, cooperation, mindful breathing. You would say, "Oh, they're just preschoolers." Look after eight weeks, the pro-social behavior, that's the blue line. And then comes the ultimate scientific test, the stickers test. Before, you determine for each child who is their best friend in the class, their least favorite child, an unknown child, and the sick child, and they have to give stickers away. So before the intervention, they give most of it to their best friend. Four, five years old, 20 minutes three times a week. After the intervention, no more discrimination: the same amount of stickers to their best friend and the least favorite child. That's something we should do in all the schools in the world.
Čak i kod predškolaca - Ričard Dejvidson je to uradio u Medisonu. Osmonedeljni program: zahvalnost, dobrota, saradnja, svesno disanje. Reći ćete: "To su samo predškolci." Pogledajte nakon osam nedelja, prosocijalno ponašanje, to je plava linija. I zatim dolazi glavni naučni test, test sa nalepnicama. Najpre odredite za svako dete ko je njihov najbolji prijatelj u razredu, najneomiljenije dete, nepoznato dete, bolesno dete, i morali su da daju nalepnice. Pre intervencije, daju njihov veći deo svom najboljem prijatelju. Deca od četiri, pet godina, 20 minuta, tri puta nedeljno. Nakon intervencije, nema više diskriminacije: ista količina nalepnica njhovom najboljem prijatelju i najneomiljenijem detetu. To je nešto što bi trebalo da uradimo u svim školama na svetu.
Now where do we go from there?
Kuda sad idemo sa tim?
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
When the Dalai Lama heard that, he told Richard Davidson, "You go to 10 schools, 100 schools, the U.N., the whole world."
Kada je Dalaj Lama to čuo, rekao je Ričardu Dejvidsonu: "Idi u 10 škola, 100 škola, UN, ceo svet."
So now where do we go from there? Individual change is possible. Now do we have to wait for an altruistic gene to be in the human race? That will take 50,000 years, too much for the environment. Fortunately, there is the evolution of culture. Cultures, as specialists have shown, change faster than genes. That's the good news. Look, attitude towards war has dramatically changed over the years. So now individual change and cultural change mutually fashion each other, and yes, we can achieve a more altruistic society.
U kom pravcu sad idemo sa tim? Individualna promena je moguća. Da li moramo da čekamo da se javi altruistički gen kod ljudskog roda? Za to je potrebno 50 000 godina, previše za životnu sredinu. Srećom, postoji evolucija kulture. Kulture se, kako su specijalisti pokazali, menjaju brže od gena. To su dobre vesti. Vidite, stavovi prema ratu su se drastično izmenili proteklih godina. Individualna promena i promene u kulturi se sada međusobno oblikuju, i da, možemo postići altruističnije društvo.
So where do we go from there? Myself, I will go back to the East. Now we treat 100,000 patients a year in our projects. We have 25,000 kids in school, four percent overhead. Some people say, "Well, your stuff works in practice, but does it work in theory?" There's always positive deviance. So I will also go back to my hermitage to find the inner resources to better serve others.
Kuda sad odavde? Što se mene tiče, vraćam se na istok. Sada pružamo tretman za 100 000 pacijenata godišnje u našim projektima. Imamo 25 000 dece u školi, četiri odsto dodatnih troškova. Neki će reći: "Pa, tvoje stvari deluju u praksi, ali da li funkcionišu u teoriji?" Uvek postoji pozitivno odstupanje. Takođe ću se vratiti u svoju ćeliju da pronađem unutrašnja sredstva kako bih bolje služio drugima.
But on the more global level, what can we do? We need three things. Enhancing cooperation: Cooperative learning in the school instead of competitive learning, Unconditional cooperation within corporations -- there can be some competition between corporations, but not within. We need sustainable harmony. I love this term. Not sustainable growth anymore. Sustainable harmony means now we will reduce inequality. In the future, we do more with less, and we continue to grow qualitatively, not quantitatively. We need caring economics. The Homo economicus cannot deal with poverty in the midst of plenty, cannot deal with the problem of the common goods of the atmosphere, of the oceans. We need a caring economics. If you say economics should be compassionate, they say, "That's not our job." But if you say they don't care, that looks bad. We need local commitment, global responsibility. We need to extend altruism to the other 1.6 million species. Sentient beings are co-citizens in this world. and we need to dare altruism.
Ali na globalnijem nivou, šta možemo da uradimo? Potrebne su nam tri stvari. Poboljšanje saradnje: kooperativno učenje u školi umesto kompetitivnog učenja. Bezuslovna saradnja unutar firmi - može biti nadmetanja među firmama, ali ne i unutar. Potrebna nam je održiva harmonija. Obožavam taj izraz. Ne više održivi razvoj. Održiva harmonija znači da ćemo smanjiti nejednakost. Ubuduće, radimo više sa manje, i nastavljamo da se razvijamo kvalitativno, ne kvantitativno. Potrebna nam je ekonomija kojoj je stalo. Homo ekonomikus se ne može baviti siromaštvom usred obilja, ne može se baviti problemom zajedničkih dobara atmosfere, okeana. Potrebna nam je ekonomija koja brine. Ako kažete da ekonomija treba da bude saosećajna, oni kažu: "To nije naš posao." Ali ako kažete da im nije stalo, to deluje loše. Treba nam lokalna posvećenost, globalna odgovornost. Treba da proširimo altruizam na drugih 1,6 miliona vrsta. Osećajna bića su sugrađani ovog sveta. I treba da se usudimo na altruizam.
So, long live the altruistic revolution. Viva la revolución de altruismo.
Neka dugo živi altruistična revolucija. Živela revolucija altruizma.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)