I've got apparently 18 minutes to convince you that history has a direction, an arrow; that in some fundamental sense, it's good; that the arrow points to something positive. Now, when the TED people first approached me about giving this upbeat talk -- (Laughter) -- that was before the cartoon of Muhammad had triggered global rioting. It was before the avian flu had reached Europe. It was before Hamas had won the Palestinian election, eliciting various counter-measures by Israel. And to be honest, if I had known when I was asked to give this upbeat talk that even as I was giving the upbeat talk, the apocalypse would be unfolding -- (Laughter) -- I might have said, "Is it okay if I talk about something else?" But I didn't, OK. So we're here. I'll do what I can. I'll do what I can.
Navodno imam 18 minuta da vas uvjerim da povijest ima smjer - strelicu. Da je to u nekom fundamentalnom smislu dobro, da strelica upućuje na nešto pozitivno. Kad su mi TED-ovci prvi put predložili da dam ovaj optimistični govor - (Smijeh) - to je bilo prije nego je strip o Muhamedu pokrenuo globalne pobune. Prije nego je ptičja gripa došla u Europu. Prije nego je Hamas pobijedio na palestinskim izborima, izazivajući razne protumjere od strane Izraela. I iskreno, da sam znao kad sam zamoljen da održim optimističan govor da će se čak i dok držim optimističan govor apokalipsa otkrivati - (Smijeh) - mogao sam reći: "Je li u redu ako govorim o nečem drugom?" Ali nisam. Sad smo tu. Učinit ću koliko mogu. Učinit ću koliko mogu.
I've got to warn you: the sense in which my worldview is upbeat has always been kind of subtle, sometimes even elusive. (Laughter) The sense in which I can be uplifting and inspiring -- I mean, there's always been a kind of a certain grim dimension to the way I try to uplift, so if grim inspiration -- (Laughter) -- if grim inspiration is not a contradiction in terms, that is, I'm afraid, the most you can hope for. OK, today -- that's if I succeed. I'll see what I can do. OK?
Moram vas upozoriti: smisao u kojem je moj pogled na svijet optimističan je uvijek bio suptilan, ponekad čak i neuhvatljiv. (Smijeh) Smisao u kojem mogu biti poticajan i inspirirajući - Mislim, uvijek je postojala određena sumorna dimenzija u načinu na koji pokušavam potaknuti, pa ako sumorna inspiracija - (Smijeh) - to jest, ako izraz sumorna inspiracija nije sam po sebi proturječan, bojim se da je to najviše čemu se možete nadati. Danas - ako uspijem. Vidjet ću što mogu oko toga. U redu?
Now, in one sense, the claim that history has a direction is not that controversial. If you're just talking about social structure, OK, clearly that's gotten more complex a little over the last 10,000 years -- has reached higher and higher levels. And in fact, that's actually sustaining a long-standing trend that predates human beings, OK, that biological evolution was doing for us. Because what happened in the beginning, this stuff encases itself in a cell, then cells start hanging out together in societies. Eventually they get so close, they form multicellular organisms, then you get complex multicellular organisms; they form societies.
Sad, na jedan način, tvrdnja da povijest ima smjer nije toliko kontroverzna. Ako govorite samo o društvenoj strukturi, OK, očito je to postalo složenije u oko zadnjih 10 tisuća godina - dostižu se sve više razine. U stvari, tako se održava dugotrajan trend koji je stariji od ljudskih bića, a koji biološka evolucija obavlja za nas. Jer što se dogodilo u početku, ova stvar se zatvorila u stanicu, onda su se stanice počele družiti u društvima. Postupno su se toliko približile da su oblikovale mnogostanične organizme, i onda ste dobili složene mnogostanične organizme, a oni formiraju društva.
But then at some point, one of these multicellular organisms does something completely amazing with this stuff, which is it launches a whole second kind of evolution: cultural evolution. And amazingly, that evolution sustains the trajectory that biological evolution had established toward greater complexity. By cultural evolution we mean the evolution of ideas. A lot of you have heard the term "memes." The evolution of technology, I pay a lot of attention to, so, you know, one of the first things you got was a little hand axe. Generations go by, somebody says, hey, why don't we put it on a stick? (Laughter) Just absolutely delights the little ones. Next best thing to a video game.
Ali u jednom trenu, jedan od ovih mnogostaničnih organizama napravi nešto sasvim čudesno s ovom stvari, a to je da je pokrenuo sasvim drukčiju vrstu evolucije: kulturnu evoluciju. Nevjerojatno, ta evolucija podržava putanju prema većoj složenosti koju je ustanovila biološka evolucija. Pod kulturnom evolucijom mislimo na evoluciju ideja. Mnogo vas je čulo za izraz "meme". Evolucija tehnologije, njoj poklanjam puno pažnje, tako da, znate, jedna od prvih stvari koje ste dobili je bila mala ručna sjekira. Kako generacije prolaze, netko kaže, hej, zašto je ne stavimo na štap? (Smijeh) To jednostavno oduševljava malene. Gotovo bolje od video igara.
This may not seem to impress, but technological evolution is progressive, so another 10, 20,000 years, and armaments technology takes you here. (Laughter) Impressive. And the rate of technological evolution speeds up, so a mere quarter of a century after this, you get this, OK. (Laughter) And this. (Laughter) I'm sorry -- it was a cheap laugh, but I wanted to find a way to transition back to this idea of the unfolding apocalypse, and I thought that might do it. (Applause)
Ovo možda ne zvuči impresivno, ali tehnološka evolucija napreduje, tako da još 10, 20 tisuća godina, i tehnologija naoružanja vas odvede tu. (Smijeh) Impresivno. I s brzinom napredovanja tehnološke evolucije, samo četvrt stoljeća nakon toga, dobijete ovo. (Smijeh) I ovo. (Smijeh) Žao mi je - to je bio jeftin trik, ali htio sam pronaći način da prijeđem natrag na ideju o apokalipsi koja se razvija, i mislio sam da bi ovo moglo pomoći. (Pljesak)
So, what threatens to happen with this unfolding apocalypse is the collapse of global social organization. Now, first let me remind you how much work it took to get us where we are, to be on the brink of true global social organization. Originally, you had the most complex societies, the hunter-gatherer village. Stonehenge is the remnant of a chiefdom, which is what you get with the invention of agriculture: multi-village polity with centralized rule. With the invention of writing, you start getting cities. This is blurry. I kind of like that because it makes it look like a one-celled organism and reminds you how many levels organic organization has already moved through to get to this point. And then you get to, you know, you get empires.
Dakle, ono što nam prijeti s apokalipsom u razvoju je kolaps globalne društvene organizacije. Najprije, podsjetit ću vas koliko nam je trebalo da dospijemo tu gdje jesmo, na rub stvarne globalne društvene organizacije. U početku, imali ste najsloženija društva, sela lovaca - sakupljača. Stonehenge je ostatak plemenskog vodstva, koje dobijete izumom poljoprivrede: društvena vlast od više sela sa centraliziranom vlašću. Nakon izuma pisma, počnete dobivati gradove. Ovo je mutno. Sviđa mi se zato što izgleda kao jednostanični organizam i podsjeća vas kroz koliko je razina organska organizacija prošla da bi stigla tu. I onda dođete do, znate, dobijete carstva.
I want to stress, you know, social organization can transcend political bounds. This is the Silk Road connecting the Chinese Empire and the Roman Empire. So you had social complexity spanning the whole continent, even if no polity did similarly. Today, you've got nation states. Point is: there's obviously collaboration and organization going on beyond national bounds. This is actually just a picture of the earth at night, and I'm just putting it up because I think it's pretty. Does kind of convey the sense that this is an integrated system.
Želim naglasiti da društvena organizacija može nadići političke veze. Ovo je Put svile koji povezuje Kinesko i Rimsko Carstvo. Tako se društvena složenost protezala preko cijelog kontinenta, što nije mogla ni jedna društvena vlast. Danas, postoje nacionalne države. Bit je da se očito odvija suradnja i organizacija iznad nacionalnih granica. Ovo je u stvari samo slika zemlje u noći, i stavio sam je samo zato što mislim da je lijepa. U neku ruku stvara sliku da je ovo integrirani sustav.
Now, I explained this growth of complexity by reference to something called "non-zero sumness." Assuming that a few of you did not do the assigned reading, very quickly, the key idea is the distinction between zero-sum games, in which correlations are inverse: always a winner and a loser. Non-zero-sum games in which correlations can be positive, OK. So like in tennis, usually it's win-lose; it always adds up to zero-zero-sum. But if you're playing doubles, the person on your side of the net, they're in the same boat as you, so you're playing a non-zero-sum game with them. It's either for the better or for the worse, OK. A lot of forms of non-zero-sum behavior in the realm of economics and so on in everyday life often leads to cooperation.
Dakle, objasnio sam rast složenosti pomoću reference na nešto što se zove zbroj-nejednak-nuli. Ako pretpostavimo da dio vas nije pročitao što je bilo zadano, na brzinu, glavna ideja je razlika između igara sa zbrojem-jednakim-nuli, u kojoj su veze suprotne: uvijek postoji pobjednik i gubitnik. U igrama sa zbojem-nejednakim-nuli veze mogu biti pozitivne, u redu? Pa kao i u tenisu, obično postoji pobjeda - poraz, zbroj uvijek iznosi nula-naspram-nule, ali ako igrate parove, osoba s vaše strane mreže dijeli vašu sudbinu, tako da s tom osobom igrate igru sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli. U dobru i zlu. Mnogi oblici ponašanja sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli u carstvu ekonomije u svakodnevnom životu često vode suradnji.
The argument I make is basically that, well, non-zero-sum games have always been part of life. You have them in hunter-gatherer societies, but then through technological evolution, new forms of technology arise that facilitate or encourage the playing of non-zero-sum games, involving more people over larger territory. Social structure adapts to accommodate this possibility and to harness this productive potential, so you get cities, you know, and you get all the non-zero-sum games you don't think about that are being played across the world. Like, have you ever thought when you buy a car, how many people on how many different continents contributed to the manufacture of that car? Those are people in effect you're playing a non-zero-sum game with. I mean, there are certainly plenty of them around.
Argument je, u osnovi, da su igre sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli uvijek bile dio života. Postoje u društvima lovaca - sakupljača, ali kroz tehnološku evoluciju, rađaju se novi oblici tehnologije a koji olakšavaju ili potiču igre sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli, i uključuju više ljudi na većem teritoriju. Društvena struktura se prilagođava da bi ugradila ovu mogućnost i upregnula produktivni potencijal, tako da, znate, dobijete gradove, i nastanu igre sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli o kojima niste ni pomišljali a koje se igraju diljem svijeta. Na primjer, jeste li ikad pomislili, dok ste kupovali auto, koliko je ljudi iz koliko različitih kontinenata pridonijelo izradi tog auta? Ti ljudi su u stvari oni s kojime igrate igre sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli. Mislim, sigurno ih ima puno svugdje naokolo.
Now, this sounds like an intrinsically upbeat worldview in a way, because when you think of non-zero, you think win-win, you know, that's good. Well, there are a few reasons that actually it's not intrinsically upbeat. First of all, it can accommodate; it doesn't deny the existence of inequality exploitation war. But there's a more fundamental reason that it's not intrinsically upbeat, because a non-zero-sum game, all it tells you for sure is that the fortunes will be correlated for better or worse. It doesn't necessarily predict a win-win outcome.
Dakle, ovo zapravo na neki način zvuči optimistično, jer kad pomislite na nejednako-nuli, mislite na rezultat pobjeda-pobjeda, to je dobro. Pa, evo nekoliko razloga zašto to nije zapravo optimistično. Kao prvo, može se prilagoditi: ne poriče postojanje rata koji iskorištava nejednakost. Ali postoji dublji razlog zašto to nije zapravo optimistično: zato što igre sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli, sve što vam zasigurno kažu jest da će sudbine biti povezane i u dobru i u zlu. Ne predviđa zasigurno rezultat pobjeda-pobjeda.
So, in a way, the question is: on what grounds am I upbeat at all about history? And the answer is, first of all, on balance I would say people have played their games to more win-win outcomes than lose-lose outcomes. On balance, I think history is a net positive in the non-zero-sum game department. And a testament to this is the thing that most amazes me, most impresses me, and most uplifts me, which is that there is a moral dimension to history; there is a moral arrow. We have seen moral progress over time.
Na neki način, pitanje jest, na kojim temeljima sam ja uopće optimističan u vezi povijesti? A odgovor je, kao prvo, sve u svemu bih rekao da su ljudi igrali igre s više rezultata pobjeda-pobjeda nego poraz-poraz. Sve u svemu, smatram da je povijest mreža pozitivna po pitanju igara sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli. Zaključak ovome je ono što me najviše očarava, što me najviše impresionira, i najviše veseli, a to je da postoji moralna dimenzija povijesti, postoji moralna strelica. Svjedočili smo moralnom napretku kroz vrijeme.
2,500 years ago, members of one Greek city-state considered members of another Greek city-state subhuman and treated them that way. And then this moral revolution arrived, and they decided that actually, no, Greeks are human beings. It's just the Persians who aren't fully human and don't deserve to be treated very nicely.
Prije 2.500 godina, članovi jednog grčkog grada-države su smatrali članove drugog grčkog grada-države manjima od ljudi i na taj način su s njima postupali. Kad je nastupila moralna revolucija, odlučili su da zapravo, ne, Grci su ljudska bića. Perzijanci su oni koji nisu u potpunosti ljudi i ne zaslužuju da se s njima lijepo postupa.
But this was progress -- you know, give them credit. And now today, we've seen more progress. I think -- I hope -- most people here would say that all people everywhere are human beings, deserve to be treated decently, unless they do something horrendous, regardless of race or religion. And you have to read your ancient history to realize what a revolution that has been, OK. This was not a prevalent view, few thousand years ago, and I attribute it to this non-zero-sum dynamic. I think that's the reason there is as much tolerance toward nationalities, ethnicities, religions as there is today. If you asked me, you know, why am I not in favor of bombing Japan, well, I'm only half-joking when I say they built my car. We have this non-zero-sum relationship, and I think that does lead to a kind of a tolerance to the extent that you realize that someone else's welfare is positively correlated with yours -- you're more likely to cut them a break.
Ali ovo je bio napredak, znate - priznajte im toliko. I danas, vidimo još napretka. Mislim - nadam se - većina ljudi ovdje bi rekla da su svi ljudi svugdje ljudska bića, da zaslužuju da se s njima s tim u skladu postupa, osim ako ne učine nešto grozno, bez obzira na rasu ili vjeru. Morate proučavati prapovijest da biste uvidjeli kolika je to bila revolucija. To nije bilo prevladavajuće mišljenje prije nekoliko tisuća godina, i ja ovo pripisujem dinamici zbroja-nejednakog-nuli. Mislim da je to razlog zašto postoji toliko tolerancije prema nacionalnostima, narodnostima, vjerama, koliko je ima danas. Ako mene pitate, znate, zašto ne podržavam bombardiranje Japana, pa, samo se na pola šalim kad kažem da zato što su napravili moj auto. Mi smo u vezi sa zbrojem-nejednakim-nuli, i mislim da to stvarno vodi vrsti tolerancije u tolikoj mjeri da shvatite da je nečija tuđa dobrobit pozitivno povezana s vašom. Skloniji ste popustiti im.
I kind of think this is a kind of a business-class morality. Unfortunately, I don't fly trans-Atlantic business class often enough to know, or any other kind of business class really, but I assume that in business class, you don't hear many expressions of, you know, bigotry about racial groups or ethnic groups, because the people who are flying trans-Atlantic business class are doing business with all these people; they're making money off all these people. And I really do think that, in that sense at least, capitalism has been a constructive force, and more fundamentally, it's a non-zero-sumness that has been a constructive force in expanding people's realm of moral awareness. I think the non-zero-sum dynamic, which is not only economic by any means -- it's not always commerce -- but it has driven us to the verge of a moral truth, which is the fundamental equality of everyone. It has done that. As it has moved global, moved us toward a global level of social organization, it has driven us toward moral truth. I think that's wonderful.
Na neki način mislim da je to poslovna vrsta moralnosti. Nažalost, ne letim u ekonomskoj klasi preko Atlantika dovoljno često da bih znao, ili, zapravo, bilo kojom drugom ekonomskom klasom. Ali, pretpostavljam da u ekonomskoj klasi, ne čujete mnogo izraza fanatizma o rasnim i etničkim grupama zato što ljudi koji lete ekonomskom klasom preko Atlantika posluju sa svim tim ljudima, zarađuju novac od svih tih ljudi. I stvarno vjerujem da je, barem u tom smislu, kapitalizam bio konstruktivna sila, i osnovnije, da je zbroj-nejednak-nuli bio konstruktivna sila u širenju ljudskog carstva moralne svjesnosti. Mislim da je dinamika zbroja-nejednakog-nuli, koji ni slučajno nije samo ekonomska - nije uvijek komercijalna - nego nas je dovela do ruba moralne istine, a koja je u osnovi jednakost za sve. Učinila je to. I pošto je postala globalna, povela nas je prema globalnoj razini društvene organizacije, povela nas je prema moralnoj istini. Mislim da je to divno.
Now, back to the unfolding apocalypse. And you may wonder, OK, that's all fine, sounds great -- moral direction in history -- but what about this so-called clash of civilizations? Well, first of all, I would emphasize that it fits into the non-zero-sum framework, OK. If you look at the relationship between the so-called Muslim world and Western world -- two terms I don't like, but can't really avoid; in such a short span of time, they're efficient if nothing else -- it is non-zero-sum. And by that I mean, if people in the Muslim world get more hateful, more resentful, less happy with their place in the world, it'll be bad for the West. If they get more happy, it'll be good for the West. So that is a non-zero-sum dynamic.
A sad da se vratimo na razvoj apokalipse. Možda se pitate, da, sve je to OK, zvuči super - moralni pravac u povijesti - ali što u vezi takozvanog sukoba civilizacija? Kao prvo, naglasio bih da to ulazi u okvir zbroja-nejednakog-nuli. Ako promotrite vezu između takozvanog muslimanskog svijeta i zapadnog svijeta - dva izraza koja mi se ne sviđaju, ali koje ne mogu izbjeći - u tako kratkom rasponu vremena, ako ništa drugo, barem su učinkoviti. To je zbroj-nejednak-nuli. Pod time mislim, ako ljudi u muslimanskom svijetu počnu više mrziti, više zamjerati, ako postanu manje zadovoljni sa svojim mjestom u svijetu, to će biti loše za Zapad. Ako postanu sretniji, to će biti dobro za Zapad. Tako da je to dinamika zbroja-nejednakog-nuli.
And I would say the non-zero-sum dynamic is only going to grow more intense over time because of technological trends, but more intense in a kind of negative way. It's the downside correlation of their fortunes that will become more and more possible. And one reason is because of something I call the "growing lethality of hatred." More and more, it's possible for grassroots hatred abroad to manifest itself in the form of organized violence on American soil. And that's pretty new, and I think it's probably going to get a lot worse -- this capacity -- because of trends in information technology, in technologies that can be used for purposes of munitions like biotechnology and nanotechnology. We may be hearing more about that today.
Rekao bih da će dinamika zbroja-nejednakog-nuli s vremenom postati samo intenzivnija zbog tehnoloških trendova, ali intenzivnija na negativan način. Mogućnost negativne veze njihovih sudbina će biti sve sigurnija. Jedan od razloga je nešto što nazivam rastuća smrtonosnost mržnje. Sve više i više, moguće je da se korijeni mržnje iz inozemstva manifestiraju u obliku organiziranog nasilja na američkom tlu. To je dosta novo, i mislim da će vjerojatno postati mnogo gore - ova mogućnost - zbog trendova u informacijskoj tehnologiji, u tehnologijama koje se mogu koristititi u svrhe vojnih zaliha poput biotehnologije i nanotehnologije. Vjerojatno ćemo danas o tome sve češće slušati.
And there's something I worry about especially, which is that this dynamic will lead to a kind of a feedback cycle that puts us on a slippery slope. What I have in mind is: terrorism happens here; we overreact to it. That, you know, we're not sufficiently surgical in our retaliation leads to more hatred abroad, more terrorism. We overreact because being human, we feel like retaliating, and it gets worse and worse and worse. You could call this the positive feedback of negative vibes, but I think in something so spooky, we really shouldn't have the word positive there at all, even in a technical sense. So let's call it the death spiral of negativity. (Laughter) I assure you if it happens, at the end, both the West and the Muslim world will have suffered.
Postoji nešto što me posebno brine, da će ova dinamika voditi vrsti ciklusa povratne reakcije koja nas stavlja na klizavo tlo. Što imam na umu je: terorizam se dogodio ovdje, a mi smo pretjerano reagirali. Znate, nismo dovoljno precizni u svojoj odmazdi i to vodi većoj mržnji izvana, do više terorizma. Pretjerano smo reagirali zato što smo ljudi, skloni smo odmazdi, i to postaje sve gore i gore i gore. Mogli biste to nazvati pozitivnom povratnom reakcijom negativnih vibri, ali smatram da u nečem tako strašnom, uopće ne bismo smjeli koristiti riječ pozitivno, čak ni u tehničkom smislu. Nazovimo to onda smrtonosnom spiralnom negativnosti. (Smijeh) Uvjeravam vas da ako se to dogodi, na kraju će i Zapad i muslimanski svijet patiti.
So, what do we do? Well, first of all, we can do a lot more with arms control, the international regulation of dangerous technologies. I have a whole global governance sermon that I will spare you right now, because I don't think that's going to be enough anyway, although it's essential. I think we're going to have to have a major round of moral progress in the world. I think you're just going to have to see less hatred among groups, less bigotry, and, you know, racial groups, religious groups, whatever. I've got to admit I feel silly saying that. It sounds so kind of Pollyannaish. I feel like Rodney King, you know, saying, why can't we all just get along? But hey, I don't really see any alternative, given the way I read the situation. There's going to have to be moral progress. There's going to have to be a lessening of the amount of hatred in the world, given how dangerous it's becoming. In my defense, I'd say, as naive as this may sound, it's ultimately grounded in cynicism.
Pa, što onda činimo? Kao prvo, možemo mnogo više učiniti s kontrolom naoružanja, međunarodnom regulacijom opasnih tehnologija. Imam cijelu globalnu propovijed o državnoj vlasti, ali poštedit ću vas toga zasada, jer ionako ne mislim da bi to bilo dovoljno, iako je neophodno. Mislim da ćemo morati imati veliku rundu moralnog napretka u svijetu. Mislim da ćete vjerojatno morati vidjeti manje mržnje među grupama, manje fanatizma, i, znate, rasnih ili vjerskih skupina, nije važno. Moram priznati da se osjećam glupo što sam to rekao. Zvuči tako naivno. Osjećam se kao Rodney King, kad kažem: zašto se svi jednostavno ne možemo slagati? Gle, ne vidim drugog načina, uzevši u obzir kako vidim ovu situaciju. Moralni napredak će morati postojati. Morat će doći do smanjenja količine mržnje u svijetu, s obzirom koliko opasno to postaje. U svoju obranu, rekao bih, naivno kolikogod to zvučalo, da je to na kraju utemeljeno na cinizmu.
That is to say -- (Laughter) -- thank you, thank you. That is to say, remember: my whole view of morality is that it boils down to self-interest. It's when people's fortunes are correlated. It's when your welfare conduces to mine, that I decide, oh yeah, I'm all in favor of your welfare. That's what's responsible for this growth of this moral progress so far, and I'm saying we once again have a correlation of fortunes, and if people respond to it intelligently, we will see the development of tolerance and so on -- the norms that we need, you know. We will see the further evolution of this kind of business-class morality.
To jest - (Smijeh) - hvala vam, hvala. To jest, zapamtite: cijelo moje stajalište o moralnosti je da se svodi na vlastiti interes. Kad se ljudske sudbine povežu. Kad se vaša dobrobit svede na moju, odlučim, o da, sav sam za vašu dobrobit. To je ono što je odgovorno za dosadašnji rast moralnog napretka, i ponavljam da opet imamo povezanost sudbina. Ako ljudi tome odgovore inteligentno, vidjet ćemo razvoj tolerancije i sličnoga - normi koje trebamo, znate. Vidjet ćemo daljnju evoluciju ove vrste poslovne moralnosti.
So, these two things, you know, if they get people's attention and drive home the positive correlation and people do what's in their self-interests, which is further the moral evolution, then they could actually have a constructive effect. And that's why I lump growing lethality of hatred and death spiral of negativity under the general rubric, reasons to be cheerful. (Laughter) Doing the best I can, OK. (Laughter) I never called myself Mr. Uplift. I'm just doing what I can here. (Laughter)
Dakle, ove dvije stvari, ako one privuku pažnju ljudi i uspostave pozitivnu povezanost i ako ljudi čine ono što im je u interesu, a to je da unaprijede moralnu evoluciju, onda bi stvarno mogli postići konstruktivan efekt. Zato odbacujem rastuću smrtnost mržnje i smrtonosnu spiralu negativnosti pod opću rubriku: razlozi da bi se bio sretan. (Smijeh) To je najbolje što mogu. (Smijeh) Nikad se nisam nazvao gdin. Oduševljenje. Činim koliko mogu u ovom trenu. (Smijeh)
Now, launching a moral revolution has got to be hard, right? I mean, what do you do? And I think the answer is a lot of different people are going to have to do a lot of different things. We all start where we are. Speaking as an American who has children whose security 10, 20, 30 years down the road I worry about -- what I personally want to start out doing is figuring out why so many people around the world hate us, OK. I think that's a worthy research project myself. I also like it because it's an intrinsically kind of morally redeeming exercise. Because to understand why somebody in a very different culture does something -- somebody you're kind of viewing as alien, who's doing things you consider strange in a culture you consider strange -- to really understand why they do the things they do is a morally redeeming accomplishment, because you've got to relate their experience to yours. To really understand it, you've got to say, "Oh, I get it. So when they feel resentful, it's kind of like the way I feel resentful when this happens, and for somewhat the same reasons." That's true understanding. And I think that is an expansion of your moral compass when you manage to do that.
Dakle, pokretanje moralne revolucije mora biti teško, zar ne? Mislim, što da napravite? Mislim da je odgovor da će mnogo različitih ljudi morati napraviti mnogo različitih stvari. Svi počinjemo tu gdje jesmo. Govoreći kao Amerikanac s djecom za čiju se sigurnost za 20, 30 godina brinem - ono što osobno želim početi činiti je da shvatim zašto nas toliko mnogo ljudi diljem svijeta mrzi. Mislim da je to vrijedan projekt za istraživanje. Sviđa mi se i zato što je to intrinzična moralno iskupljujuća vježba, jer da bismo razumjeli zašto netko u jako drukčijoj kulturi čini nešto - netko koga vidite skoro kao svemirca - koji čini stvari koje su vama neobične u kulturi koju smatrate neobičnom, da biste stvarno razumjeli zašto oni čine stvari koje čine je postignuće moralnog iskupljenja zato što morate povezati njihovo iskustvo sa svojim. Da biste stvarno razumjeli, morate reći:"Aha, kužim. Kad su oni puni zamjerki, to je nešto kao kad sam ja pun zamjerki kad se ovo dogodi, i zbog donekle sličnih razloga." To je pravo razumijevanje. Smatram da je proširenje vašeg moralnog kompasa kad to uspijete.
It's especially hard to do when people hate you, OK, because you don't really, in a sense, want to completely understand why people hate you. I mean, you want to hear the reason, but you don't want to be able to relate to it. You don't want it to make sense, right? (Laughter) You don't want to say, "Well, yeah, I can kind of understand how a human being in those circumstances would hate the country I live in." That's not a pleasant thing, but I think it's something that we're going to have to get used to and
To je posebno teško kad vas ljudi mrze, zato što ne želite zapravo u potpunosti razumjeti zašto vas ljudi mrze. Mislim, želiš čuti razlog, ali ne želiš se moći povezati s njim. Ne želiš da razlog ima smisla, jel'da? Ne želiš reći: "Pa, da, donekle mogu razumjeti kako ljudsko biće u tim okolnostima može mrziti zemlju u kojoj živim." To nije ugodno, ali mislim da ćemo se na to morati naviknuti
work on. Now, I want to stress that to understand, you know -- there are people who don't like this whole business of understanding the grassroots, the root causes of things; they don't want to know why people hate us. I want to understand it. The reason you're trying to understand why they hate us, is to get them to quit hating us. The idea when you go through this moral exercise of really coming to appreciate their humanity and better understand them, is part of an effort to get them to appreciate your humanity in the long run. I think it's the first step toward that. That's the long-term goal.
i na čemu ćemo morati raditi. Želim naglasiti da za razumjeti, postoje ljudi kojima se ne sviđa cijelo ovo razumijevanje korijena, korijena stvari, oni ne žele znati zašto nas ljudi mrze. Ja to želim razumjeti. Razlog zbog kojeg pokušavate razumjeti zašto nas mrze je da biste ih natjerali da nas prestanu mrziti. Kad prolazite moralnu vježbu da stvarno počnete cijeniti njihovu ljudskost i da ih bolje razumijete, dugoročno je ta ideja dio truda da ih natjerate da cijene vašu ljudskost. Mislim da je to prvi korak. To je dugoročni cilj.
There are people who worry about this, and in fact, I, myself, apparently, was denounced on national TV a couple of nights ago because of an op-ed I'd written. It was kind of along these lines, and the allegation was that I have, quote, "affection for terrorists." Now, the good news is that the person who said it was Ann Coulter. (Laughter) (Applause) I mean, if you've got to have an enemy, do make it Ann Coulter. (Laughter) But it's not a crazy concern, OK, because understanding behavior can lead to a kind of empathy, and it can make it a little harder to deliver tough love, and so on. But I think we're a lot closer to erring on the side of not comprehending the situation clearly enough, than in comprehending it so clearly that we just can't, you know, get the army out to kill terrorists.
Postoje ljudi koji se brinu o ovome, u stvari, ja sam, čini se, bio prozvan na nacionalnoj televiziji prije par večeri zbog otvorenog pisma koje sam napisao. Išlo je nekako ovako, i tvrdili su da imam, citiram: "sklonost prema teroristima". Dobra vijest je da je osoba koja je to rekla bila Ann Coulter. (Smijeh) (Pljesak) Mislim, ako morate imati neprijatelja, neka to bude Ann Coulter. (Smijeh) Ali nije to isprazna zabrinutost, jer razumijevanje ponašanja može voditi vrsti empatije, i može malo otežati dobronamjernu strogost. Mislim da smo mnogo bliže pogrešci u vezi nedovoljnog razumijevanja situacije, nego u vezi razumijevanja situacije tako jasno da jednostavno ne možemo poslati vojsku da ubije teroriste.
So I'm not really worried about it. So -- (Laughter) -- I mean, we're going to have to work on a lot of fronts, but if we succeed -- if we succeed -- then once again, non-zero-sumness and the recognition of non-zero-sum dynamics will have forced us to a higher moral level. And a kind of saving higher moral level, something that kind of literally saves the world. If you look at the word "salvation" in the Bible -- the Christian usage that we're familiar with -- saving souls, that people go to heaven -- that's actually a latecomer. The original meaning of the word "salvation" in the Bible is about saving the social system. "Yahweh is our Savior" means "He has saved the nation of Israel," which at the time, was a pretty high-level social organization.
Tako da uopće nisam zabrinut. Dakle - (Smijeh) - mislim morat ćemo raditi na mnogo polja, ali ako uspijemo - ako uspijemo - onda još jednom zbroj-nejednak-nuli i prepoznavanje dinamike zbroja-nejednakog-nuli će nas prisiliti na višu moralnu razinu. I na neki način spašavanje visoke moralne razine, što na nekin način spašava svijet. Ako u Bibliji potražite riječ spasenje - kršćanska upotreba s kojom smo upoznati, spašavanja duša, ljudi idu u raj - je zapravo došlo kasnije. Originalno značenje riječi spasenje u Bibliji je o spašavanju društvenog sustava. "Jahve je naš spastelj" znači "Spasio je narod Izrael," što je u to vrijeme bila poprilično visoka razina društvene organizacije.
Now, social organization has reached the global level, and I guess, if there's good news I can say I'm bringing you, it's just that all the salvation of the world requires is the intelligent pursuit of self-interests in a disciplined and careful way. It's going to be hard. I say we give it a shot anyway because we've just come too far to screw it up now. Thanks. (Applause)
Društvena organizacija je dosegla globalnu razinu, i pretpostavljam, da ako mogu reći da vam donosim dobre vijesti, one su da spasenje svijeta zahtijeva inteligentnu potragu za vlastitim interesima na discipliniran i pažljiv način. Bit će teško. Ja kažem, pokušajmo svejedno, jer došli smo predaleko da bismo sad zaribali. Hvala. (Pljesak)