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.
Se pare ca am la dispozitie 18 minute sa va conving ca istoria are o directie - o sageata. Ca la modul absolut este un lucru bun, ca sageata arata catre ceva pozitiv. Cand cei de la TED m-au abordat pentru a tine un discurs optimist (Rasete) caricatura lui Muhammad inca nu declansase revolte la nivel global. Gripa aviara inca nu ajunsese in Europa. Gruparea Hamas nu castigase inca alegerile palestiniene, provocand diverse contramasuri ale Israelului. Si sa fiu sincer, daca stiam cand am fost rugat sa tin discursul asta voios ca, chiar atunci cand voi tine discursul voios, apocalipsa se va desfasura, (Rasete) probabil ca as fi raspuns "E ok daca vorbesc despre altceva?" Dar nu am facut-o, asa ca iata-ne. O sa fac tot ce pot. O sa fac tot ce pot.
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?
Trebuie sa va avertizez: optimismul meu despre lume in general a fost mereu destul de subtil, uneori chiar evaziv. (Rasete) Felul in care pot sa fiu inaltator si inspirational - a existat mereu o anumita dimensiune macabra in felul in care incerc sa inalt sufleteste, asa ca daca inspiratia macabra (Rasete) daca inspirarea macabra nu este o contradictie in termeni, imi e teama ca asta este maximul la care puteti spera astazi, asta daca imi iese. O sa vad ce pot face, ok?
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.
Intr-un fel afirmatia ca istoria are o directie nu este atat de controversata. Daca ne referim doar la structura sociala, de acord, categoric a devenit mai complexa in ultimii putin peste 10.000 de ani, atingand nivele din ce in ce mai inalte. Si, de fapt, intretine o tendinta veche, care precede fiintele umane, care spune ca evolutia biologica "facea" pentru noi. Pentru ca ce s-a intamplat la inceput, treaba asta statea inchisa intr-o celula, apoi celulele au inceput sa se grupeze in societati. S-au apropiat intr-atat incat au format organisme multicelulare, apoi au aparut organismele multicelulare complexe; si acestea au format societati.
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.
Dar la un moment dat, unul dintre aceste organisme multicelulare face ceva absolut uluitor cu treaba asta, si anume lanseaza o a doua evolutie: evolutia culturala. Si in mod surprinzator, aceasta evolutie sustine traiectoria pe care evolutia biologica a stabilit-o inspre o complexitate si mai mare. Prin evolutie culturala intelegem evolutia ideilor. Multi dintre voi au auzit termenul "memes". Evolutia tehnologiei, la care sunt foarte atent, stiti voi, unul dintre primele lucruri pe care le-am avut a fost un topor de mana. Trec generatii, cineva spune, hei! de ce sa nu il punem pe un bat? (Rasete) Ii incanta pe cei mici. Cea mai tare chestie dupa un joc video.
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)
Nu pare sa impresioneze, dar evolutia tehnologica este progresiva, astfel, inca 10, 20.000 de ani, si tehnica armamentului ne aduce aici. (Rasete) Impresionant. Si rata evolutiei tehnologice accelereaza, astfel incat, doar un sfert de secol mai tarziu, avem de-a face cu asta. (Rasete) Si cu asta. (Rasete) Imi pare rau -- a fost o gluma proasta, dar am incercat sa gasesc o modalitate de a ma intoarce la ideea de apocalipsa in desfasurare, si m-am gandit ca asta o sa ajute. (Aplauze)
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.
Ok. Deci, ce amenintare poate aparea odata cu apocalipsa asta? Este vorba despre colapsul organizarii sociale globale. Mai intai va rog sa ma lasati sa va aduc aminte de cata munca a fost nevoie sa ajungem unde suntem, sa fim in pragul organizarii sociale globale autentice. La inceput, am avut societatile complexe, satul de vanatori-culegatori. Stonehange este ramasita domniei unui sef, ceea ce a rezultat odata cu inventarea agriculturii: statul multi-satesc cu conducere centralizata. Odata cu aparitie scrisului apar orasele. Asta e neclara. Imi cam place pentru ca seamana cu un organism monocelular si ne aduce aminte prin cate niveluri a trecut deja organizarea organica pentru a ajunge in ascest punct. Apoi au venit, dupa cum stiti, imperiile.
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.
As vrea sa subliniez ca organizarea sociala poate transcede berierele politice. Acesta este Drumul Matasii care uneste Imperiul Chinez cu cel Roman. Deci avem de-a face cu complexitatea sociala care se intinde pe tot continentul cu toate ca nicio organizare politica nu a reusit ceva similar. Astazi avem statele nationale. Ideea este ca, in mod evident, exista o colaborare si o organizare dincolo de granitele nationale. Aceasta este o fotografie a Pamantului noaptea, pe care v-o arat deoarece mi se pare draguta. Conduce intr-un fel la idea ca avem de-a face cu un sistem integrat.
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.
Ok. Am explicat pana acum aceasta crestere a complexitatii prin referinta la ceva care poarta numele de insumare ne-nula. Presupunand ca sunt cativa dintre voi care nu au parcurs lectura propusa, foarte rapid, ideea centrala este distinctia dintre jocurile cu suma-nula, in care corelarile sunt inverse: intotdeauna exista un invingator si un invins. In jocurile cu suma ne-nula corelarile pot fi pozitive. Deci ca in tenis, de obicei avem castig-pierdere, intotdeuna se insumeaza in mod nul, dar daca joci la dublu, persoana de aceeasi parte a fileului este in aceeasi barca cu tine, deci jucati cu ea un joc cu suma ne-nula. Ori la bine, ori la rau. O multime de forme de comportamente cu suma ne-nula in domeniul economic, sau in viata de zi cu zi, duc la cooperare.
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.
Ceea ce vreau sa spun de fapt este ca jocurile cu suma ne-nula au fost parte din viata dintotdeauna. Le aveam in societatile de vanatori-culegatori, dar si mai apoi, prin evolutie, apar noi forme de tehnologie care usureaza, sau incurajeaza jocurile cu suma ne-nula, care implica mai multi oameni pe un teritoriu mai vast. Structura sociala s-a adaptat sa gazduiasca aceasta posibilitate si sa inhame acest potential, astfel apar orasele si avem toate jocurile cu suma ne-nula, la care nu va puteti gandi, care se joaca peste tot in lume. De exemplu, v-ati gandit vreodata cand ati cumparat o masina, cam cati oameni, de pe cate continente, au contribuit la producerea acelei masini? Astia sunt oameni implicati cu care jucati un joc cu suma ne-nula. Adica, in mod cert, exista o multime in jur.
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.
Acum, treaba asta suna intr-un fel a viziune pozitiva asupra lumii, pentru ca atunci cand va ganditi la ne-nul, va ganditi la castig-castig, ceea ce e bine. Ei bine, exista cateva motive pentru care nu e totusi o viziune pozitiva. In primul rand: nu neaga existenta razboiului exploatarii inegalitatilor. Dar exista un motiv si mai important pentru care nu este pozitiva, pentru ca un joc cu suma ne-nula ne spune in mod sigur doar ca destinele se vor corela pentru bine sau rau. Nu prezice neaparat un rezultat castig-castig.
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.
Deci, intr-un fel, intrebarea este pe ce baze sunt eu pozitiv in ceea ce priveste istoria? Si raspunsul este, in primul rand, la o analiza as zice ca oamenii si-au jucat jocurile cu mai multe rezultate castig-castig decat esec-esec. La o privire atenta cred ca istoria este un pozitiv net in zona jocurilor cu suma ne-nula. Si o marturie pentru asta este lucrul care ma uimeste cel mai tare, ma impresioneaza cel mai tare, imi da aripi, si anume ca exista o dimensiune morala a istoriei, exista un vector moral. Am avut parte, de-a lungul timpului, de progres moral.
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.
Acum 2500 de ani, membrii unei cetati grecesti ii considerau pe membrii unei alte cetati grecesti ca fiind sub-umani si ii tratau ca atare. Si apoi a aparut revolutia morala, si s-a decis ca, de fapt, grecii sunt fiinte umane. Numai persii nu sunt oameni si deci nu merita sa fie tratati prea frumos.
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.
Dar acesta a fost un progres - da-ti-le un pic de credit. Si astazi, avem parte de si mai mult progres. Ma gandesc - sper - ca cei mai multi oameni de aici ar spune ca toate persoanele de peste tot sunt fiinte umane, merita sa fie tratate decent, mai putin daca fac ceva oribil, indiferent de rasa sau religie. Si ar trebuie sa cititi istoria voastra antica pentru a realiza revolutia care a avut loc. Aceasta nu era o viziune prevalenta acum cateva mii de ani, iar eu atribui asta dinamicii acestei sume ne-nule. Cred ca de aici vine atata toleranta in ceea ce priveste nationalitatile, etniile, religiile, asa cum se intampla astazi. Daca ma intrebati pe mine de ce nu as fi in favoarea bombardarii Japoniei, ei bine, as glumi numai pe jumatate cand as spune ca ei mi-au construit masina. Avem aceasta relatie cu suma ne-nula si cred ca aceasta duce la acea toleranta care, intr-o masura, iti permite sa intelegi ca binele altuia se coreleaza in mod pozitiv cu al tau. Esti mai dispus sa le acorzi credit.
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.
Cred intr-un fel ca aceasta este moralitatea business-class. Din pacate, nu prea am zboruri trans-atlantice la business class ca sa stiu, sau de fapt nici un fel de zboruri la business class. Dar presupun ca la business class nu prea auzi exprimari bigote despre grupuri rasiale, sau grupuri etnice, pentru ca oamenii de la business class dintr-un zbor trans-atlantic fac afaceri cu toti oamenii astia; fac bani de pe urma tuturor acestor oameni. Si cred ca, cel putin in acest sens, capitalismul a fost o forta constructiva si mai important, este o insumare ne-nula care s-a constituit intr-o forta constructiva de raspandire intre oameni a constiintei morale. Ok, cred ca dinamica sumei ne-nule, care nu este neaparat de natura economica -- nu este intotdeauna comert -- ne-a condus pe calea unui adevar moral, care este egalitatea fundamentala a tuturor. Asta a facut. In timp ce se globaliza, ne-a dus spre un nivel global de organizare sociala ne-a condus inspre adevarul moral. Cred ca asta este minunat.
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.
Acum, inapoi la apocalipsa in desfasurare. Si va puteti intreba, ok, totul e in regula, suna foarte bine -- directia morala in istorie -- dar ce ne facem cu asa numita inclestare a civilizatiilor? In primul rand as spune ca se potriveste in cadrul sumei ne-nule. Daca va uitati la relatia dintre asa numitele Lume Musulmana si Lume Occidentala -- doi termeni care nu imi plac, dar pe care nu prea pot sa ii evit -- intr-o perioada atat de scurta de timp, sunt cel putin eficiente. Este o suma ne-nula. Si prin asta spun ca, daca lumea Musulmana devine mai plina de ura, mai rea, mai putin fericita cu locul ei pe lume, pentru lumea Occidentala va fi mai rau. Daca ei vor fi mai fericiti, pentru Occident va fi bine. Deci este o dinamica de tip suma ne-nula.
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.
Si as vrea sa spun ca dinamica sumei ne-nule se va intensifica in timp datorita trendurilor tehnologiei, dar se va intensifica in sensul negativ. Este vorba despre corelarea negativa a sanselor care va deveni din ce in ce mai posibila. Si unul dintre motive este ceva ce eu numesc cresterea mortalitatii urii. Din ce in ce mai mult este posibil ca sustinatorii urii din afara sa se poata manifesta in forme organizate de violenta pe teritoriu american. Si asta e ceva nou si cred ca este probabil sa se agraveze -- capacitatea aceasta -- datorita tendintelor in tehnologia informatiei, in tehnologiile care pot fi folosite pe post de munitie ca biotehnologia si nanotehnologia. S-ar putea sa auzim mai mult despre asta in ziua de azi.
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.
Si mai este ceva ce ma ingrijoreaza in mod special, si anume ca aceasta dinamica va conduce catre un ciclu de feed-back, care ne va aseza pe o panta alunecoasa. Ce-mi trece prin minte: terorismul se intampla aici, noi reactionam exagerat. Pentru ca nu suntem indeajuns de precisi in aceasta revansă poate duce la mai multa ura in afara, la mai mult terorism. Reactionam exagerat fiind umani, simtim nevoia razbunarii si astfel devine din ce in ce mai rau. Putem numi asta raspunsul pozitiv al vibratiilor negative, dar cred ca in ceva atat de inspaimantator, chiar nu ar trebui sa folosim termenul de pozitiv deloc, nici macar in sens tehnic. Asadar sa o numim spirala mortii negativismului. (Rasete) Va asigur ca daca se intampla, la final, atat Occidentul cat si lumea musulmana vor fi suferit.
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.
Deci ce facem? Ei bine, intai de toate, am putea face ceva mai mult pentru controlul armamentului, reglementarile internationale ale tehnologiilor periculoase. Am o intreaga predica guvernamentala la nivel global de care va voi scuti acum, pentru ca mi se pare ca oricum nu va fi suficienta oricum, cu toate ca este esentiala. Cred ca vom avea de-a face cu o si mai mare runda de progres moral in lume. Cred ca va trebui sa vedem mai putina ura intre grupuri, mai putina habotnicie, stiti voi, grupuri rasiale, grupuri religioase, ce-o fi. Trebuie sa recunosc ca ma simt un pic prostut spunand asta. Suna de un optimism incurabil. Ma simt ca Rodney King spunand "de ce nu ne putem impaca cu totii?" Dar stati, nu prea vad o alta alternativa, dat fiind modul in care am descris situatia. Va trebui sa existe un progres moral. Va trebui sa scadem cantitatea de ura din lume, avind in vedere cat de periculoasa devine. In sprijinul meu, as spune, oricat de naiv ar suna, ca totul isi are originea in cinism.
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.
Trebuie spus -- (Rasete) -- multumesc, multumesc. Trebuie spus, va amintiti: intreaga mea viziune asupra moralitatii se reduce la interesul propriu. Se intampla cand sansele oamenilor se coreleaza. Se intampla cand bunastarea voastra duce inspre a mea, cand decid ca sunt cu totul in favoarea bunastarii tale. Asta-i raspunzatoare pentru aceasta crestere a progresului moral pana acum, si spun ca avem din nou o corelare a sanselor. Si daca oamenii ii vor raspunde inteligent, vom vedea dezvoltarea tolerantei si asa mai departe -- normele de care avem nevoie. Vom vedea evolutia mai departe a acelei moralitati business-class.
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)
Deci aceste doua lucruri, daca atrag atentia omenilor si le inoculeaza corelarea pozitiva si oamenii fac ceea ce este in interesul propriu, ceea ce constituie mai departe evolutia morala, atunci ar putea avea un efect constructiv. Si asta e motivul pentru care unesc cresterea mortalitatii urii si spirala mortii negativismului sub rubrica: motive sa fim veseli. (Rasete) Fac ce pot. (Rasete) Nu m-am crezut niciodata Dl. Pozitiv. Fac doar tot ce pot. (Rasete)
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.
Acum, declansarea unei revolutii morale ar trebui sa fie dificila, nu? Adica ce facem? Si cred ca raspunsul e ca o groaza de oameni diferiti vor trebui sa faca o groaza de diverse lucruri. Incepem acolo unde suntem. Vorbesc in calitate de american care are copii, a caror securitate peste 10, 20, 30 de ani ma ingrijoreaza -- ceea ce as vrea sa incep sa fac este sa inteleg de ce atat de multi oameni in lume ne urasc. Am impresia ca este un proiect demn. Imi place si pentru ca, prin el insusi, este un exercitiu de mantuire morala. Fiindca, pentru a intelege de ce cineva, intr-o cultura complet diferita, face ceva -- cineva pe care tu il vezi ca pe un strain -- care face lucruri pe care tu le consideri stranii intr-o cultura pe care tu o consideri stranie, sa intelegi intr-adevar de ce face lucrurile pe care le face, este o realizare cu valoare de mantuire morala pentru ca trebuie sa faci legatura intre experienta lui si a ta. Sa intelegi intr-adevar, trebuie sa zici "Ah, am priceput. Deci atunci cand ei au resentimente, e intr-un fel ca atunci cand eu am resentimente cand se intampla asta, si intrucatva pentru aceleasi motive." Aceasta este adevarata intelegere. Si cred ca este o imbunatatire a busolei tale morale cand reusesti sa faci asta.
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
Este dificil in special atunci cand oamenii te urasc, pentru ca nu prea vrei sa intelegi de ce oamenii te urasc. Adica, vrei sa stii motivul, dar nu vrei sa fii capabil sa relationezi cu el. Ai vrea sa nu aibe sens, nu-i asa? Nu ai vrea sa spui: "Ei bine, cred ca inteleg cum o persoana aflata in astfel de circumstante poate sa urasca tara in care traiesc." Nu e un gand prea placut, dar cred ca este ceva pe care va trebui sa ne obisnuim sa il facem si
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.
la care sa lucram. As vrea acum sa subliniez ca a intelege, stiti ca exista oameni care nu agreaza toata treaba asta cu intelegerea esentialului, a cauzelor esentiale ale lucrurilor; nu vor sa stie de ce oamenii ne urasc. Eu vreau sa inteleg. Motivul pentru care incercam sa intelegem de ce ne urasc, este sa ii facem sa nu ne mai urasca. Ideea, cand trecem prin tot acest exercitiu moral de a ajunge sa le apreciem umanitatea si sa ii intelegem mai bine, este parte din efortul de a-i face pe ei sa ne inteleaga umanitatea, pe termen lung. Cred ca este primul pas intr-acolo. Asta este telul pe termen lung.
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.
Exista oameni care se ingrijoreaza de asta, si de fapt, eu insumi, se pare, am fost denuntat la o televiziune nationala acum cateva seri din cauza unui articol pe care l-am scris. Era cam ceea ce spun acum, si acuzatia era ca eu, citez, "nutresc afectiune pentru teroristi" Vestea buna este ca persoana care a spus-o este Ann Coulter. (Rasete) (Aplauze) Adica, daca tot e sa ai un dusman, fa in asa fel incat sa fie Ann Coulter. (Rasete) Dar nu e o ingrijorare nebuneasca, pentru ca intelegerea comportamentului poate duce la un fel de empatie si poate face un pic mai dificil sa oferi iubirea rationala si asa mai departe. Dar cred ca suntem mai aproape de a gresi prin neintelegerea corecta a situatiei, decat de a o intelege intr-atat de clar incat sa nu putem trimite armata sa omoare teroristi.
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.
Asa ca nu sunt foarte ingrijorat. Deci -- (Rasete) -- va trebui sa lucram pe mai multe fronturi, dar daca reusim - daca reusim -- atunci inca o data, insumarea ne-nula si recunoasterea dinamicii sumei ne-nule ne vor fi impins la un nivel moral mai inalt. Ceva de genul unei salvari a unui nivel moral mai inalt, ceva ce pur si simplu salveaza lumea. Daca va uitati la cuvantul salvare in Biblie -- intelesul crestin cu care suntem familiari, salvarea sufletelor, oamenii care merg in Rai -- este unul mai tarziu. Intelesul original al cuvantului salvare in Biblie se refera la salvarea sistemului social. "Iahve este Salvarea noastra." inseamna "El a salvat poporul lui Israel", care, la acea vreme, era o organizare sociala destul de inalta.
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)
Acum, organizarea sociala a ajuns la nivel global, si banuiesc, daca se poate spune ca va aduc vesti bune, este ca tot ce cere salvarea lumii este urmarirea inteligenta a propriilor interese intr-o maniera disciplinata si grijulie. Va fi greu. Zic sa incercam totusi, pentru ca am ajuns prea departe ca sa stricam totul acum. Multumesc. (Aplauze)