Good morning. How are you?
Hommikust! Kuidas läheb? Siin on olnud väga huvitav, eks?
(Audience) Good.
It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing. In fact, I'm leaving.
See kõik on nii tiivustav, et mu jalad ei ulatu varsti enam maha. (Naer)
(Laughter)
Seda konverentsi on läbinud kolm teemat,
There have been three themes running through the conference, which are relevant to what I want to talk about. One is the extraordinary evidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and in all of the people here; just the variety of it and the range of it. The second is that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen in terms of the future. No idea how this may play out.
mis on seotud sellega, millest tahan teile rääkida. Esimene on see erakordne loomingulisus, mis ilmneb kõigis siinsetes ettekannetes ja kõigis inimestes. Kui mitmekesine see on, ja kui ulatuslik. Teiseks on asjaolu, et oleme seetõttu olukorras, kus me ei tea, mis edasi saab. Kui tulevikust rääkida. Meil pole aimugi, mis sellest kõigest välja tuleb.
I have an interest in education. Actually, what I find is, everybody has an interest in education. Don't you? I find this very interesting. If you're at a dinner party, and you say you work in education -- actually, you're not often at dinner parties, frankly.
Minu huvialaks on haridus - tegelikult olen ma aru saanud, et igaüht huvitab haridus. Kas pole nii? Minu meelest on see väga huvitav. Kui sa oled pidulikul õhtusöögil ja ütled, et töötad hariduse alal - tegelikult, kui aus olla, ei viibi sa kuigi tihti õhtusöökidel, kui töötad hariduse alal.
(Laughter)
If you work in education, you're not asked.
(Naer) Sind lihtsalt ei kutsuta.
(Laughter)
Ja huvitaval kombel ei kutsuta sind ka kunagi tagasi. Mis on veider, mu meelest.
And you're never asked back, curiously. That's strange to me. But if you are, and you say to somebody, you know, they say, "What do you do?" and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face. They're like, "Oh my God. Why me?"
Ent kui sa oled õhtusöögil ja ütled kellelegi... kui küsitakse: "Millega sa tegeled?" ja sa ütled, et töötad hariduse alal, siis näed, kuidas nad kahvatuvad ja silmist võib lugeda mõtet:
(Laughter)
"Jumala pärast, miks mina? See on mu ainus vaba õhtu sel nädalal."
"My one night out all week."
(Laughter)
Kui aga küsid midagi nende hariduse kohta,
But if you ask about their education, they pin you to the wall, because it's one of those things that goes deep with people, am I right? Like religion and money and other things. So I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do. We have a huge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to take us into this future that we can't grasp. If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time. And yet, we're meant to be educating them for it. So the unpredictability, I think, is extraordinary.
tabab sind hävitav pilk. Sest see on teema, mis inimesi sügavalt puudutab, kas pole tõsi? Nagu religioon, raha ja teised asjad. Mind huvitab haridus väga. Ja ma arvan, et meid kõiki. Me investeerime sellesse palju, osaliselt seetõttu, et haridus peaks viima meid sellesse tulevikku, mida meie mõistus haarata ei suuda. Kui mõelda - lapsed, kes sel aastal kooli lähevad, jäävad pensionile aastal 2065. Kellelgi pole aimu - vaatamata tarkusele, mida viimase 4 päeva jooksul siin demonstreeritud on - milliseks kujuneb maailm 5 aasta pärast. Ja sellegipoolest peame meie neid selleks ette valmistama. Ettenägematuse määr on minu meelest üüratu.
And the third part of this is that we've all agreed, nonetheless, on the really extraordinary capacities that children have -- their capacities for innovation. I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she? Just seeing what she could do. And she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent. And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents, and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.
Ja kolmandaks on asjaolu, et me kõik nõustume lõpuks sellega, kuivõrd erilised on laste võimed, nende innovatsioonivõime. Sirena eile õhtul oli tõeline pärl, kas pole? Vapustav oli näha, mida ta suutis. Ta on haruldane. Kuid ma arvan, et tegelikult pole ta haruldus kõikide laste hulgas. Meil on tegu inimesega, kes on erakordselt pühendunud, kes on leidnud oma ande. Aga ma väidan, et kõik lapsed on ääretult andekad. Meie aga laseme julmalt nende andel raisku minna.
So I want to talk about education, and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.
Ma tahan rääkida haridusest ja ma tahan rääkida loovusest. Minu väide on, et loovus on tänapäeva hariduse puhul täpselt sama tähtis kui kirjaoskus, ja me peaksime sellesse ka samamoodi suhtuma.
(Applause)
(Aplaus) Aitäh. See muide ongi kõik.
Thank you.
(Applause)
That was it, by the way. Thank you very much.
Suur tänu. (Naer) Nii, 15 minutit veel.
(Laughter)
So, 15 minutes left.
Niisiis... ma olen sündinud... ei... (Naer)
(Laughter)
"Well, I was born ... "
(Laughter)
Kuulsin hiljuti toredat lugu - mulle meeldib sellest rääkida -
I heard a great story recently -- I love telling it -- of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson. She was six, and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this girl hardly ever paid attention, and in this drawing lesson, she did. The teacher was fascinated. She went over to her, and she said, "What are you drawing?" And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will in a minute."
lugu ühest 6-aastasest tüdrukust joonistustunnis. Ta istus klassis tagapingis ning joonistas. Tüdruk ei teinud tavaliselt tunnis kaasa, kuid tolles joonistustunnis ta tegi. Õpetaja oli vaimustuses, läks tema juurde ja küsis: "Mida sa joonistad?" Tüdruk vastas: "Ma joonistan Jumalat." Õpetaja ütles: "Aga keegi ju ei tea, milline Jumal on." Ja tüdruk ütles: "Nad kohe saavad teada."
(Laughter)
(Naer)
When my son was four in England -- actually, he was four everywhere, to be honest.
Kui mu poeg oli 4-aastane, Inglismaal - tegelikult oli ta neljane igal pool, kui aus olla. (Naer)
(Laughter)
Kui peensustesse laskuda, siis oli ta neljane igal pool, kus ta tol aastal viibis.
If we're being strict about it, wherever he went, he was four that year. He was in the Nativity play. Do you remember the story?
Ta mängis jõulunäidendis, Jeesuse sünniloos. Kas mäletate seda lugu? See on kuulus.
(Laughter)
No, it was big, it was a big story. Mel Gibson did the sequel, you may have seen it.
See on kuulus lugu. Mel Gibson tegi sellele järje. Võib-olla olete näinud: "Jeesuse sünd II".
(Laughter)
"Nativity II." But James got the part of Joseph, which we were thrilled about. We considered this to be one of the lead parts. We had the place crammed full of agents in T-shirts: "James Robinson IS Joseph!" (Laughter) He didn't have to speak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in? They come in bearing gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh. This really happened. We were sitting there, and I think they just went out of sequence, because we talked to the little boy afterward and said, "You OK with that?" They said, "Yeah, why? Was that wrong?" They just switched. The three boys came in, four-year-olds with tea towels on their heads. They put these boxes down, and the first boy said, "I bring you gold." And the second boy said, "I bring you myrrh." And the third boy said, "Frank sent this."
James sai Joosepi osa ja me olime väga rõõmsad. Meie meelest oli see üks peaosadest. Meie tuba oli täis agente, seljas T-särgid: "James Robinson ON Joosep!" (Naer) Temal ei olnud sõnalist osa, kuid te teate ju seda kohta, kus kolm kuningat tulevad ning toovad kinke, kulda, viirukit ja mürri. See on tõsilugu. Me istusime saalis, ja ma arvan, et neil läks lihtsalt natuke sassi, sest kui hiljem rääkisime ühe poisiga ja küsisime: "Kas kõik on korras?", vastas ta: "Jah, miks? Kas midagi oli valesti?" Ta lihtsalt vahetas paar sõna ära. Igatahes, sisse astus kolm poissi, 4-aastased, rätikud turbaniks ümber pea, ja panid oma karbid maha. Esimene poiss ütles: "Tõin teile kulda." Teine poiss: "Tõin teile mürri."
(Laughter)
Ja kolmas ütles: "Tõin teile siirupit." (Naer)
What these things have in common is that kids will take a chance. If they don't know, they'll have a go. Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong. I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative. What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original -- if you're not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. And we run our companies like this. We stigmatize mistakes. And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make. And the result is that we are educating people out of their creative capacities.
Neid lugusid seob see, et lapsed on valmis riskima. Kui nad ei tea, siis nad lihtsalt katsetavad. Kas pole tõsi? Nad ei karda eksida. Ei, ma ei taha öelda, et eksimine on sama mis loovus. Aga fakt on, et kui sa pole valmis eksima, ei tule sa kunagi millegi originaalse peale. Kui sa pole valmis eksima. Ning ajaks, kui lapsed täiskasvanuks saavad, on enamik neist selle võime kaotanud. Nad on hakanud eksimise ees hirmu tundma. Muuseas, samamoodi juhime me ettevõtteid. Me häbimärgistame eksimusi. Meie praeguses haridussüsteemis on vead halvimad asjad, mida keegi võib teha. Tulemus on see, et me harime inimestest välja nende loomevõime. Picasso ütles kord,
Picasso once said this, he said that all children are born artists. The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up. I believe this passionately, that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather, we get educated out of it. So why is this?
et kõik lapsed on sünnilt kunstnikud. Raske on aga suureks saades kunstnikuks jääda. Olen veendunud, et me mitte ei kasva loovuse poole, vaid pigem kasvame sellest välja. Või pigem, see haritakse meist välja. Miks see nii on? Umbes 5 aastat tagasi elasin Stratford-on-Avonis.
I lived in Stratford-on-Avon until about five years ago. In fact, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles. So you can imagine what a seamless transition this was.
Siis kolisime Stratfordist Los Angelesse. Võite kujutleda, kui märkamatu üleminek see oli. (Naer) Tegelikult me
(Laughter)
Actually, we lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born. Are you struck by a new thought? I was. You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being seven? I never thought of it. I mean, he was seven at some point. He was in somebody's English class, wasn't he?
elasime paigas nimega Snitterfield, Stratfordi külje all, samas paigas, kus sündis Shakespeare'i isa. Kas see mõte hämmastab teid? Mind hämmastas. Me pole harjunud mõtlema, et Shakespeare'il oli isa, kas pole? Eks ole? Sest me ei mõtle tavaliselt Shakespeare'ist kui lapsest, ega ju? Shakespeare, 7-aastane? Ma polnud kunagi sellele mõelnud. Kunagi oli ta seitsmene ja käis mõne õpetaja juures inglise keele tunnis, eks ole? Kui tüütu see võis küll olla?
(Laughter)
How annoying would that be?
(Naer) "Pead rohkem pingutama." Isa saadab teda magama
(Laughter)
"Must try harder."
(Laughter)
Being sent to bed by his dad, to Shakespeare, "Go to bed, now!" To William Shakespeare. "And put the pencil down!"
ja ütleb Shakespeare'ile: "Mine nüüd magama!" - William Shakespeare'ile - "Ja pane pliiats käest. Ja ära räägi enam niimoodi, see ajab kõiki segadusse."
(Laughter)
"And stop speaking like that."
(Laughter)
"It's confusing everybody."
(Naer)
(Laughter)
Igatahes, me kolisime Stratfordist Los Angelesse -
Anyway, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say a word about the transition. Actually, my son didn't want to come. I've got two kids; he's 21 now, my daughter's 16. He didn't want to come to Los Angeles. He loved it, but he had a girlfriend in England. This was the love of his life, Sarah. He'd known her for a month.
tahan lihtsalt paar sõna selle kohta öelda. Mu poeg ei tahtnud kaasa tulla. Mul on 2 last. Poeg on praegu 21 ja tütar 16. Poeg ei tahtnud Los Angelesse tulla. Talle küll meeldis seal, kuid tal oli Inglismaal oma tüdruk. See oli tema elu armastus - Sarah. Nad olid tundnud teineteist juba terve kuu. Nad olid oma kokkusaamist tähistanud juba 4 korda.
(Laughter)
Mind you, they'd had their fourth anniversary, because it's a long time when you're 16. He was really upset on the plane. He said, "I'll never find another girl like Sarah." And we were rather pleased about that, frankly --
Kuu on pikk aeg, kui oled 16. Igatahes oli ta lennukis päris pahane ja ütles: "Ma ei kohta enam kunagi sellist tüdrukut nagu Sarah." Meil oli selle üle ausalt öeldes hea meel, sest peamiselt selle tüdruku pärast me riigist ära kolisimegi.
(Laughter)
because she was the main reason we were leaving the country.
(Naer)
(Laughter)
Üks asi hakkab silma, kui kolida Ameerikasse
But something strikes you when you move to America and travel around the world: every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one. Doesn't matter where you go. You'd think it would be otherwise, but it isn't. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities. At the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on earth. And in pretty much every system, too, there's a hierarchy within the arts. Art and music are normally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance. There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics. Why? Why not? I think this is rather important. I think math is very important, but so is dance. Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do. We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting?
või reisida maailmas ringi: igas maailma haridussüsteemis on sama õppeainete hierarhia. Igaühes. Pole vahet, kuhu lähed. Võiks eeldada, et on teisiti, aga pole. Kõige tähtsamal kohal on matemaatika ja keeled, siis humanitaarained ja seejärel kunstid. Kõikjal kogu maailmas. Ja enam-vähem igas süsteemis on ka kunstide puhul sama hierarhia. Kujutavale kunstile ja muusikale on koolides tavaliselt antud kõrgem staatus kui näitekunstile ja tantsule. Tervel planeedil pole ühtki haridussüsteemi, kus lastele õpetataks koolis iga päev tantsimist, nii nagu õpetatakse matemaatikat. Miks? Miks mitte? Minu meelest on see päris tähtis. Matemaatika on väga tähtis, kuid tantsimine samuti. Lapsed tantsiksid kogu aeg, kui neil lubataks. Me kõik teeksime seda. Meil igaühel on keha, kas pole? Või kas mul jäi mingi koosolek vahele? (Naer) Tegelikult, mis toimub on see -
(Laughter)
Truthfully, what happens is, as children grow up, we start to educate them progressively from the waist up. And then we focus on their heads. And slightly to one side.
sedamööda, kuidas lapsed kasvavad, hakkame me neid järjest harima, vöökohast ülespoole. Lõpuks keskendume ainult peale. Ja sedagi veidi ühekülgselt. Kui sa oleksid tulnukas ja püüaksid haridusest sotti saada
If you were to visit education as an alien and say "What's it for, public education?" I think you'd have to conclude, if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners -- I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn't it? They're the people who come out the top. And I used to be one, so there.
ja küsiksid: "Milleks haridust on vaja?", siis ma arvan, et sa jõuaksid järeldusele - kui sa vaatad tulemusi, vaatad neid, kes on selle abil läbi löönud, kes teevad kõike nagu vaja, kes saavutavad au ja kiituse, kes on tegijad - jõuaksid ilmselt järeldusele, et kogu hariduse eesmärk terves maailmas on toota ülikooli professoreid. Kas pole tõsi? Need on inimesed, kes jõuavad tippu. Ka mina olin üks neist, nii et tehke omad järeldused. (Naer)
(Laughter)
Ei, mulle meeldivad ülikooli professorid. Kuid teate,
And I like university professors, but, you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement. They're just a form of life. Another form of life. But they're rather curious. And I say this out of affection for them: there's something curious about professors. In my experience -- not all of them, but typically -- they live in their heads. They live up there and slightly to one side. They're disembodied, you know, in a kind of literal way. They look upon their body as a form of transport for their heads.
me ei peaks neid pjedestaalile tõstma nagu inimsaavutuste ülimat tippu. Nad on lihtsalt teatud eluvorm, üks eluvorme. Kuid nad on omamoodi kentsakad ja ma ütlen seda suure kiindumusega nende vastu. Minu arust on professorite juures midagi kentsakat - mitte kõik, aga enamik neist elab oma peas. Nad elavad seal kõrgel ja veidi ühekülgset elu. Nad on justkui kehatud. Üsnagi sõnasõnalises mõttes. Nad suhtuvad oma kehasse kui vahendisse, mis transpordib nende pead, kas pole?
(Laughter)
Don't they? It's a way of getting their head to meetings.
(Naer) See on abivahend, et toimetada oma pea koosolekule.
(Laughter)
Muide, kui sa tahad kehaväliste kogemuste
If you want real evidence of out-of-body experiences, by the way, get yourself along to a residential conference of senior academics and pop into the discotheque on the final night.
kohta tõendeid, siis mine akadeemikute konverentsile ja astu lõpuõhtul läbi diskoteegist.
(Laughter)
(Naer) Seal sa näed, kuidas täiskasvanud mehed ja naised
And there, you will see it. Grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat.
väänlevad kontrollimatult, rütmist mööda,
(Laughter)
oodates lõppu, et nad saaksid minna koju ja kirjutada selle kohta ettekande.
Waiting until it ends, so they can go home and write a paper about it.
Praegu baseerub meie haridussüsteem akadeemilise võimekuse ideel.
(Laughter)
Our education system is predicated on the idea of academic ability. And there's a reason. Around the world, there were no public systems of education, really, before the 19th century. They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism. So the hierarchy is rooted on two ideas.
Ja selleks on ka põhjust. Kogu süsteem mõeldi välja, sest maailmas polnud enne 19. sajandit üldharidussüsteemi. Need kõik tekkisid selleks, et rahuldada industrialismi vajadusi. Seega on hierarhia võrsunud kahest ideest.
Number one, that the most useful subjects for work are at the top. So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on the grounds you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? "Don't do music, you're not going to be a musician; don't do art, you won't be an artist." Benign advice -- now, profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in a revolution.
Esiteks, et töötegemiseks kõige kasulikumad õppeained asuvad tipus. Lapsena koolis sind tõenäoliselt tõrjuti leebelt eemale asjadest, mis sulle meeldisid, põhjusel, et sa ei leia kunagi tööd, mis on nendega seotud. Kas pole tõsi? Ära tee muusikat, sinust ei saa kunagi muusikut; ära tegele kunstiga, sinust ei saa kunstnikku. Leebe soovitus, mis on osutunud täiesti valeks. Maailm on pöördeliselt muutunud.
And the second is academic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence, because the universities design the system in their image. If you think of it, the whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance. And the consequence is that many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not, because the thing they were good at at school wasn't valued, or was actually stigmatized. And I think we can't afford to go on that way.
Teiseks on akadeemiline võimekus hakanud juhtima meie arusaama intelligentsusest, sest ülikoolid kujundasid süsteemi oma näo järgi. Kui järele mõelda, siis kogu üldharidussüsteem terves maailmas on üks pikaleveninud protsess ülikooli astumiseks. Ja tulemuseks on, et paljud ääretult andekad, geniaalsed, loovad inimesed arvavad, et nad pole seda. Sest asju, millega nad koolis hästi hakkama said, lihtsalt ei hinnatud või koguni häbimärgistati. Ja mina arvan, et me ei saa enam lasta sellel jätkuda.
In the next 30 years, according to UNESCO, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history. More people. And it's the combination of all the things we've talked about: technology and its transformational effect on work, and demography and the huge explosion in population.
Vastavalt UNESCO andmetele lõpetab maailmas järgmise 30 aasta jooksul kooli rohkem inimesi kui ajaloo algusest tänaseni. Rohkem inimesi, mis tuleneb kõigest sellest, millest me rääkinud oleme - tehnoloogia arengu mõju töötegemisele, demograafia ja suur rahvastiku kasv.
Suddenly, degrees aren't worth anything. Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job. If you didn't have a job, it's because you didn't want one. And I didn't want one, frankly.
Ühtäkki pole kraadidel mingit tähtsust. Kas pole tõsi? Minu kooliajal, kui kellelgi oli teaduskraad, siis tal oli ka töökoht. Kui tal töökohta polnud, siis sellepärast, et ta seda ei tahtnud. Ja mina ei tahtnud, kui aus olla. (Naer) Kuid nüüd lähevad kraadiga noored koju
(Laughter)
But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other. It's a process of academic inflation. And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet. We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence.
videomänge mängima, sest töökoht, kus varem oli nõutav bakalaureus, eeldab nüüd magistrit, ja mõni teine hoopis doktorikraadi. Toimub akadeemiline inflatsioon. Ja see näitab, et kogu haridusstruktuur on jalge all kokku varisemas. Meil tuleb radikaalselt ümber mõelda oma arusaam intelligentsusest.
We know three things about intelligence. One, it's diverse. We think about the world in all the ways that we experience it. We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms, we think in movement. Secondly, intelligence is dynamic. If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive. The brain isn't divided into compartments. In fact, creativity -- which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value -- more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.
Teame intelligentsusest kolme asja. Esiteks, see on mitmekesine. Me mõtleme maailmast nii, nagu me seda ka kogeme. Me mõtleme visuaalselt, mõtleme auditiivselt, mõtleme kinesteetiliselt. Me mõtleme abstraktsetelt, mõtleme liikumise kaudu. Teiseks, intelligentsus on dünaamiline. Kui sa vaatad inimese ajutegevust, nagu me kuulsime eile mitmes ettekandes, siis intelligents on imeliselt interaktiivne. Aju pole sektoriteks jagatud. Tegelikult loovus - mida mina defineerin kui selliste originaalsete ideede omamist, millel on mingi väärtus - selline loovus tekib sageli koostööst eri distsipliinide vaatenurkade vahel.
By the way, there's a shaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain, called the corpus callosum. It's thicker in women. Following off from Helen yesterday, this is probably why women are better at multitasking. Because you are, aren't you? There's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life. If my wife is cooking a meal at home, which is not often ... thankfully.
Aju on sihilikult... Muide, on olemas kimp närve, mis ühendab üht ajupoolkera teisega, ja mida nimetatakse mõhnkehaks. Naistel on see suurem. Eile Helenit vaadates järeldasin ma, et see ilmselt põhjendab, miks naised oskavad paremini teha mitut asja korraga. Te ju oskate, eks ole? Selle kohta on palju uurimistöid, kuid tean seda omast käest. Kui mu naine teeb kodus süüa - mida ei juhtu tihti... õnneks. (Naer) Kui ta süüa teeb - ei, üht-teist tal ikka õnnestub -
(Laughter)
kui ta süüa teeb, siis võib ta
No, she's good at some things. But if she's cooking, she's dealing with people on the phone, she's talking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling --
rääkida samal ajal telefoniga, rääkida lastega, värvida lage
(Laughter)
ja teha samas ka südameoperatsiooni.
she's doing open-heart surgery over here. If I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's on the hook, if she comes in, I get annoyed. I say, "Terry, please, I'm trying to fry an egg in here."
Kui mina süüa teen, siis on uks kinni, lapsed toas, telefon hargil ja kui naine sisse tuleb, lähen ma närvi ja ütlen: "Terry, palun, ma püüan siin muna praadida. Jäta mind rahule." (Naer)
(Laughter)
"Give me a break."
(Laughter)
Te ju teate tuntud filosoofilist küsimust,
Actually, do you know that old philosophical thing, "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, did it happen?" Remember that old chestnut? I saw a great T-shirt recently, which said, "If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"
et kui puu metsas langeb ja keegi seda ei kuule, siis kas seda üldse juhtus? Kes seda vana lugu mäletab? Nägin hiljuti toredat T-särki, millel oli kiri: "Kui mees räägib metsas, millest ta mõtleb, ja ükski naine teda ei kuule, siis kas tal sellegipoolest pole õigus?" (Naer)
(Laughter)
And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct. I'm doing a new book at the moment called "Epiphany," which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent. I'm fascinated by how people got to be there. It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, Gillian Lynne. Have you heard of her? Some have. She's a choreographer, and everybody knows her work. She did "Cats" and "Phantom of the Opera." She's wonderful. I used to be on the board of The Royal Ballet, as you can see.
Ja kolmas asi intelligentsuse kohta on, et see on individuaalne. Kirjutan parasjagu uut raamatut pealkirjaga "Ilmutus", mis põhineb mitmetel intervjuudel inimestega, kes räägivad, kuidas nad avastasid oma talendi. Mind paelub, kuidas inimesed on selleni jõudnud. Mind ajendas kirjutama vestlus imelise naisterahvaga, kellest enamik pole ilmselt kunagi kuulnud. Ta nimi on Gillian Lynne. Kas teate teda? Mõned teavad. Ta on koreograaf ja kõik on tuttavad ta tööga. Selleks olid "Kassid" ja "Ooperifantoom". Ta on vaimustav. Ma olin kunagi Inglise Kuningliku Balleti juhatuse liige, nagu võite näha.
(Laughter)
Läksime ühel päeval Gillianiga lõunale ja ma küsisin:
Gillian and I had lunch one day. I said, "How did you get to be a dancer?" It was interesting. When she was at school, she was really hopeless. And the school, in the '30s, wrote to her parents and said, "We think Gillian has a learning disorder." She couldn't concentrate; she was fidgeting. I think now they'd say she had ADHD. Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s, and ADHD hadn't been invented at this point. It wasn't an available condition.
"Gillian, kuidas sinust tantsija sai?" Ja tema vastas, et see on huvitav lugu, sest ta ei saanud koolis hästi hakkama. Ja koolist kirjutati 30ndatel aastatel tema vanematele: "Me arvame, et Gillian kannatab õpihäire all." Ta ei suutnud keskenduda, ta ei püsinud paigal. Tänapäeval oleks öeldud, et tal on hüperaktiivsuse sündroom. Eks? Kuid siis olid 1930ndad ja hüperaktiivsuse sündroomi polnud veel leiutatud. See diagnoos polnud veel kättesaadav. (Naer)
(Laughter)
Inimesed ei teadnud, et neil võiks see olla.
People weren't aware they could have that.
Igatahes läks ta arsti juurde. Ja seal puit-tahveldisega ruumis...
(Laughter)
Anyway, she went to see this specialist. So, this oak-paneled room, and she was there with her mother, and she was led and sat on this chair at the end, and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes, while this man talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having at school, because she was disturbing people, her homework was always late, and so on. Little kid of eight. In the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said, "I've listened to all these things your mother's told me. I need to speak to her privately. Wait here. We'll be back. We won't be very long," and they went and left her.
ta oli seal koos oma emaga, ja ta juhatati ruumi tagaossa toolile istuma, ja ta istus kannatlikult 20 minutit, kuni mees rääkis emaga kõigist probleemidest, mis Gillianil koolis olid. Ta oli problemaatiline laps, tema kodutöö jäi alati hiljaks ja nii edasi - ta oli alles 8-aastane - lõpuks istus arst Gilliani kõrvale ja ütles: "Gillian, ma kuulasin kõike, mida su ema ütles, ja me peame temaga omavahel rääkima." Ta ütles: "Oota siin, tuleme varsti tagasi," ning nad läksid ära.
But as they went out of the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk. And when they got out of the room, he said to her mother, "Just stand and watch her." And the minute they left the room, she was on her feet, moving to the music. And they watched for a few minutes, and he turned to her mother and said, "Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn't sick. She's a dancer. Take her to a dance school."
Ruumist lahkudes keeras arst mängima raadio, mis seisis laual. Ja kui nad olid välja läinud, ütles ta emale: "Seiske ja vaadake teda." Niipea, kui nad olid väljunud, ütles Gillian, oli ta jalul ja liigutas end muusika taktis. Nad vaatasid teda mõne minuti ja arst pöördus ema poole ning ütles: "Missis Lynne, Gillian ei ole haige. Ta on tantsija. Pange ta tantsukooli."
I said, "What happened?" She said, "She did. I can't tell you how wonderful it was. We walked in this room, and it was full of people like me -- people who couldn't sit still, people who had to move to think." Who had to move to think. They did ballet, they did tap, jazz; they did modern; they did contemporary. She was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet School. She became a soloist; she had a wonderful career at the Royal Ballet. She eventually graduated from the Royal Ballet School, founded the Gillian Lynne Dance Company, met Andrew Lloyd Webber. She's been responsible for some of the most successful musical theater productions in history, she's given pleasure to millions, and she's a multimillionaire. Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.
Küsisin: "Ja mis sai?" Ta ütles: "Ta panigi. Mul pole sõnu, kui võrratu see oli. Astusime ruumi ja see oli täis samasuguseid inimesi nagu mina. Inimesi, kes ei suutnud paigal püsida. Inimesi, kes pidid mõtlemiseks liikuma." Pidid mõtlemiseks liikuma. Nad tantsisid balletti, steppi, džässtantsu, moderntantsu ja kaasaegset tantsu. Lõpuks läks ta Kuningliku Balletikooli prooviesinemisele, ta sai soolotantsijaks, tegi vaimustavat karjääri Kuninglikus Balletis. Lõpetas Kuningliku Balletikooli ja rajas oma firma, Gillian Lynne Dance Company, kohtus Andrew Lloyd Webberiga. Ta on vastutav paari edukaima muusikalise lavateose eest ajaloos, ta on pakkunud meelelahutust miljonitele ja ta on multimiljonär. Mõni teine oleks aga
(Applause)
saatnud ta ravile ja käskinud tal maha rahuneda.
What I think it comes to is this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology and the revolution that was triggered by Rachel Carson. I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity. Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth for a particular commodity. And for the future, it won't serve us. We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children.
Ma arvan... (Aplaus) Ma arvan niimoodi... Al Gore rääkis ühel õhtul ökoloogiast ja revolutsioonist, mille algatajaks oli Rachel Carson. Mina arvan, et meie ainus tulevikulootus on võtta omaks uus inimökoloogia käsitus, mille puhul me muudame oma arusaama inimvõimete rikkusest. Meie haridussüsteem on õõnestanud meie mõtlemist samamoodi, nagu me kaevandame maa maavaradest tühjaks: tarbimise eesmärgil. Kuid tulevikus pole sellest enam mingit kasu. Meil tuleb ümber mõelda põhiprintsiibid, mille alusel me oma lapsi harime. On üks
There was a wonderful quote by Jonas Salk, who said, "If all the insects were to disappear from the Earth, within 50 years, all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years, all forms of life would flourish." And he's right.
võrratu tsitaat Jonas Salkilt, kes ütles: "Kui kõik putukad maa pealt kaoksid, siis 50 aasta jooksul elu Maal lakkaks. Kui kõik inimesed maa pealt kaoksid, siis 50 aasta pärast kõik eluvormid lokkaksid." Ja tal oli õigus.
What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination. We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely, and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about. And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are and seeing our children for the hope that they are. And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future. By the way -- we may not see this future, but they will. And our job is to help them make something of it.
TED ülistab inimese kujutlusvõimet. Peame olema ettevaatlikud, et kasutada seda andi targalt, et vältida mõningaid stsenaariume, millest me rääkinud oleme. Ja ainus viis seda teha on pidada meie loomingulisi võimeid rikkuseks, mida nad on, ja suhtuda oma lastesse lootusega, et nemadki seda teevad. Meie ülesanne on harida inimesi, et nad võiksid sellele tulevikule vastu astuda. Muide - meie ei pruugi seda tulevikku näha, kuid nemad näevad. Ja meie ülesandeks on aidata neil sellega midagi kasulikku ette võtta. Suur tänu!
Thank you very much.
(Applause)