Chris Anderson: OK, Stewart, in the '60s, you -- I think it was '68 -- you founded this magazine.
Kris Anderson: U redu, Stjuarte, ti si '60-h - mislim da je to bilo '68. - osnovao ovaj časopis.
Stewart Brand: Bravo! It's the original one. That's hard to find.
Stjuart Brend: Bravo! To je originalni primerak. Teško ga je naći.
CA: Right. Issue One, right?
KA: Tačno. Prvi broj, je l' da?
SB: Mm hmm.
SB: Mm hm.
CA: Why did that make so much impact?
KA: Zašto je bio toliko uticajan?
SB: Counterculture was the main event that I was part of at the time, and it was made up of hippies and New Left. That was sort of my contemporaries, the people I was just slightly older than. And my mode is to look at where the interesting flow is and then look in the other direction.
SB: Kontrakultura je bila glavni događaj čiji sam bio deo u to vreme, a sačinjavali su je hipici i Nova levica. To su bili, takoreći, moji savremenici, ljudi od kojih sam bio malo stariji. A moj način rada je da gledam u zanimljive tokove događaja, a da onda odvratim pogled u drugom smeru.
CA: (Laughs)
KA: (Smeje se)
SB: Partly, I was trained to do that as an army officer, but partly, it's just a cheap heuristic to find originalities: don't look where everybody else is looking, look the opposite way. So the deal with counterculture is, the hippies were very romantic and kind of against technology, except very good LSD from Sandoz, and the New Left was against technology because they thought it was a power device. Computers were: do not spindle, fold, or mutilate. Fight that. And so, the Whole Earth Catalog was kind of a counter-counterculture thing in the sense that I bought Buckminster Fuller's idea that tools of are of the essence. Science and engineers basically define the world in interesting ways. If all the politicians disappeared one week, it would be ... a nuisance. But if all the scientists and engineers disappeared one week, it would be way more than a nuisance.
SB: Delimično sam kao vojni oficir obučen da tako radim, no delom je to prosto jeftina heuristika za otkrivanje originalnosti: ne gledaj kuda svi ostali gledaju, gledaj u suprotnom smeru. Kod kontrakulture se radilo o tome da su hipici bili veoma romantični i nekako protivnici tehnologije, ne računajući veoma dobar LSD od Sandoza, a Nova levica je bila protiv tehnologije jer ju je smatrala oruđem moći. Kompjuteri su bili: neokretni, nesavitljivi, nerasklopljivi. Suprotstavite se tome. Te je čitav Whole Earth Catalog bio nešto kao stvar kontra-kontrakulture u smislu da sam prihvatio ideju Bakminstera Fulera da su postojeća oruđa suštinski važna. Nauka i inženjeri u suštini određuju svet na zanimljive načine. Ako bi svi političari nestali na nedelju dana to bi bila... neprijatnost. Međutim, ako bi svi naučnici i inženjeri nestali na nedelju dana, to bi bilo mnogo više od neprijatnosti.
CA: We still believe that, I think.
KA: Mislim da još uvek verujemo u to.
SB: So focus on that. And then the New Left was talking about power to the people. And people like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak cut that and just said, power to people, tools that actually work. And so, where Fuller was saying don't try to change human nature, people have been trying for a long time and it does not even bend, but you can change tools very easily. So the efficient thing to do if you want to make the world better is not try to make people behave differently like the New Left was, but just give them tools that go in the right direction. That was the Whole Earth Catalog.
SB: Dakle, fokusirajmo se na to. A potom je Nova levica govorila o moć narodu. A ljudi poput Stiva Džobsa i Stiva Voznjaka su to skratili i prosto rekli moć svima, oruđa koja zapravo funkcionišu. Te, dok je Fuler govorio ne pokušavajte da menjate ljudsku prirodu, ljudi su pokušavali dugo vremena i nije se čak ni povila, no možete veoma lako da menjate oruđa. Te efikasna stvar, ako želite da poboljšate svet, nije, kao Nova Levica, da pokušate da navedete ljude da se ponašaju drugačije već da im date oruđa da bi se kretali u pravom smeru. To je suština Whole Earth Catalog-a.
CA: And Stewart, the central image -- this is one of the first images, the first time people had seen Earth from outer space. That had an impact, too.
KA: A, Stjuarte, centralna slika - ovo je jedna od prvih slika, prvi put da su ljudi videli Zemlju iz svemira. To je takođe bilo uticajno.
SB: It was kind of a chance that in the spring of '66, thanks to an LSD experience on a rooftop in San Francisco, I got thinking about, again, something that Fuller talked about, that a lot of people assume that the Earth is flat and kind of infinite in terms of its resources, but once you really grasp that it's a sphere and that there's only so much of it, then you start husbanding your resources and thinking about it as a finite system. "Spaceship Earth" was his metaphor. And I wanted that to be the case, but on LSD I was getting higher and higher on my hundred micrograms on the roof of San Francisco, and noticed that the downtown buildings which were right in front of me were not all parallel, they were sort of fanned out like this. And that's because they are on a curved surface. And if I were even higher, I would see that even more clearly, higher than that, more clearly still, higher enough, and it would close, and you would get the circle of Earth from space. And I thought, you know, we've been in space for 10 years -- at that time, this is '66 -- and the cameras had never looked back. They'd always been looking out or looking at just parts of the Earth.
SB: Bila je to slučajnost da sam u leto '66, zahvaljujući iskustvu sa LSD-om na krovu u San Francisku, ponovo počeo da razmišljam o nečemu o čemu je Fuler govorio, kako mnogi ljudi pretpostavljaju da je Zemlja ravna i na neki način beskonačna u smislu resursa, ali čim shvatite da se radi o sferi i da je ima tek toliko, onda počnete da štedite resurse i razmišljate o njoj kao konačnom sistemu. "Svemirski brod Zemlja" je bila njegova metafora. A ja sam želeo da je tako, ali zbog LSD sam sve više i više lebdeo na svojih stotinu mikrograma na krovu San Franciska, i primetio sam kako zgrade u centru, koje su bile tačno ispred mene, nisu paralelne, bile su nekako ovako raspršene. A to je zato što su na zakrivljenom tlu. A da sam bio na višem položaju, to bi mi bilo još jasnije, više od toga, još jasnije, dovoljno visoko i krug bi se zatvorio i dobili biste zemljin krug iz svemira. Pa sam pomislio, znate, u svemiru smo već 10 godina - u to vreme, radi se o '66. - a kamere se nikad nisu osvrnule. Uvek su gledale ka spolja ili su samo gledale delove Zemlje.
And so I said, why haven't we seen a photograph of the whole Earth yet? And it went around and NASA got it and senators, secretaries got it, and various people in the Politburo got it, and it went around and around. And within two and a half years, about the time the Whole Earth Catalog came out, these images started to appear, and indeed, they did transform everything. And my idea of hacking civilization is that you try to do something lazy and ingenious and just sort of trick the situation. So all of these photographs that you see -- and then the march for science last week, they were carrying these Whole Earth banners and so on -- I did that with no work. I sold those buttons for 25 cents apiece. So, you know, tweaking the system is, I think, not only the most efficient way to make the system go in interesting ways, but in some ways, the safest way, because when you try to horse the whole system around in a big way, you can get into big horsing-around problems, but if you tweak it, it will adjust to the tweak.
Pa sam rekao, zašto još uvek nemamo fotografiju celokupne Zemlje? O tome se pročulo, stiglo je do NASA-e i senatora, sekretara i raznih ljudi iz Politbiroa, i kružilo je i kružilo. I za dve i po godine, u vreme kada je izašao Whole Earth Catalog, počele su da se pojavljuju ove slike i zaista su sve preobrazile. A moja zamisao izmene civilizacije je da pokušavate nešto lenjo i genijalno i prosto nekako prevarite situaciju. Dakle, sve ove fotografije koje vidite - a onda tokom prošlonedeljnog marša za nauku, nosili su ove barjake Whole Earth itd. - ja sam to uspeo skrštenih ruku. Prodao sam tu dugmad 25 centi po komadu. Dakle, znate, štimovanje sistema je, mislim, ne samo najefikasniji način da usmerite sistem u zanimljivom smeru, već je nekako i najbezbedniji način jer kad pokušate da izmanipulišete čitav sistem na izrazit način, možete zapasti u velike, zeznute, probleme, ali ako ga štimujete, sam će da se podesi štimu.
CA: So since then, among many other things, you've been regarded as a leading voice in the environmental movement, but you are also a counterculturalist, and recently, you've been taking on a lot of, well, you've been declaring what a lot of environmentalists almost believe are heresies. I kind of want to explore a couple of those. I mean, tell me about this image here.
KA: Dakle, otada, između ostalog, smatraju te vodećim glasom u pokretu očuvanja prirode, ali ti si i kontrakulturalista, a od nedavno si pod kritikom, dakle, obznanjuješ nešto što mnogi ekolozi smatraju gotovo jeresima. Nekako želim da istražim neke od njih. Mislim, prčaj mi o ovoj slici ovde.
SB: Ha-ha! That's a National Geographic image of what is called the mammoth steppe, what the far north, the sub-Arctic and Arctic region, used to look like. In fact, the whole world used to look like that. What we find in South Africa and the Serengeti now, lots of big animals, was the case in this part of Canada, throughout the US, throughout Eurasia, throughout the world. This was the norm and can be again. So in a sense, my long-term goal at this point is to not only bring back those animals and the grassland they made, which could be a climate stabilization system over the long run, but even the mammoths there in the background that are part of the story. And I think that's probably a 200-year goal. Maybe in 100, by the end of this century, we should be able to dial down the extinction rate to sort of what it's been in the background. Bringing back this amount of bio-abundance will take longer, but it's worth doing.
SB: Ha-ha! To je slika Nacionalne geografije nečega što se naziva mamutskom stepom, kako su nekada Subarktik i Arktička oblast izgledali. Zapravo, nekada je čitav svet tako izgledao. Ono što sad vidimo u Južnoj Africi i Serengetiju, mnoštvo velikih životinja, bio je slučaj i u ovom delu Kanade, širom SAD-a, širom Evroazije, širom sveta. Ovo je bio standard i može ponovo da bude. Pa je na neki način moj dugoročni cilj trenutno, ne samo da vratimo ove životinje i njihove pašnjake, što bi moglo da bude dugoročan sistem stabilizacije klime, ali čak su i mamuti tamo u pozadini deo te priče. I mislim da je to verovatno dvestogodišnji cilj. Možda za 100, do kraja ovog veka, trebalo bi da umanjimo stopu izumiranja na približnu onoj koja je bila u pozadini. Vraćanje ove količine biološkog izobilja će da potraje duže, ali je vredno truda.
CA: We'll come back to the mammoths, but explain how we should think of extinctions. Obviously, one of the huge concerns right now is that extinction is happening at a faster rate than ever in history. That's the meme that's out there. How should we think of it?
KA: Vratićemo se mamutima, međutim, objasni mi kako bi trebalo da razmišaljmo o izumiranjima. Očito, trenutno je velika briga to što se izumiranje dešava brže nego ikad u istoriji. To je priča koji kruži. Kako da razmišljamo o tome?
SB: The story that's out there is that we're in the middle of the Sixth Extinction or maybe in the beginning of the Sixth Extinction. Because we're in the de-extinction business, the preventing-extinction business with Revive & Restore, we started looking at what's actually going on with extinction. And it turns out, there's a very confused set of data out there which gets oversimplified into the narrative of we're becoming ... Here are five mass extinctions that are indicated by the yellow triangles, and we're now next. The last one there on the far right was the meteor that struck 66 million years ago and did in the dinosaurs. And the story is, we're the next meteor.
SB: Kruže priče da smo u sred Šestog izumiranja ili možda na početku Šestog izumiranja. Kako smo u poslu poništavanja izumiranja, poslu sprečavanja izumiranja sa Revive & Restore, počeli smo da proveravamo šta se zaista dešava sa izumiranjem. A ispostavlja se da je u ponudi veoma zbunjujući skup podataka koji se suviše pojednostavljuju u narativ da postajemo... Evo pet masovnih izumiranja koja su označena žutim trouglovima, a sada smo mi na redu. Poslednje skroz desno je udar meteora pre 66 miliona godina, a koji je uništio dinosauruse. A priča glasi da smo mi novi meteor.
Well, here's the deal. I wound up researching this for a paper I wrote, that a mass extinction is when 75 percent of all the species in the world go extinct. Well, there's on the order of five-and-a-half-million species, of which we've identified one and a half million. Another 14,000 are being identified every year. There's a lot of biology going on out there. Since 1500, about 500 species have gone extinct, and you'll see the term "mass extinction" kind of used in strange ways.
Pa, evo o čemu se radi. Zatekao sam se istražujući ovo za naučni rad koji sam pisao da je masovno izumiranje kada 75 procenata svih vrsta u svetu izumre. Pa, imamo otprilike pet i po miliona vrsta, od kojih smo identifikovali jedan i po milion. Svake godine identifikujemo 14.000 novih. Biologija je u zamahu tu. Od 1500. godine oko 500 vrsta je izumrlo i videćete termin "masovno izumiranje" kako se koristi nekako čudno.
So there was, about a year and a half ago, a front-page story by Carl Zimmer in the New York Times, "Mass Extinction in the Oceans, Broad Studies Show." And then you read into the article, and it mentions that since 1500, 15 species -- one, five -- have gone extinct in the oceans, and, oh, by the way, none in the last 50 years. And you read further into the story, and it's saying, the horrifying thing that's going on is that the fisheries are so overfishing the wild fishes, that it is taking down the fish populations in the oceans by 38 percent. That's the serious thing. None of those species are probably going to go extinct. So you've just put, that headline writer put a panic button on the top of the story. It's clickbait kind of stuff, but it's basically saying, "Oh my God, start panicking, we're going to lose all the species in the oceans." Nothing like that is in prospect. And in fact, what I then started looking into in a little more detail, the Red List shows about 23,000 species that are considered threatened at one level or another, coming from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the IUCN. And Nature Magazine had a piece surveying the loss of wildlife, and it said, "If all of those 23,000 went extinct in the next century or so, and that rate of extinction carried on for more centuries and millennia, then we might be at the beginning of a sixth extinction. So the exaggeration is way out of hand. But environmentalists always exaggerate. That's a problem.
Dakle, pre oko godinu i po smo imali priču Karla Cimera na naslovnoj strani Njujork Tajmsa: "Opsežna studija pokazuje masovno izumiranje u okeanima". A potom počnete da čitate članak, koji pominje da je od 1500. godine 15 vrsta - jedan, pet - izumrlo u okeanima i to, usput, nijedna u poslednjih 50 godina. Čitate dalje priču, a ona kaže da se dešava nešto zastrašujuće kako je ulov divlje ribe u ribnjacima toliki da to uništava riblju populaciju u okeanima za 38 procenata. To je nešto ozbiljno. Nijedna od tih vrsta verovatno neće izumreti. Pa ste prosto stavili, autor naslova je stavio dugme za paniku iznad priče. Nalik mamcima za klikove, ali u suštini govore: "Moj bože, počnite da paničite, izgubićemo sve vrste u okeanima." Bilo šta slično tome nije na vidiku. I, zapravo, tada sam počeo podrobnije da ispitujem, Crvena lista pokazuje oko 23.000 vrsta koje se smatraju ugroženim u većoj ili manjoj meri, prema Međunarodnoj uniji za očuvanje prirode, IUCN. A časopis "Nejčer" je imao članak koji je istraživao gubitak divljeg sveta, i rekli su: "Ako svih ovih 23.000 vrsta izumru u narednom veku ili slično, i ako se ta stopa nastavi više vekova i milenijuma, onda bismo možda mogli da budemo na početku šestog izumiranja. Dakle, preterivanje se otrglo kontroli. Međutim, ekolozi uvek preteruju. To je problem.
CA: I mean, they probably feel a moral responsibility to, because they care so much about the thing that they are looking at, and unless you bang the drum for it, maybe no one listens.
KA: Mislim, verovatno zato što osećaju moralnu odgovornost jer mnogo brinu oko toga čime se bave i ako ne razglase na sva zvona, možda niko neće slušati.
SB: Every time somebody says moral this or moral that -- "moral hazard," "precautionary principle" -- these are terms that are used to basically say no to things.
SB: Svaki put kad neko kaže moralno je ovo ili ono - "moralna opasnost" "princip predostrožnosti" - to su termini koji se koriste u suštini za zabranu stvari.
CA: So the problem isn't so much fish extinction, animal extinction, it's fish flourishing, animal flourishing, that we're crowding them to some extent?
KA: Dakle, problem nije toliko u izumiranju riba, životinja, već u bujanju riba, bujanju životinja, da ih u određenoj meri pretrpavamo?
SB: Yeah, and I think we are crowding, and there is losses going on. The major losses are caused by agriculture, and so anything that improves agriculture and basically makes it more condensed, more highly productive, including GMOs, please, but even if you want to do vertical farms in town, including inside farms, all the things that have been learned about how to grow pot in basements, is now being applied to growing vegetables inside containers -- that's great, that's all good stuff, because land sparing is the main thing we can do for nature. People moving to cities is good. Making agriculture less of a destruction of the landscape is good.
SB: Da, mislim da ih pretrpavamo i dolazi do gubitaka. Najveće gubitke uzrokuje zemljoradnja, pa sve što unapređuje zemljoradnju i zbog čega je ona zgusnutija, produktvnija, uključujući GMO, moliću lepo, ali čak iako želite vertikalnu zemljoradnju u gradu, kao i farme u zatvorenom, sve što smo naučili o uzgoju marihuane u podrumima trenutno se primenjuje na uzgoj povrća u saksijama - to je sjajno, to su sve sjajne stvari jer je ušteda zemljišta osnovno što možemo da uradimo za prirodu. Seoba ljudi u gradove je dobra. Umanjiti štetu koju zemljoradnja nanosi pejzažima je dobro.
CA: There people talking about bringing back species, rewilding ... Well, first of all, rewilding species: What's the story with these guys?
KA: Ljudi pričaju o vraćanju vrsta, obnovi divljeg sveta... Pa, pre svega, obnova divljeg sveta: šta je fora s tim ljudima?
SB: Ha-ha! Wolves. Europe, connecting to the previous point, we're now at probably peak farmland, and, by the way, in terms of population, we are already at peak children being alive. Henceforth, there will be fewer and fewer children. We are in the last doubling of human population, and it will get to nine, maybe nine and a half billion, and then start not just leveling off, but probably going down. Likewise, farmland has now peaked, and one of the ways that plays out in Europe is there's a lot of abandoned farmland now, which immediately reforests. They don't do wildlife corridors in Europe. They don't need to, because so many of these farms are connected that they've made reforested wildlife corridors, that the wolves are coming back, in this case, to Spain. They've gotten all the way to the Netherlands. There's bears coming back. There's lynx coming back. There's the European jackal. I had no idea such a thing existed. They're coming back from Italy to the rest of Europe. And unlike here, these are all predators, which is kind of interesting. They are being welcomed by Europeans. They've been missed.
SB: Ha-ha! Vukovi. Evropa, da se nadovežem na prethodnu priču, trenutno smo na vrhuncu količine obradive zemlje, i, usput, u smislu populacije već smo na vrhuncu broja žive dece. Od sad će da bude sve manje dece. Trenutno smo u poslednjem udvostručavanju ljudske populacije i stići će do devet, možda devet i po milijardi, a onda će početi, ne samo da se uravnotežuje, već da opada. Slično, trenutno je zemljoradnja na vrhuncu, a jedan od načina na koje se to ispoljava u Evropi je što trenutno ima mnogo napuštene obradive zemlje, što se istog trena nanovo pošumljava. U Evropi ne grade koridore za divlje životinje. Nemaju potrebe jer je toliko tih farmi povezano da su obrazovale pošumljene koridore za divlje životinje, te se vukovi vraćaju, u ovom slučaju, u Španiju. Stigli su skroz do Holandije. Vraćaju se medvedi. Vraća se ris. Postoji evropski šakal. Nisam ni znao da takvo šta postoji. Stižu iz Italije u ostatak Evrope. I ne kao ovde, ovo su sve grabljivice, što je nakako zanimljivo. Evropljani im žele dobrodošlicu. Nedostajali su im.
CA: And counterintuitively, when you bring back the predators, it actually increases rather than reduces the diversity of the underlying ecosystem often.
KA: I nasuprot intuiciji kada vratite grabljivice, to zapravo često uvećava, a ne smanjuje raznovrsnost osnovnog ekosistema.
SB: Yeah, generally predators and large animals -- large animals and large animals with sharp teeth and claws -- are turning out to be highly important for a really rich ecosystem.
SB: Da, uopšteno grabljivice i velike životinje - velike životinje i velike životinje sa oštrim zubima i kandžama - ispostavlja se da su veoma važne za istinski bogat ekosistem.
CA: Which maybe brings us to this rather more dramatic rewilding project that you've got yourself involved in. Why would someone want to bring back these terrifying woolly mammoths?
KA: To nas dovodi do tog krajnje dramatičnog projekta obnove divljine u koji si se uključio. Zašto bi neko želio da vrati te zastrašujuće runaste mamute?
SB: Hmm. Asian elephants are the closest relative to the woolly mammoth, and they're about the same size, genetically very close. They diverged quite recently in evolutionary history. The Asian elephants are closer to woolly mammoths than they are to African elephants, but they're close enough to African elephants that they have successfully hybridized. So we're working with George Church at Harvard, who has already moved the genes for four major traits from the now well-preserved, well-studied genome of the woolly mammoth, thanks to so-called "ancient DNA analysis." And in the lab, he has moved those genes into living Asian elephant cell lines, where they're taking up their proper place thanks to CRISPR. I mean, they're not shooting the genes in like you did with genetic engineering. Now with CRISPR you're editing, basically, one allele, and replacing it in the place of another allele. So you're now getting basically Asian elephant germline cells that are effectively in terms of the traits that you're going for to be comfortable in the Arctic, you're getting them in there.
SB: Hm. Azijski slonovi su najbliži rođaci runastom mamutu i otprilike su iste veličine, genetski su veoma bliski. Gotovo nedavno su se razišli u evolutivnoj istoriji. Azijski slonovi su bliži runastim mamutima nego afričkim slonovima, ali su dovoljno bliski afričkim slonovima da su se uspešno ukrstili. Pa sarađujemo sa Džordžom Čurčom u Harvardu, koji je već preneo gene za četiri osnovne osobine od trenutno dobro očuvanog, dobro izučenog genoma runastog mamuta, zahvaljujući takozvanoj "drevnoj DNK analizi". A u laboratoriji je preneo te gene u ćelijske trake živog azijskog slona, gde su zauzele odgovarajuće mesto zahvaljujući CRISPR. Mislim, ne ubacujete gene kao u slučaju genetskog inženjeringa. Sad sa CRISPR redigujete, u suštini, jedan alel i stavljate ga na mesto drugog alela. Dakle, sada u suštini dobijate sukcesiju ćelijskih zametaka azijskog slona koje su efikasne u smislu ciljnih osobina koje su poželjne na Arktiku, tu dolazite do njih.
So we go through the process of getting that through a surrogate mother, an Asian elephant mother. You can get a proxy, as it's being called by conservation biologists, of the woolly mammoth, that is effectively a hairy, curly-trunked, Asian elephant that is perfectly comfortable in the sub-Arctic. Now, it's the case, so many people say, "Well, how are you going to get them there? And Asian elephants, they don't like snow, right?" Well, it turns out, they do like snow. There's some in an Ontario zoo that have made snowballs bigger than people. They just love -- you know, with a trunk, you can start a little thing, roll it and make it bigger. And then people say, "Yeah, but it's 22 months of gestation. This kind of cross-species cloning is tricky business, anyway. Are you going to lose some of the surrogate Asian elephant mothers?" And then George Church says, "That's all right. We'll do an artificial uterus and grow them that way." Then people say, "Yeah, next century, maybe," except the news came out this week in Nature that there's now an artificial uterus in which they've grown a lamb to four weeks. That's halfway through its gestation period. So this stuff is moving right along.
Pa, prolazimo kroz proces dobijanja toga preko surogat majke, majke azijskog slona. Možete da dobijete zastupnika, kako to nazivaju biolozi konzervatori, runastog mamuta, to je u suštini dlakavi, uvijene surle azijski slon kome je savršeno ugodno u oblasti subarktika. Sad, dšava se da mnogi ljudi kažu: "Pa, kako ćete da ih smestite tamo? Azijski slonovi ne vole sneg, zar ne?" Pa, ispostavlja se da vole sneg. Neki iz zoološkog vrta u Ontariju su pravili grudve snega veće od ljudi. Prosto vole - znate, surlama, počnete s malom loptom, kotrljate je i povećate. A onda ljudi kažu: "Da, ali radi se o 22 meseca trudnoće. Ovaj vid kloniranja ukrštenh vrsta je zeznut posao, u svakom slučaju. Hoćete li da izgubite neke od azijskih slonica surogat majki?" A onda Džordž Čurč kaže: "Sve je u redu. Napravićemo veštačku matericu i tako ih uzgajati." A onda ljudi kažu: "Da, možda u sledećem veku", samo što je prošle nedelje objavljeno u "Nejčeru" da trenutno imamo veštačku matericu u kojoj su uzgojili jagnje do četvrte nedelje. To je pola perioda trudnoće. Dakle, ovo napreduje nama na ruku.
CA: But why should we want a world where -- Picture a world where there are thousands of these things thundering across Siberia. Is that a better world?
KA: Ali zašto bismo želeli svet u kome - zamislite svet u kome na hiljade ovih stvorenja tutnja Sibirom. Da li je to bolji svet?
SB: Potentially. It's --
SB: Potencijalno. To je -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
There's three groups, basically, working on the woolly mammoth seriously: Revive & Restore, we're kind of in the middle; George Church and the group at Harvard that are doing the genetics in the lab; and then there's an amazing old scientist named Zimov who works in northern Siberia, and his son Nikita, who has bought into the system, and they are, Sergey and Nikita Zimov have been, for 25 years, creating what they call "Pleistocene Park," which is a place in a really tough part of Siberia that is pure tundra. And the research that's been done shows that there's probably one one-hundredth of the animals on the landscape there that there used to be. Like that earlier image, we saw lots of animals. Now there's almost none. The tundra is mostly moss, and then there's the boreal forest. And that's the way it is, folks. There's just a few animals there.
Imamo tri grupe, u suštini, koje ozbiljno rade na runastom mamutu: Revive & Restore, mi smo nekako u sredini; Džordž Čurč i grupa na Harvardu koji se bave genetikom u laboratoriji; i potom imamo sjajnog starog naučnika po imenu Zimov koji radi u severnom Sibiru, kao i njegovog sina Nikitu koji su prihvatili sistem, a oni, Sergej i Nikita Zimov, već 25 godina stvaraju nešto što nazivaju "Parkom iz doba Pleistocena", a to je mesto u zaista nepristupačnom delu Sibira, koje je čista tundra. A obavljena istraživanja su pokazala da na tom pejzažu živi jedna stotina životinja kojih je nekad bilo. Kao na slici od ranije, videli smo mnoštvo životinja. Sada ih skoro uopšte nema. Tundra se sastoji uglavnom od mahovine i još je tu severna šuma. I tako stvari stoje, narode. Ima svega nekolko životinja tu.
So they brought in a lot of grazing animals: musk ox, Yakutian horses, they're bringing in some bison, they're bringing in some more now, and put them in at the density that they used to be. And grasslands are made by grazers. So these animals are there, grazing away, and they're doing a couple of things. First of all, they're turning the tundra, the moss, back into grassland. Grassland fixes carbon. Tundra, in a warming world, is thawing and releasing a lot of carbon dioxide and also methane. So already in their little 25 square miles, they're doing a climate stabilization thing. Part of that story, though, is that the boreal forest is very absorbent to sunlight, even in the winter when snow is on the ground. And the way the mammoth steppe, which used to wrap all the way around the North Pole -- there's a lot of landmass around the North Pole -- that was all this grassland. And the steppe was magnificent, probably one of the most productive biomes in the world, the biggest biome in the world. The forest part of it, right now, Sergey Zimov and Nikita go out with this old military tank they got for nothing, and they knock down the trees. And that's a bore, and it's tiresome, and as Sergey says, "... and they make no dung!" which, by the way, these big animals do, including mammoths. So mammoths become what conservation biologists call an umbrella species. It's an exciting animal -- pandas in China or wherever -- that the excitement that goes on of making life good for that animal is making a habitat, an ecosystem, which is good for a whole lot of creatures and plants, and it ideally gets to the point of being self-managing, where the conservation biologists can back off and say, "All we have to do is keep out the destructive invasives, and this thing can just cook."
Pa su doveli mnogo životinja koje pasu: muflona, jakutskog konja, dovode nešto bizona, trenutno ih dovode još više i vraćaju ih u razmeri u kojoj ih je nekad bilo. A pašnjake stvaraju životinje koje pasu. Pa ove životinje tu pasu i rade nekoliko stvari. Pre svega, pretvaraju tundru, mahovinu, nazad u pašnjak. Pašnjaci pospremaju ugljenik. Tundra, u svetu koji se zagrejava, kopni i oslobađa mnogo ugljen-dioksida kao i metana. Pa oni već u svojih skromnih 65 kilometara kvadratnh postižu stabilizaciju klime. Deo te priče, pak, je da severna šuma dobro apsorbuje sunčevu svetlost, čak i zimi kad je sneg na tlu. A način na koji mamutska stepa, koja je nekad opasavala čitav Severni pol - ima mnogo zemljišne mase oko Severnog pola - sve su to bili pašnjaci. A stepa je bila veličanstvena, verovatno jedan od najproduktivnijih bioma na svetu, najveći biom na svetu. Trenutno, deo pod šumom, Sergej Zimov i Nikita izlaze sa ovim starim vojnim tenkom koji su dobili za džabe, i obaraju drveće. A to je dosadno i iscrpljujuće, i kao što Sergej kaže: "... tenkovi ne prave izmet!" a to, usput, rade ove velike životinje, uključujući i mamute. Pa mamuti zbog toga postaju nešto što biolozi očuvanja nazivaju temeljnom vrstom. To je uzbudljiva životinja - pande u Kini ili bilo gde - da je uzbuđenje oko obezebeđivanja kvalitetnog života za tu životinju uzrokuje stanište, ekosistem, koji je dobar za čitavu hrpu stvorenja i biljaka, i u idealnom slučaju stiže se do tačke gde je on samoodržavajući, gde biolozi očuvanja mogu da odstupe i kažu: "Sve što je potrebno je da držimo podalje destruktivne invazivne vrste i ovo prosto može da se krčka."
CA: So there's many other species that you're dreaming of de-extincting at some point, but I think what I'd actually like to move on to is this idea you talked about how mammoths might help green Siberia in a sense, or at least, I'm not talking about tropical rainforest, but this question of greening the planet you've thought about a lot. And the traditional story is that deforestation is one of the most awful curses of modern times, and that it's a huge contributor to climate change. And then you went and sent me this graph here, or this map. What is this map?
KA: Dakle, postoji još mnogo vrsta koje sanjaš da vratiš u život u nekoj tački, ali zapravo želim da pređemo na ideju o kojoj si govorio o tome kako mamuti mogu da pomognu u ozelenjavanju Sibira na neki način ili bar, ne govorim o tropskoj kišnoj šumi, ali pitanje ozelenjavanja planete o kom si mnogo razmišljao. A tradicionalna priča glasi da je uništavanje šuma najužasnija kletva savremenog sveta i da to daje ogroman doprinos klimatskim promenama. A onda si mi ti poslao ovaj grafikon ovde, ovu mapu. Šta je ova mapa?
SB: Global greening. The thing to do with any narrative that you get from headlines and from short news stories is to look for what else is going on, and look for what Marc Andreessen calls "narrative violation." So the narrative -- and Al Gore is master of putting it out there -- is that there's this civilization-threatening climate change coming on very rapidly. We have to cease all extra production of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, as soon as possible, otherwise, we're in deep, deep trouble. All of that is true, but it's not the whole story, and the whole story is more interesting than these fragmentary stories.
SB: Globalno zelenilo. Kod svakog narativa koji dobijate iz naslova i kratkih vesti radi se o tome da proverite šta se još dešava i da proverite ono što Mark Andrisen naziva "kršenjem narativa". Dakle, narativ - a Al Gor je majstor u njegovom kreiranju - glasi da imamo po civilizaciju opasne klimatkse promene koje stižu veoma brzo. Moramo prekinuti svu suvišnu proizvodnju gasova staklene bašte, naročito CO2, što pre, u suprotnom, u ozbiljnoj, ozbiljnoj smo nevolji. Sve je to tačno, ali nije potpuna priča, a potpuna priča je daleko zanimljivija od tih fragmentarnih priča.
Plants love CO2. What plants are made of is CO2 plus water via sunshine. And so in many greenhouses, industrialized greenhouses, they add CO2 because the plants turn that into plant matter. So the studies have been done with satellites and other things, and what you're seeing here is a graph of, over the last 33 years or so, there's 14 percent more leaf action going on. There's that much more biomass. There's that much more what ecologists call "primary production." There's that much more life happening, thanks to climate change, thanks to all of our goddam coal plants. So -- whoa, what's going on here? By the way, crop production goes up with this. This is a partial counter to the increase of CO2, because there's that much more plant that is sucking it down into plant matter. Some of that then decays and goes right back up, but some of it is going down into roots and going into the soil and staying there. So these counter things are part of what you need to bear in mind, and the deeper story is that thinking about and dealing with and engineering climate is a pretty complex process. It's like medicine. You're always, again, tweaking around with the system to see what makes an improvement. Then you do more of that, see it's still getting better, then -- oop! -- that's enough, back off half a turn.
Biljke vole CO2. Biljke su sačinjene od CO2 plus voda putem sunčeve svetlosti. Pa u mnogim staklenicima, industrijskim staklenicima, dodaju CO2 jer biljke to pretvaraju i biljnu tvar. Pa su urađena istraživanja satelitima i drugim stvarima, a ovde vidite grafikon iz protekle otprilike 33 godine, imamo 14 procenata više lišća. Toliko više imamo biomase. Toliko više imamo onoga što ekolozi nazivaju "primarnom proizvodnjom." Toliko više se dešava života zbog klimatskih promena, zahvaljujući svim našim prokletim fabrikama na ugalj. Dakle - opa, šta se dešava ovde? Usput, s ovim skače proizvodnja useva. To je parcijalna suprotnost povećanju CO2 jer ima utoliko više biljaka koje ga usisavaju u biljnu tvar. Nešto od toga potom trune i vraća se nazad, ali nešto od toga odlazi u korenje i odlazi u tlo i ostaje tu. Dakle ove kontra stvari su deo koji morate da imate na umu, a podrobnija priča glasi da razmišljanje i bavljenje i klimatski inženjering su prilično složeni procesi. To je poput medicine. Uvek, opet, štimujete sistem da vidite šta uzrokuje napredak. Onda se bavite više time, vidite da i dalje napreduje, potom - op! - to je dovoljno udaljite se poluokretom.
CA: But might some people say, "Not all green is created equal." Possibly what we're doing is trading off the magnificence of the rainforest and all that diversity for, I don't know, green pond scum or grass or something like that.
KA: Ali neki ljudi će reći "Nije sve zelenilo ravnopravno." Moguće da krčmimo veličanstvene kišne šume i svu tu raznovrsnost za, pojma nemam, zelene jezerske alge ili travu ili nešto slično.
SB: In this particular study, it turns out every form of plant is increasing. Now, what's interestingly left out of this study is what the hell is going on in the oceans. Primary production in the oceans, the biota of the oceans, mostly microbial, what they're up to is probably the most important thing. They're the ones that create the atmosphere that we're happily breathing, and they're not part of this study. This is one of the things James Lovelock has been insisting; basically, our knowledge of the oceans, especially of ocean life, is fundamentally vapor, in this sense. So we're in the process of finding out by inadvertent bad geoengineering of too much CO2 in the atmosphere, finding out, what is the ocean doing with that? Well, the ocean, with the extra heat, is swelling up. That's most of where we're getting the sea level rise, and there's a lot more coming with more global warming. We're getting terrible harm to some of the coral reefs, like off of Australia. The great reef there is just a lot of bleaching from overheating. And this is why I and Danny Hillis, in our previous session on the main stage, was saying, "Look, geoengineering is worth experimenting with enough to see that it works, to see if we can buy time in the warming aspect of all of this, tweak the system with small but usable research, and then see if we should do more than tweak.
SB: Baš u ovom istražvanju, ispostavilo se da se svi oblici biljaka umnožavaju, Sad, zanimljivo je ono što je izostavljeno u njemu a to je šta se, dovraga, dešava u okeanima. Glavna proizvodnja u okeanima, biom okeana, uglavnom mikrobi, šta se dešava s njima je verovatno najvažnije od svega. Oni su ti koji stvaraju atmosferu koju s uživanjem udišemo, a oni nisu deo ovog istraživanja. To je nešto na čemu je Džejms Lavlok insistirao; u suštini, naše poznavanje okeana, naročito okeanskog života je suštinski maglovito, u ovom smislu. Pa smo u procesu otkrivanja kako nenamerno loš geoinženjering prevelike količine CO2 u atmosferi, otkrivamo šta okean radi s tim? Pa, okean, zbog dodatne toplote otiče. Zbog toga najviše i imamo porast nivoa mora, a još više nam toga sledi s više globalnog zagrevanja. Nanosimo užasnu štetu nekim koralnim grebenima, poput onih blizu Australije. Veliki greben odatle prosto se previše izbeljuje od pregrejavanja. A zbog toga smo Deni Hilis i ja, iz naše prethodne sesije na glavnoj sceni, govorili: "Pazite, geoinženjering je nešto s čim vredi eksperimentisati, videti da li funkcioniše, videti da li možemo da kupimo vreme u zagrevajućem aspektu svega ovoga, štimujemo sistem malim, ali upotrebljivim istraživanjem, a potom da vidimo da li je potrebno više od štimovanja.
CA: OK, so this is what we're going to talk about for the last few minutes here because it's such an important discussion. First of all, this book was just published by Yuval Harari. He's basically saying the next evolution of humans is to become as gods. I think he --
KA: U redu, dakle, o ovome ćemo da razgovaramo poslednjih nekoliko minuta jer je to veoma važna rasprava. Pre svega, ova knjiga Juvala Hararija je upravo objavljena. On u suštini kaže da je naredna evolucija ljudi ona u kojoj postaju poput bogova. Mislim da on -
SB: Now, you've talked to him. And you've probably finished the book. I haven't finished it yet. Where does he come out on --
SB: Sad, razgovarao si s njim. I verovatno si pročitao knjigu. Ja nisam još uvek. Kako on vidi -
CA: I mean, it's a pretty radical view. He thinks that we will completely remake ourselves using data, using bioengineering, to become completely new creatures that have, kind of, superpowers, and that there will be huge inequality. But we're about to write a very radical, brand-new chapter of history. That's what he believes.
KA: Mislim, radi se o prilično radikalnom viđenju. Smatra kako ćemo u potpunosti da se preobrazimo upotrebom podataka, bioinženjeringa, da ćemo da postanemo potpuno nova bića koja imaju, neki vid, supermoći i da ćemo da imamo ogromnu nejednakost. Ali da smo na putu da ispišemo veoma radikalno, skroz novo poglavlje istorije. On veruje u to.
SB: Is he nervous about that? I forget.
SB: Je li nervozan zbog toga? Zaboravio sam.
CA: He's nervous about it, but I think he also likes provoking people.
KA: Nervozan je zbog toga, ali mislim da takođe voli da izaziva ljude.
SB: Are you nervous about that?
SB: Da li si ti nervozan zbog toga?
CA: I'm nervous about that. But, you know, with so much at TED, I'm excited and nervous. And the optimist in me is trying hard to lean towards "This is awesome and really exciting," while the sort of responsible part of me is saying, "But, uh, maybe we should be a little bit careful as to how we think of it."
KA: Nervozan sam zbog toga. Međutim, znaš, zbog toliko toga na TED-u, ja sam i uzbuđen i nervozan. A optimista u meni daje sve od sebe da naginje ka: "Ovo je fantastično i veoma uzbudljivo", dok na neki način, odgovorni deo mene govori: "Ali, uh, možda bi trebalo da budemo pažljiviji oko toga kako mislimo o tome."
SB: That's your secret sauce, isn't it, for TED? Staying nervous and excited.
SB: To je vaš tajni sastojak, zar ne, za TED? Ostati nervozan i uzbuđen.
CA: It's also the recipe for being a little bit schizophrenic. But he didn't quote you. What I thought was an astonishing statement that you made right back in the original Whole Earth Catalog, you ended it with this powerful phrase: "We are as gods, and might as well get good at it." And then more recently, you've upgraded that statement. I want you talk about this philosophy.
KA: Takođe je i recept za blago stanje šizofrenije. Ali Harari te nije citirao. Nešto što smatram tvojom zapanjujućom izjavom baš iz prvobitnog Whole Earth Catalog-a, zatvorio si ga ovom snažnom frazom: "Mi smo poput bogova, i bolje da postanemo dobri u tome." A potom si nedavno nadogradio ovu izjavu. Želim da govoriš o ovoj filozofiji.
SB: Well, one of the things I'm learning is that documentation is better than memory -- by far. And one of the things I've learned from somebody -- I actually got on Twitter. It changed my life -- it hasn't forgiven me yet! And I took ownership of this phrase when somebody quoted it, and somebody else said, "Oh by the way, that isn't what you originally wrote in that first 1968 Whole Earth Catalog. You wrote, 'We are as gods and might as well get used to it.'" I'd forgotten that entirely. The stories -- these goddam stories -- the stories we tell ourselves become lies over time. So, documentation helps cut through that. It did move on to "We are as gods and might as well get good at it," and that was the Whole Earth Catalog. By the time I was doing a book called "Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto," and in light of climate change, basically saying that we are as gods and have to get good at it.
SB: Pa, nešto što učim je da je dokumentovanje bolje od pamćenja - daleko bolje. A nešto što sam naučio od nekoga - zapravo sa Tvitera. Promenilo mi je život - neki mi još uvek nisu oprostili. I prisvojio sam tu frazu kad ju je neko citirao, a neko drugi je rekao: "Ah, usupt, to nije nešto što si prvobitno napisao u prvom Whole Earth Catalog-u iz 1968. Napisao si: 'Poput bogova smo, i bolje da se naviknemo na to.'" Potpuno sam to zaboravio. Priče - proklete priče - priče koje pričamo sebi vremenom postaju laži. Pa dokumentovanje pomaže da se to raščisti. Zaista je prešlo u: "Kao bogovi smo i bolje da postanemo dobri u tome", a to je iz Whole Earth Catalog-a. Do vremena kad sam radio na knjizi naslovljenoj "Disciplina čitave Zemlje: Manifest ekopragmatiste", i u svetlu klimatskih promena, u suštini sam govorio da smo kao bogovi i da moramo postati dobri u tome.
CA: We are as gods and have to get good at it. So talk about that, because the psychological reaction from so many people as soon as you talk about geoengineering is that the last thing they believe is that humans should be gods -- some of them for religious reasons, but most just for humility reasons, that the systems are too complex, we should not be dabbling that way.
KA: Kao bogovi smo i moramo postati dobri u tome. Dakle, pričaj o tome jer je psihološka reakcija mnogih čim progovoriš o geoinženjeringu ta da je poslednje u šta veruju to da bi ljudi trebalo da budu bogovi - neki iz religijskih razloga, ali mnogi zbog skromnosti, da su sistemi suviše složeni, da ne bi trebalo da se petljamo oko toga.
SB: Well, this is the Greek narrative about hubris. And once you start getting really sure of yourself, you wind up sleeping with your mother.
SB: Pa, to je grčki narativ u vezi sa hubrisom. A čim postanete zaista samouvereni, završite u krevetu s majkom.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
CA: I did not expect you would say that.
KA: Nisam očekivao da ćeš to reći.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
SB: That's the Oedipus story. Hubris is a really important cautionary tale to always have at hand. One of the guidelines I've kept for myself is: every day I ask myself how many things I am dead wrong about. And I'm a scientist by training and getting to work with scientists these days, which is pure joy. Science is organized skepticism. So you're always insisting that even when something looks pretty good, you maintain a full set of not only suspicions about whether it's as good as it looks, but: What else is going on? So this "What else is going?" on query, I think, is how you get away from fake news. It's not necessarily real news, but it's welcomely more complex news that you're trying to take on.
SB: To je priča o Edipu. Hubris je zaista važna poučna priča koju bi uvek trebalo imati pri ruci. Jedna od smernica koju čuvam za sebe glasi: svaki dan pitam sebe u vezi koliko stvari sam potpuno u krivu. A ja sam obučeni naučnik, a raditi s naučnicima ovih dana, to je čisti užitak. Nauka je organizovani skepticizam. Dakle, uvek insistirate da čak i kad nešto izgleda prilično dobro, zadržavate čitav skup ne samo sumnji o tome da li je to dobro koliko se čini, već: šta se još dešava? Dakle, upit: "Šta se još dešava?" mislim da je način da izbegnete lažne vesti. Ne radi se nužno o stvarnim vestima, već se radi o poželjno složenijim vestima koje pokušavate da usvojite.
CA: But coming back to the application of this just for the environment: it seems like the philosophy of this is that, whether we like it or not, we are already dominating so many aspects of what happens on planets, and we're doing it unintentionally, so we really should start doing it intentionally. What would it look like to start getting good at being a god? How should we start doing that? Are there small-scale experiments or systems we can nudge and play with? How on earth do we think about it?
KA: No, vraćajući se na primenu ovoga samo na okolinu: čini se da je filozofija ovoga ta da, svidelo nam se ili ne, već dominiramo tolikim aspektima toga šta se dešava na planeti, a radimo to nenamerno, dakle, zaista bi trebalo da počnemo da to radimo namerno. Kako bi izgledalo započeti biti dobar kao bog? Kako da započnemo s tim? Da li postoje eksperimenti manjih razmera ili sistemi za poguravanje i igru? Kako, zaboga, da razmišljamo o tome?
SB: The mentor that sort of freed me from total allegiance to Buckminster Fuller was Gregory Bateson. And Gregory Bateson was an epistemologist and anthropologist and biologist and psychologist and many other things, and he looked at how systems basically look at themselves. And that is, I think, part of how you want to always be looking at things. And what I like about David Keith's approach to geoengineering is you don't just haul off and do it. David Keith's approach -- and this is what Danny Hillis was talking about earlier -- is that you do it really, really incrementally, you do some stuff to tweak the system, see how it responds, that tells you something about the system. That's responding to the fact that people say, quite rightly, "What are we talking about here? We don't understand how the climate system works. You can't engineer a system you don't understand." And David says, "Well, that certainly applies to the human body, and yet medicine goes ahead, and we're kind of glad that it has." The way you engineer a system that is so large and complex that you can't completely understand it is you tweak it, and this is kind of an anti-hubristic approach. This is: try a little bit here, back the hell off if it's an issue, expand it if it seems to go OK, meanwhile, have other paths going forward. This is the whole argument for diversity and dialogue and all these other things and the things we were hearing about earlier with Sebastian [Thrun].
SB: Mentor koji me je da kažem oslobodio od potpune lojalnosti Bakminsteru Fuleru je bio Gregori Bejtson. A Gregori Bejtson je bio epistemolog i antropolog i biolog i psiholog i svašta nešto još, a posmatrao je kako sistemi u suštini posmatraju sebe. A to je, verujem, delimično kako uvek želite da posmatrate stvari. A kod Dejvid Kitovog pristupa geoinženjeringu mi se sviđa to što se prosto ne zaputite i uradite to. Pristup Dejvida Kita - a to je nešto o čemu je Deni Hilis govorio ranije - je da to radite zaista, zaista postepeno, radite nešto da štimujete sistem, vidite kako reaguje, to vam saopšti nešto o sistemu. To odgovara činjenici da ljudi s pravom kažu: "O čemu govorimo ovde? Ne razumemo kako klimatski sistem funkcioniše. Ne možete osmisliti sistem koji ne razumete." A Dejvid kaže: "Pa, to se izvesno odnosi na ljudsko telo, pa ipak medicina napreduje, i nama je nekako drago da je tako." Način na koji osmišljavate sistem koji je tako velik i složen a koji ne možete u potpunosti da razumete je da ga štimujete, a to je nekako antihubristički pristup. Radi se o: probaj malo ovde, povuci se, dovraga, ako je problematično, proširi ako se čini da je u redu, u međuvremenu, nađi druge staze da ideš napred. To je čitav argument za raznolikost i dijalog i sve te druge stvari i stvari o kojima smo ranije slušali od Sebastijana Truna.
So the non-hubristic approach is looking for social license, which is a terminology that I think is a good one, of including society enough in these interesting, problematic, deep issues that they get to have a pretty good idea and have people that they trust paying close attention to the sequence of experiments as it's going forward, the public dialogue as it's going forward -- which is more public than ever, which is fantastic -- and you feel your way, you just ooze your way along, and this is the muddle-through approach that has worked pretty well so far. The reason that Sebastian and I are optimistic is we read people like Steven Pinker, "The Better Angels of Our Nature," and so far, so good. Now, that can always change, but you can build a lot on that sense of: things are capable of getting better, figure out the tools that made that happen and apply those further. That's the story.
Dakle, nehubristički pristup traga za društvenom dozvolom, a to je terminologija koja je, mislim, dobra, za uključivanje društva u dovoljnoj meri u ova zanimljiva, problematična, duboka pitanja da oni mogu da imaju veoma dobru zamisao i da imaju ljude kojima veruju da obrate strogu pažnju na delove eksperimenata kako budu napredovali, javni dijalog kako stvari budu napredovale - koji je vše javan nego ikad pre, a to je sjajno - i da opipate put, prosto oblikujete put usput, a to je pristup probijanja kroz nered koji je do sad veoma dobro funkcionisao. Razlog zašto smo Sebastijan i ja optimistični je zato što smo čitali ljude poput Stivena Pinkera: "Bolji anđeli naše prirode", i zasad je sve u redu. Sad, to uvek može da se promeni, ali možete mnogo da izgradite na tom osećaju: stvari mogu da se poprave, pronađite oruđa koja su to postigla i proširite im primenu. To je priča.
CA: Stewart, I think on that optimistic note, we're actually going to wrap up. I am in awe of how you always are willing to challenge yourself and other people. I feel like this recipe for never allowing yourself to be too certain is so powerful. I want to learn it more for myself, and it's been very insightful and inspiring, actually, listening to you today. Stewart Brand, thank you so much.
KA: Stjuarte, mislim da ćemo u tom optimističnom tonu zapravo da završimo. Zadivljen sam tvojom spremnošću da uvek izazivaš sebe i druge ljude. Osećam da je taj recept da nikad ne dopustimo sebi da budemo suviše sigurni toliko moćan. Želim i sam bolje da ga savladam, i bilo je veoma poučno i inspirativno, zapravo, slušati te danas. Stjuart Brend, mnogo ti hvala.
SB: Thank you.
SB: Hvala vama.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)