I want to talk to you today about prosperity, about our hopes for a shared and lasting prosperity. And not just us, but the two billion people worldwide who are still chronically undernourished. And hope actually is at the heart of this. In fact, the Latin word for hope is at the heart of the word prosperity. "Pro-speras," "speras," hope -- in accordance with our hopes and expectations. The irony is, though, that we have cashed-out prosperity almost literally in terms of money and economic growth. And we've grown our economies so much that we now stand in a real danger of undermining hope -- running down resources, cutting down rainforests, spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico, changing the climate -- and the only thing that has actually remotely slowed down the relentless rise of carbon emissions over the last two to three decades is recession. And recession, of course, isn't exactly a recipe for hope either, as we're busy finding out. So we're caught in a kind of trap. It's a dilemma, a dilemma of growth. We can't live with it; we can't live without it. Trash the system or crash the planet -- it's a tough choice; it isn't much of a choice. And our best avenue of escape from this actually is a kind of blind faith in our own cleverness and technology and efficiency and doing things more efficiently. Now I haven't got anything against efficiency. And I think we are a clever species sometimes. But I think we should also just check the numbers, take a reality check here.
Želim vam danas pričati o napretku, o našim nadama za zajedničko i trajno blagostanje. I ne samo nas, nego dvije milijarde ljudi širom svijeta koji su još uvijek kronično pothranjeni. A nada je zapravo u srcu toga. U stvari, latinska riječ za nadu je u srži riječi prosperiteta. "Pro-speras", "speras," nada -- u skladu s našim nadama i očekivanjima. Ironija je, pak, da smo već zgotovili napredak gotovo doslovno u smislu novca i gospodarskog rasta. Te smo povećali naše ekonomije toliko da sada stojimo u pravoj opasnosti da pokopamo nadu -- smanjujući resurse, rušeći prašume, izljevajući naftu u Meksičkom zaljevu, mjenjajući klimu -- te jedino što je ustvari usporilo uporan rast emisija ugljičnog dioksida tijekom posljednja dva do tri desetljeća je resecija. A recesija, naravno, nije točno recept za nadu, kao što možemo vidjeti. Stoga uhvaćeni smo u svojevrsnu zamku. To je dilema, dilema rasta. Ne možemo živjeti s njim, ne možemo živjeti bez njega. Uništi sistem ili uništi planet. To je teška odluka. Nemamo puno izbora. I naš najbolji način izlaska iz ovoga je zapravo neka vrsta slijepe vjere u našu vlastitu domišljatost i tehnologiju i učinkovitost te raditi stvari još učinkovitije. Nemam ja ništa protiv učinkovitosti. Te smatram da smo ponekad pametna vrsta. No mislim da također moramo provjeriti brojeve, i podvući crtu ovdje.
So I want you to imagine a world, in 2050, of around nine billion people, all aspiring to Western incomes, Western lifestyles. And I want to ask the question -- and we'll give them that two percent hike in income, in salary each year as well, because we believe in growth. And I want to ask the question: how far and how fast would be have to move? How clever would we have to be? How much technology would we need in this world to deliver our carbon targets? And here in my chart -- on the left-hand side is where we are now. This is the carbon intensity of economic growth in the economy at the moment. It's around about 770 grams of carbon. In the world I describe to you, we have to be right over here at the right-hand side at six grams of carbon. It's a 130-fold improvement, and that is 10 times further and faster than anything we've ever achieved in industrial history. Maybe we can do it, maybe it's possible -- who knows? Maybe we can even go further and get an economy that pulls carbon out of the atmosphere, which is what we're going to need to be doing by the end of the century. But shouldn't we just check first that the economic system that we have is remotely capable of delivering this kind of improvement?
Želim da zamislite svijet, u 2050, od otprilike devet milijardi ljudi, sa težnjom prema Zapadnim prihodima, Zapadnom načinu života. I želim postaviti pitanje -- dat ćemo im tih 2 posto rasta u prihodima, u rastu plaća također, zato što vjerujemo u rast. I želim postaviti pitanje: koliko daleko i koliko brzo moramo ići? Koliko mudri moramo biti? Koliko tehnologija trebamo na ovome svijetu da ostvarimo ciljeve smanjenja ugljika? Evo mog grafa. Sada se nalazimo s lijeve strane grafa. Ovo je intezitet ugljika uzrokovan ekonomskim rastom trenutno u ekonomiji. To je oko 770 grama ugljika. U svijetu koji vam opisujem, moramo biti upravo ovdje na desnoj strani na šest grama ugljika. To je poboljšanje od 130 puta, i to je 10 puta dalje i brže od bilo čega što smo ikada ostvarili u industrijskoj povijesti. Možda to možemo postići, možda je moguće -- tko zna? Možda možemo ići još dalje te ostvariti takvu ekonomiju koja izvlači ugljik iz atmosfere, što je ono što ćemo morati činiti do kraja stoljeća. No ne bismo li prvo trebali provjeriti da ekonomski sustav koji trenutno imamo je sposoban isporučiti ovakvu vrstu poboljšanja?
So I want to just spend a couple of minutes on system dynamics. It's a bit complex, and I apologize for that. What I'll try and do, is I'll try and paraphrase it is sort of human terms. So it looks a little bit like this. Firms produce goods for households -- that's us -- and provide us with incomes, and that's even better, because we can spend those incomes on more goods and services. That's called the circular flow of the economy. It looks harmless enough. I just want to highlight one key feature of this system, which is the role of investment. Now investment constitutes only about a fifth of the national income in most modern economies, but it plays an absolutely vital role. And what it does essentially is to stimulate further consumption growth. It does this in a couple of ways -- chasing productivity, which drives down prices and encourages us to buy more stuff. But I want to concentrate on the role of investment in seeking out novelty, the production and consumption of novelty. Joseph Schumpeter called this "the process of creative destruction." It's a process of the production and reproduction of novelty, continually chasing expanding consumer markets, consumer goods, new consumer goods.
Dakle, želim samo potrošiti nekoliko minuta na dinamiku sustava. Malo je složenije, i ja se ispričavam za to. Što ću probati učiniti, je da ću probati parafrazirati u ljudskim okvirima. Izgleda otprilike ovako. Tvrtka proizvodi robu za domaćinstva -- to smo mi -- i omogućava nam prihod, te je to još bolje, jer možemo potrošiti taj prihod na još više dobara i usluga. To se zove kružni tok ekonomije. Izgleda dovoljno bezopasno. Želim samo napomenuti jednu ključnu značajku sustava, a to je uloga investicije. Investicije predstavljaju samo otprilike petinu nacionalnog dohotka u većini modernih ekonomija, ali igraju ključnu ulogu. Ono što je bitno je da dodatno stimuliraju potrošački rast. Radi to na nekoliko načina -- ganjajući produktivnost, koja vuče cijene prema dolje i potiče nas da kupujemo još više stvari. No želim se usredotočiti na ulogu investicije u potrazi za novitetima, u proizvodnji i potrošnji noviteta. Joseph Schumpeter je ovo zvao "proces kreativnog uništenja." To je proces proizvodnje i reprodukcije noviteta, konstantno ganjajući rastuća potrošačka tržišta. potrošačka dobra, nova potrošačka dobra.
And this, this is where it gets interesting, because it turns out that human beings have something of an appetite for novelty. We love new stuff -- new material stuff for sure -- but also new ideas, new adventures, new experiences. But the materiality matters too, because in every society that anthropologists have looked at, material stuff operates as a kind of language -- a language of goods, a symbolic language that we use to tell each other stories -- stories, for example, about how important we are. Status-driven, conspicuous consumption thrives from the language of novelty. And here, all of a sudden, we have a system that is locking economic structure with social logic -- the economic institutions, and who we are as people, locked together to drive an engine of growth. And this engine is not just economic value; it is pulling material resources relentlessly through the system, driven by our own insatiable appetites, driven in fact by a sense of anxiety. Adam Smith, 200 years ago, spoke about our desire for a life without shame. A life without shame: in his day, what that meant was a linen shirt, and today, well, you still need the shirt, but you need the hybrid car, the HDTV, two holidays a year in the sun, the netbook and iPad, the list goes on -- an almost inexhaustible supply of goods, driven by this anxiety. And even if we don't want them, we need to buy them, because, if we don't buy them, the system crashes. And to stop it crashing over the last two to three decades, we've expanded the money supply, expanded credit and debt, so that people can keep buying stuff. And of course, that expansion was deeply implicated in the crisis.
I ovdje, ovdje postaje interesantno, jer ispada da ljudska bića imaju određeni apetit prema novitetima. Mi volimo nove stvari -- nove materijalne stvari u svakome slučaju -- ali također i nove ideje, nove avanture, nova iskustva. Ali materijalno je također od važnosti. Zato, što u svakom društvu koje su antropolozi proučavali, materijalne stvari djeluju kao neka vrsta jezika, jezik robe, simbolični jezik koji koristimo da ispričamo jedni drugima priče -- priče, na primjer, o tome koliko smo važni. Vođen statusom, očitom potrošnjom izdiže se iz jezika noviteta. I ovdje, odjednom imamo sistem koji povezuje ekonomsku strukturu sa socijalnom logikom -- ekonomske institucije, te koje smo mi kao ljudi, povezali zajedno da vozimo na motoru potrošnje. I ovaj motor nije samo ekonomske vrijednosti; on vuče materijalne resurse neumorno kroz sistem, vođeni vlastitim nezasitnim apetitima, u stvari vođen osjećajem tjeskobe. Adam Smith, prije 200 godina, je govorio o našim željama za životom bez srama. Život bez srama: u njegovo vrijeme, to su značile platnene majice, danas, u biti, još uvijek su vam potrebne majice, no trebate i hibridni auto, HDTV, dva godišnja odmora na suncu, netbook i iPad, lista se nastavlja -- skoro nepregledne zalihe roba, pokreću takve tjeskobe. No iako ih ne želimo, moramo ih kupiti, jer, ukoliko ih ne kupimo, sistem se urušava. A da ga zaustavimo da se sruši u proteklih dva do tri desetljeća povećali smo novčanu masu, povećali smo kredite i dugove, kako bi ljudi mogli nastaviti kupovati stvari. I naravno, ta ekspanzija je duboku utjecala na krizu.
But this -- I just want to show you some data here. This is what it looks like, essentially, this credit and debt system, just for the U.K. This was the last 15 years before the crash, and you can see there, consumer debt rose dramatically. It was above the GDP for three years in a row just before the crisis. And in the mean time, personal savings absolutely plummeted. The savings ratio, net savings, were below zero in the middle of 2008, just before the crash. This is people expanding debt, drawing down their savings, just to stay in the game. This is a strange, rather perverse, story, just to put it in very simple terms. It's a story about us, people, being persuaded to spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about.
No ovo -- Želim vam samo pokazati neke podatke ovdje. Ovako to izgleda, u suštini, ovaj kreditno dugovni sistem, samo za U.K. Ovo je zadnjih 15 godina prije sloma. I ovdje možete vidjeti, potrošački dug rastao je dramatično. Bio je iznad BDP-a tri godine za redom taman prije krize. U međuvremenu, osobna štednja je apsolutno pala. Omjer ušteda, neto štednje, su bili ispod nule polovicom 2008, taman prije sloma. Ovdje ljudi povećavaju dugove, smanjuju svoju štednju, samo kako bi ostali u igri. Ovo je čudna, prije perverzna priča, da pojednostavim. To je priča o nama, ljudima, koje se uvjeravalo da trošimo novac koji nemamo na stvari koje nam nisu potrebne kako bi ostavili dojmove koji neće trajati na ljude do kojih nam nije stalo.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
But before we consign ourselves to despair, maybe we should just go back and say, "Did we get this right? Is this really how people are? Is this really how economies behave?" And almost straightaway we actually run up against a couple of anomalies. The first one is in the crisis itself. In the crisis, in the recession, what do people want to do? They want to hunker down, they want to look to the future. They want to spend less and save more. But saving is exactly the wrong thing to do from the system point of view. Keynes called this the "paradox of thrift" -- saving slows down recovery. And politicians call on us continually to draw down more debt, to draw down our own savings even further, just so that we can get the show back on the road, so we can keep this growth-based economy going. It's an anomaly, it's a place where the system actually is at odds with who we are as people.
No prije nego se osudimo na očaj, možda bi se trebali vratiti i reći, "Jesmo li ovo dobro shvatili?" Da li su ljudi stvarno ovakvi? Da li se ekonomisti stvarno ovako ponašaju?" I gotovo odmah se zapravo dotaknemo nekih anomalija. Prva je u samoj krizi. U ovoj krizi, recesiji, što ljudi žele raditi? Žele potisnuti konzervatizam.Žele gledati u budućnost. Žele manje trošiti i više štedjeti. No štednja je zapravo pogrešna stvar za činiti sa točke gledišta sustava. Keynes je ovo nazvao "paradoksom štednje" -- štednja usporava oporavak. A političari nas konstantno prozivaju da se još više zadužimo, da povučemo naše štednje još više, samo kako bi se ponovno vratili u igru, kako bi održali ovu ekonomiju temeljenu na rastu. To je anomalija, to je mjesto gdje se zapravo sustav susreće sa svojim granicama sa onim što predstavlja čovjek.
Here's another one -- completely different one: Why is it that we don't do the blindingly obvious things we should do to combat climate change, very, very simple things like buying energy-efficient appliances, putting in efficient lights, turning the lights off occasionally, insulating our homes? These things save carbon, they save energy, they save us money. So is it that, though they make perfect economic sense, we don't do them? Well, I had my own personal insight into this a few years ago. It was a Sunday evening, Sunday afternoon, and it was just after -- actually, to be honest, too long after -- we had moved into a new house. And I had finally got around to doing some draft stripping, installing insulation around the windows and doors to keep out the drafts. And my, then, five year-old daughter was helping me in the way that five year-olds do. And we'd been doing this for a while, when she turned to me very solemnly and said, "Will this really keep out the giraffes?" (Laughter) "Here they are, the giraffes." You can hear the five-year-old mind working. These ones, interestingly, are 400 miles north of here outside Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. Goodness knows what they make of the Lake District weather. But actually that childish misrepresentation stuck with me, because it suddenly became clear to me why we don't do the blindingly obvious things. We're too busy keeping out the giraffes -- putting the kids on the bus in the morning, getting ourselves to work on time, surviving email overload and shop floor politics, foraging for groceries, throwing together meals, escaping for a couple of precious hours in the evening into prime-time TV or TED online, getting from one end of the day to the other, keeping out the giraffes.
Evo još jedna -- sasvim drugačija: Zašto mi ne činimo očigledne stvari koje bi trebali da bi se borili sa klimatskim promjenama vrlo,vrlo jednostavne stvari kao što je kupovina energetsko efikasnih uređaja, postavljanje efikasnih žarulja, gašenje svjetla ponekad, izoliranje naših domova? Ovakve stvari štede ugljik, štede energiju, štede nam novac. Zašto ih onda, iako imaju savršenog ekonomskog smisla, ne činimo? Pa, imao sam svoj osobni uvid u ovo prije nekoliko godina. Bila je nedjelja navečer, nedjelja popodne, taman poslije -- zapravo, da budem iskren, predugo nakon -- što smo se uselili u novu kuću. I napokon sam uhvatio vremena za uklanjanje propuha, postavljanje izolacije oko prozora i vrata da zaustavim propuh. I moja, tada, petogodišnja kćer mi je pomagala na način koji je svojstven petogodišnjacima. I sad smo mi radili na tome neko vrijeme, kad se je okrenula prema meni vrlo teatralno i rekla, "Hoće li ovo zaista zaustaviti žirafe da uđu?" (Smijeh) "Evo ih, žirafe." Možete čuti petogodišnji mozak na djelu. Oni, interesantno, su 400 milja sjeverno odavde izvan Barrowa u Furnessu u Cumbriji. Bog zna što oni čine u doba Lake District vremena. Ali, zapravo to djetinjasto netočno iznošenje me je zaokupiralo, jer mi je odjednom postalo jasno zašto ne činimo očigledne stvari. Prezaposleni smo zaustavljajući žirafe -- stavljajući djecu na bus ujutro, dovodeći sebe na posao na vrijeme, preživljavajući zatrpanost e-mailovima i kupovinu u šoping centrima, skupljanje namirnica, spravljanje zajedničkih obroka, bježeći nekoliko sati uvečer na udarne sate TV-a ili TED online-a, dolazeći s jednog kraja dana na drugi, zaustavljamo žirafe.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
What is the objective? "What is the objective of the consumer?" Mary Douglas asked in an essay on poverty written 35 years ago. "It is," she said, "to help create the social world and find a credible place in it." That is a deeply humanizing vision of our lives, and it's a completely different vision than the one that lies at the heart of this economic model. So who are we? Who are these people? Are we these novelty-seeking, hedonistic, selfish individuals? Or might we actually occasionally be something like the selfless altruist depicted in Rembrandt's lovely, lovely sketch here? Well psychology actually says there is a tension -- a tension between self-regarding behaviors and other regarding behaviors. And these tensions have deep evolutionary roots, so selfish behavior is adaptive in certain circumstances -- fight or flight.
Što je cilj? "Što je cilj potrošača?" Mary Douglas je zapitala u eseju o siromaštvu napisanom prije 35 godina. "To je," kaže ona, "pomaganje u stvaranju socijalnog svijeta i pronalazak vjerodostojnog mjesta u njemu." To je duboka humana vizija naših života, i to je sasvim druga vizija od one koja je u srži ovog ekonomskog modela. Stoga tko smo mi? Tko su ovi ljudi? Da li smo mi ovi tragači za novotarijama, hedonistički, sebični individualci? Ili možemo ponekad zapravo biti nešto kao nesebičan altruist prikazan u ovoj lijepoj Rembrandtovoj skici ovdje? Pa psihologija zapravo kaže da postoji napetost, napetost između osobnog karaktera i ostalih pogleda ponašanja. I ove napetosti imaju duboke evolucijske korijene. Stoga sebično ponašanje je nasljedno u određenim uvjetima -- bori se ili bježi.
But other regarding behaviors are essential to our evolution as social beings. And perhaps even more interesting from our point of view, another tension between novelty-seeking behaviors and tradition or conservation. Novelty is adaptive when things are changing and you need to adapt yourself. Tradition is essential to lay down the stability to raise families and form cohesive social groups. So here, all of a sudden, we're looking at a map of the human heart. And it reveals to us, suddenly, the crux of the matter. What we've done is we've created economies. We've created systems, which systematically privilege, encourage, one narrow quadrant of the human soul and left the others unregarded. And in the same token, the solution becomes clear, because this isn't, therefore, about changing human nature. It isn't, in fact, about curtailing possibilities. It is about opening up. It is about allowing ourselves the freedom to become fully human, recognizing the depth and the breadth of the human psyche and building institutions to protect Rembrandt's fragile altruist within.
No ostali pogledi ponašanja su ključni za našu evoluciju kao društvenih bića. I možda još interesantnije sa naše točke gledišta, još jedna napetost između karaktera u potrazi za novitetima i tradicije ili konzervacije. Noviteti su zarazni kada se stvari mjenjaju i morate se prilagoditi. Tradicija je neophodna za stabilizaciju podizanja obitelji i formiranje kohezivnih društvenih skupina. Stoga ovdje, odjednom gledamo u kartu ljudskog srca. I otkriva nam, odjednom, srž stvari. Ono što smo učinili je da smo kreirali ekonomije. Kreirali smo sustave, koji sustavno prviligiraju, potiču jedan uski kvadrant ljudske duše a ostale djelove zanemaruju. I u istom smislu, rješenje postaje jasno zato jer se ovdje ne radi o tome da promjenimo ljudsku prirodu. To nije ustvari ograničavanje mogućnosti. Radi se o otvaranju. Radi se o dopuštanju nama samima slobodu da postanemo cjeloviti ljudi prepoznavajući dubinu i širinu ljudske psihe te stvaranje institucija koje će u sebi zaštititi Rembrandtova krhkog altruista.
What does all this mean for economics? What would economies look like if we took that vision of human nature at their heart and stretched them along these orthogonal dimensions of the human psyche? Well, it might look a little bit like the 4,000 community-interest companies that have sprung up in the U.K. over the last five years and a similar rise in B corporations in the United States, enterprises that have ecological and social goals written into their constitution at their heart -- companies, in fact, like this one, Ecosia. And I just want to, very quickly, show you this. Ecosia is an Internet search engine. Internet search engines work by drawing revenues from sponsored links that appear when you do a search. And Ecosia works in pretty much the same way. So we can do that here -- we can just put in a little search term. There you go, Oxford, that's where we are. See what comes up. The difference with Ecosia though is that, in Ecosia's case, it draws the revenues in the same way, but it allocates 80 percent of those revenues to a rainforest protection project in the Amazon. And we're going to do it. We're just going to click on Naturejobs.uk. In case anyone out there is looking for a job in a recession, that's the page to go to. And what happened then was the sponsor gave revenues to Ecosia, and Ecosia is giving 80 percent of those revenues to a rainforest protection project. It's taking profits from one place and allocating them into the protection of ecological resources.
Što sve ovo predstavlja za ekonomiju? Kako bi ekonomije izgledale da uklopimo tu viziju ljudske prirode u njihovu srž te ih proširimo kroz ove ortogonalne dimenzije ljudske psihe? Pa, moglo bi izgledati kao 4000 kompanija orijentiranih prema zajednici koje su se proširile kroz U.K. zadnjih pet godina te sličan rast B korporacija u Sjedinjenim Državama, tvrtke koje imaju ekološke i društvene ciljeve zapisane u svom statutu u svojoj srži, kompanije, zapravo, kao ova, Ecosia. Želim vam samo, nabrzinu, pokazati ovo. Esocia je Internet tražilica. Internet tražilice rade na način da povlače prihode iz sponzoriranih linkova koji se pokazuju dok pretražujete. I Ecosia radi na gotovo sličan način. Stoga možemo to učiniti ovdje. Možemo napraviti jednu pretragu. Evo ga, Oxford, tu smo. Da vidimo što smo dobili. Razlika kod Ecosie je zapravo to što u slučaju Ecosie, povlači prihode na isti način, no raspoređuje 80 posto tih prihoda za projekt zaštite prašuma u Amazoni. I mi ćemo to učiniti. Samo ćemo kliknuti na Naturejobs.uk. U slučaju da netko traži posao u recesiji, ovo je stranica na koju idete. I što se onda dogodilo je da sponzor daje prihode Ecosia-i, a Ecosia daje 80 posto tih prihoda projektu zaštite prašuma. Uzima profit sa jednog mjesta i alocira ga u zaštitu ekoloških resursa.
It's a different kind of enterprise for a new economy. It's a form, if you like, of ecological altruism -- perhaps something along those lines. Maybe it's that. Whatever it is, whatever this new economy is, what we need the economy to do, in fact, is to put investment back into the heart of the model, to re-conceive investment. Only now, investment isn't going to be about the relentless and mindless pursuit of consumption growth. Investment has to be a different beast. Investment has to be, in the new economy, protecting and nurturing the ecological assets on which our future depends. It has to be about transition. It has to be investing in low-carbon technologies and infrastructures. We have to invest, in fact, in the idea of a meaningful prosperity, providing capabilities for people to flourish.
To je drugačija vrsta poduzeća za novu ekonomiju. To je forma, ako želite, ekološkog altruizma -- možda nešto u tom pogledu. Možda je to. Što god da je, što god da ta nova ekonomija je, ono što želimo da ekonomija čini, ustvari, je da stavlja investiciju natrag u srž modela, da oplodi investiciju. Samo što sada, investicija neće predstavljati upornu i bezumnu potragu za potrošačkim rastom. Investicija mora biti drugačija zvijer. Investicija mora predstavljati, u novoj ekonomiji, zaštitu i brigu ekoloških dobara o kojima ovisi naša budućnost. Mora se raditi o tranziciji. Mora se raditi o ulaganju u nisko ugljične tehnologije i infrastrukture. Moramo zapravo ulagati u ideju smislenog blagostanja, pružati mogućnosti za ljude da procvjetaju.
And of course, this task has material dimensions. It would be nonsense to talk about people flourishing if they didn't have food, clothing and shelter. But it's also clear that prosperity goes beyond this. It has social and psychological aims -- family, friendship, commitments, society, participating in the life of that society. And this too requires investment, investment -- for example, in places -- places where we can connect, places where we can participate, shared spaces, concert halls, gardens, public parks, libraries, museums, quiet centers, places of joy and celebration, places of tranquility and contemplation, sites for the "cultivation of a common citizenship," in Michael Sandel's lovely phrase. An investment -- investment, after all, is just such a basic economic concept -- is nothing more nor less than a relationship between the present and the future, a shared present and a common future. And we need that relationship to reflect, to reclaim hope.
I naravno, ova zadaća ima materijalnu dimenziju. Nema smisla pričati o ljudskom procvatu ukoliko nemaju hranu, odjeću i utočište. No isto tako je jasno da prosperitet ide iznad toga. Ima društvene i psihološke ciljeve .. obitelj, prijateljstvo, opredjeljenja, društvo, sudjelovanje u životu tog društva. I ovo također zahtjeva investiciju, investiciju, na primjer, u mjesta, mjesta gdje se možemo povezati, mjesta gdje možemo sudjelovati, zajednički prostori, koncertne dvorane, vrtovi, javni parkovi, knjižnice, muzeji, mirni centri, mjesta radosti i proslave, mjesta mira i razmišljanja, mjesta za "njegovanje zajedničkog građanstva" iz čarobne fraze Michaela Sandela. Investicija - investicija, nakon svega, je samo jednostavan ekonomski koncept -- nije ni više ni manje nego veza odnosa između sadašnjosti i budućnosti podjeljene sadašnjosti i zajedničke budućnosti. I trebamo taj odnos da se održi, kako bi povratili nadu.
So let me come back, with this sense of hope, to the two billion people still trying to live each day on less than the price of a skinny latte from the cafe next door. What can we offer those people? It's clear that we have a responsibility to help lift them out of poverty. It's clear that we have a responsibility to make room for growth where growth really matters in those poorest nations. And it's also clear that we will never achieve that unless we're capable of redefining a meaningful sense of prosperity in the richer nations, a prosperity that is more meaningful and less materialistic than the growth-based model. So this is not just a Western post-materialist fantasy. In fact, an African philosopher wrote to me, when "Prosperity Without Growth" was published, pointing out the similarities between this view of prosperity and the traditional African concept of ubuntu. Ubuntu says, "I am because we are." Prosperity is a shared endeavor. Its roots are long and deep -- its foundations, I've tried to show, exist already, inside each of us. So this is not about standing in the way of development. It's not about overthrowing capitalism. It's not about trying to change human nature. What we're doing here is we're taking a few simple steps towards an economics fit for purpose. And at the heart of that economics, we're placing a more credible, more robust, and more realistic vision of what it means to be human.
Da se vratim, na ovaj osjećaj nade, za dvije milijarde ljudi koji i dalje pokušavaju preživjeti dan na manje od vrijednosti mršavog lattea iz kafića u susjedstvu. Što možemo ponuditi tim ljudima? Očigledno je da imamo odgovornost pomoći im da se izdignu iz siromaštva. Jasno je da imamo odgovornost da napravimo mjesta za razvoj gdje je razvoj stvarno potreban u ovim najsiromašnijim zemljama. Isto tako je jasno da to nikada nećemo ostvariti ukoliko se nismo sposobni redefinirati prema usklađenom osjećaju prosperiteta u bogatijim zemljama, prosperitet koji je značajniji i manje materijalan od modela baziranog na rastu. Stoga ovo nije samo zapadnjačka post-materijalistička fantazija. Zapravo, Afrički filozof napisao mi je kada je "Prosperitet bez rasta" objavljen, upućujući prema sličnostima između ovog pogleda na prosperitet i tradicionalnog Afričkog ubuntu koncepta. Ubuntu kaže, "Ja sam zato što mi jesmo." Prosperitet je zajedničko nastojanje. Njegovo korjenje je dugačko i duboko. Njegovi temelji, koje sam pokušao prikazati, trenutno postoje, unutar svakog od nas. Stoga ovo nije suprotstavljanje putu razvoja. Ne radi se o svrgavanju kapitalizma. Ne radi se o pokušaju da se promjeni ljudska priroda. Ono što činimo ovdje je da poduzimamo male korake prema svrsihodnoj ekonomiji. I u srži te ekonomije, stavljamo vjerodostojniju, zdraviju, i realističniju viziju onoga što znači biti čovjek.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Chris Anderson: While they're taking the podium away, just a quick question. First of all, economists aren't supposed to be inspiring, so you may need to work on the tone a little. (Laughter) Can you picture the politicians ever buying into this? I mean, can you picture a politician standing up in Britain and saying, "GDP fell two percent this year. Good news! We're actually all happier, and a country's more beautiful, and our lives are better."
Chris Anderson: Dok odnose postolje, samo brzo pitanje. Najprije, ekonomisti nebi trebali biti nadahnuti, stoga trebali bi poraditi malo na tonu. (Smijeh) Možete li zamisliti političare da zagrizu u ovo? Mislim, možete li zamisliti političara u Britaniji da se zauzme i kaže, "BDP je pao dva posto ove godine. Dobre vijesti! Zapravo smo svi više sretni, i zemlja je ljepša, te su naši životi bolji."
Tim Jackson: Well that's clearly not what you're doing. You're not making news out of things falling down. You're making news out of the things that tell you that we're flourishing. Can I picture politicians doing it? Actually, I already am seeing a little bit of it. When we first started this kind of work, politicians would stand up, treasury spokesmen would stand up, and accuse us of wanting to go back and live in caves. And actually in the period through which we've been working over the last 18 years -- partly because of the financial crisis and a little bit of humility in the profession of economics -- actually people are engaging in this issue in all sorts of countries around the world.
Tim Jackson: Pa jasno je da to nebi trebali činiti. Ne pravite novost od stvari koje propadaju. Radite novost od stvari koje vam govore da napredujemo. Mogu li zamisliti da političari to čine? Zapravo, već vidim da se to pomalo događa. Kad smo započeli ovakav način rada, političari bi se zauzeli, glasnogovornik financija bi se zauzeo, i optužio nas da se želimo vratiti i živjeti u pećinama. Ali zapravo u periodu kroz koji radimo već zadnjih 18 godina -- djelomično zbog financijske krize i malo zbog poniznosti u ekonomskoj profesiji -- zapravo se ljudi uključuju u ovo pitanje u svakojakim zemljama po svijetu.
CA: But is it mainly politicians who are going to have to get their act together, or is it going to be more just civil society and companies?
CA: Ali hoće li se većinom političari morati sabrati, ili će se više raditi o civilnim društvima i poduzećima?
TJ: It has to be companies. It has to be civil society. But it has to have political leadership. This is a kind of agenda, which actually politicians themselves are kind of caught in that dilemma, because they're hooked on the growth model themselves. But actually opening up the space to think about different ways of governing, different kinds of politics, and creating the space for civil society and businesses to operate differently -- absolutely vital.
TJ: Moraju biti poduzeća. Moraju biti civilna društva. No moraju imati političko vodstvo. To je vrsta agende, u koju su zapravo sami političari uhvaćeni u dilemi, jer su i sami zapeli na modelu rasta. No zapravo otvarajući prostor za drugačiji način upravljanja, drugačiju politiku, i otvaranje prostora za civilno društvo i poduzeća da djeluju drukčije -- je od vitalne važnosti.
CA: And if someone could convince you that we actually can make the -- what was it? -- the 130-fold improvement in efficiency, of reduction of carbon footprint, would you then actually like that picture of economic growth into more knowledge-based goods?
CA: A ukoliko bi vas netko mogao uvjeriti da mi zapravo možemo to ostvariti - koliko je bilo? povećanje za 130 puta u efikasnosti, smanjenja otiska ugljika, bi vam se tada zapravo sviđala slika ekonomskog rasta temeljena na dobrima baziranim na znanju?
TJ: I would still want to know that you could do that and get below zero by the end of the century, in terms of taking carbon out of the atmosphere, and solve the problem of biodiversity and reduce the impact on land use and do something about the erosion of topsoils and the quality of water. If you can convince me we can do all that, then, yes, I would take the two percent.
TJ: I dalje vjerujem da se to može učiniti te doći ispod nule do kraja stoljeća, u smislu uklanjanja ugljika iz atmosfere, i rješavanju problema bioraznolikosti te smanjiti utjecaj na korištenje zemljišta te učiniti nešto oko erozije tla i kvalitete vode. Ukoliko me možete uvjeriti da to sve možemo učiniti, onda, da, uzeo bih ta dva posto.
CA: Tim, thank you for a very important talk. Thank you.
CA: Tim, hvala na vrlo važnom govoru. Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)