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.
Doresc sa va vorbesc astazi despre prosperitate, despre sperantele noastre pentru o prosperitate impartasita si care dureaza. Si nu doar noi, ci si cele doua miliare de oameni de peste tot care sunt in continuare subnutriti zi de zi. Iar speranta e in centrul acestei prezentari. De fapt, cuvantul latin pentru speranta este in centrul cuvantului prosperitate. "Pro-speras", "speras", speranta -- in acord cu sperantele si asteptarile noastre. Ironia este, cred, ca noi ne imaginam prosperitatea literalmente, in termeni de bani si crestere economica. Si ne-am crescut economiile atat de mult ca acum suntem intr-un pericol real de a ne submina speranta -- epuizand resursele, taind padurile tropicale, varsand petrol in Golful Mexic, schimband clima -- iar singurul lucru care intr-adevar in mica masura a incetinit cresterea neinduratoare a emisiilor de carbon din ultimile doua-trei decade este recesiunea. Si nici recesiunea, desigur, nu e exact o reteta pentru speranta, asa cum am aflat deja. Asa ca suntem prinsi intr-un fel de capcana. Este o dilema, o dilema a cresterii. Nu putem trai cu ea; nu putem trai fara ea. Distruge sistemul sau distruge planeta. Este o alegere dificila. Dar nu prea ai de ales. Si cea mai buna cale de scapare din asta e un fel de credinta oarba in propria noasta inteligenta si tehnologie si eficienta si in realizarea lucrurilor mai eficient. Acum eu n-am nimic impotriva eficientei. Si cred ca suntem o specie inteligenta uneori. Dar cred ca trebuie de asemenea sa verificam numerele, sa verificam realitatea.
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?
As vrea sa va imaginati o lume, in 2050, cu aproximativ noua miliarde de oameni, toti aspirand la veniturile din vest, la stilul de viata occidental. Si vreau sa va pun o intrebare -- si le dam o crestere a veniturilor de doua procente, pentru salarii in fiecare an, pentru ca noi credem in crestere. Si vreau sa va pun intrebarea: cat de departe si cat de repede ar trebui sa ne miscam? Cat de inteligenti ar trebui sa fim? De cata tehnologie am avea nevoie in aceasta lume pentru a ne atinge obiectivele de carbon? Si iata graficul meu. In partea stanga e situatia in care ne aflam acum. Asta e intensitatea emisiilor de carbon din cresterea economica in economia de acum. Este aproximativ 770 grame de carbon. In lumea pe care v-o descriu, trebuie sa fim exact aici in partea dreapta la sase grame de carbon. Este o imbunatatire de 130 de ori, si asta e de 10 ori mai mult si mai repede decat orice am atins vreodata in istoria industriala. Poate putem sa o facem, poate este posibil -- cine stie? Poate putem si mai mult si putem avea o economie care scoate carbonul din atmosfera, ceea ce e ce va trebui sa facem pana la sfarsitul secolului. Dar n-ar trebui sa verificam prima data daca sistemul economic pe care-l avem este capabil sa ne ofere acest fel de imbunatatire?
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.
Asa ca doresc sa discutam putin despre dinamica sistemului. Este un pic complex, si imi cer scuze pentru asta. Ce incerc sa fac, e ca voi incerca si-l voi parafraza intr-un fel in termeni umani. Arata intr-un fel cam asa. Firmele produc bunuri pentru gospodarii -- astia suntem noi -- si ne ofera venituri, si asta-i si mai bine, pentru ca noi sa putem cheltui aceste venituri pe mai multe bunuri si servicii. Acest lucru se numeste ciclu economic. Arata suficient de pasnic. Doresc sa accentuez o caracteristica importanta a sistemului, si anume rolul investitiei. Acum investitia constituie doar aproximativ o cincime din venitul national in cele mai multe economii moderne, dar joaca un rol absolut vital. Si ce face in mod esential este sa stimuleze viitoarea crestere a consumului. Face asta in mai multe feluri -- tintind productivitatea, care face ca preturile sa scada si ne incurajeaza sa cumparam si mai multe bunuri. Dar vreau sa ne concentram pe rolul investitiei in cautarea noutatii, a noutatii productiei si consumului. Joseph Schumpeter a numit asta "procesul distrugerii creative". Este un proces de productie si reproductie a noutatii, urmarind continua extindere a pietelor de consum, produselor de consum, a noilor produse de consum.
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.
Iar acest aspect este interesant pentru ca arata ca fiintele umane au un oarecare apetit pentru noutate. Iubim lucrurile noi -- noile lucruri materiale cu siguranta -- dar deasemenea ideile noi, aventurile noi, experientele noi. Dar materialitatea conteaza de asemenea. Deoarece, in fiecare societate pe care au studiat-o antropologii, lucrurile materiale opereaza ca un fel de limbaj, un limbaj al bunurilor, un limbaj simbolic pe care-l folosim pentru a spune unul altuia povesti -- povesti, de exemplu, despre cat de importanti suntem noi. Situatia noastra sociala, consumul nemasurat provine din limbajul noutatii. Si aici, dintr-o data, avem un sistem care pune alaturi structura economica cu logica sociala -- institutiile economice, si cine suntem ca persoane, puse impreuna pentru a conduce un motor al dezvoltarii. Si acest motor nu este doar o valoarea economica; reprezinta resurse materiale care se aduc permanent in sistem, influentate de apetitul nostru insatiabil, influentate de fapt de sentimentul anxietatii. Acum 200 de ani, Adam Smith vorbea despre dorinta de a avea o viata fara rusine. O viata fara rusine: in zilele lui acest lucru insemna camasile de in, si astazi, in continuare ai nevoie de camasa, dar ai nevoie de o masina hibrid, de HDTV, de doua vacante pe an in plin soare, de netbook si de iPad, iar lista poate continua -- cu o oferta aproape inepuizabila de bunuri, generata de aceasta anxietate. Si chiar daca noi nu le dorim, e nevoie sa le cumparam, pentru ca, daca nu le cumparam, sistemul se prabuseste. Si pentru a-i opri prabusirea in ultimele doua trei decenii, am extins oferta de bani, am extins creditul si datoriile, pentru ca oamenii sa continue sa cumpere lucruri. Si desigur, aceasta expansiune a fost extrem de implicata in criza.
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.
Dar aceasta -- vreau sa va arat cateva date. Asa arata, esential, sistemul de credit si datorie, doar pentru Marea Britanie. Asa arata in ultimii 15 ani inainte de prabusire. Si puteti vedea aici, datoriile de consum au crescut dramatic. Au fost peste PIB in trei ani consecutiv doar inainte de criza. Si intre timp, economiile populatiei au secatuit. Proportia economiilor, economiile nete, au fost sub zero la mijlocul lui 2008, chiar inainte de prabusire. Sunt persoane care isi maresc datoriile, punand capat economiilor doar pentru a ramane in joc. Este o ciudata, poate perversa, poveste, spusa in termeni simpli. Este o poveste despre noi, oamenii, fiind convinsi sa cheltuim bani pe care nu-i avem pe lucruri de care nu avem nevoie pentru a crea impresii care nu vor rezista in timp asupra unor oameni de care nu ne pasa.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
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.
Dar inainte de a ne da batuti in fata disperarii, poate ar trebui sa ne intoarcem si sa spunem, "Am inteles bine? Asa sunt intr-adevar oamenii? Asa se comporta intr-adevar economia?" Si aproape imediat ne indreptam impotriva unor anomalii. Prima se gaseste chiar in criza. In timp de criza, in recesiune, ce doresc sa faca oamenii? Vor sa se protejeze. Vor sa priveasca catre viitor. Vor sa cheltuie mai putin si sa economiseasca mai mult. Insa a economisi este exact lucrul gresit din punctul de vedere al sistemului. Keyness a numit acest lucru "paradoxul cumpatarii" -- economiile incetinesc revenirea economica. Iar politicienii ne cer intruna sa ne finantam mai multe datorii, sa reducem nivelul economiilor noastre chiar mai mult, pentru ca doar asa putem redresa situatia, si astfel sa mentinem functionala aceasta economie bazata pe crestere. Este o anomalie, este un loc unde sistemul nu e de acord cu cine suntem noi ca oameni.
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.
Iata altul -- complet diferit: De ce nu facem lucrurile pe care trebuie sa le facem pentru a combate schimbarea climei, lucruri foarte, foarte simple, precum cumpararea de aparate eficiente energetic, utilizarea de becuri eficiente, inchiderea luminii cand nu avem nevoie de ea, izolarea caselor noastre? Aceste lucruri duc la economii de carbon, economisesc energie, ne economisesc din bani. Deci daca are sens din punct de vedere economic, de ce nu le facem? Pai, am avut propria mea intuitie despre acest lucru acum cativa ani. Era intr-o duminica seara, duminica dupa-amiaza, si era chiar dupa -- de fapt, sa fiu corect, mult dupa -- ce ne-am mutat in noua casa. In sfarsit am ajuns sa pun benzi izolante, instaland izolatie in jurul ferestrelor si usilor pentru a nu lasa aerul rece inauntru. Si fetita mea de cinci ani pe atunci ma ajuta asa cum copiii de cinci ani o fac. Si facem lucrul asta de ceva vreme, cand se intoarce catre mine foarte solemn si spune, "Chiar va tine asta girafele afara?" (Rasete) "Iata girafele." Poti auzi mintea unui copil de cinci ani lucrand. Acestea, interesant, sunt la 645 km nord de aici dincolo de Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. Dumnezeu stie ce inteleg ele din vremea de la Lake District. Dar acea interpretare gresita copilareasca s-a lipit de mine, pentru ca dintr-o data a devenit clar pentru mine de ce nu face lucruri evidente, pe care trebuie sa le facem. Suntem prea ocupati sa tinem afara girafele -- sa urcam copiii in autobuz dimineata, sa ajungem la lucru la timp, sa supravietuim supraincarcarii cu emailuri si politicii, cautand disperati hrana, incropind mese, evadand pentru cateva ore pretioase seara la TV in prime-time sau pe TED online, trecand de la un sfarsit de zi la altul, tinand afara girafele.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
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.
Care este obiectivul? "Care este obiectivul consumatorului?" Mary Douglas a intrebat intr-un eseu despre saracie scris acum 35 de ani. "Este", spune ea, "de a ajuta la crearea unei lumi sociale si de a-si gasi un loc credibil in ea." Asta este o viziune profund umanizanta a vietilor noastre, si este viziune complet diferita de cea pe care se intemeiaza acest model economic. Deci cine suntem noi? Cine sunt acesti oameni? Suntem noi acele persoane care cauta noutatea, hedonisti, persoanele egoiste? Sau poate ca suntem ocazional ceva asemanator altruistului infatisat aici in aceasta frumoasa schita de Rembrandt? Psihologia spune ca exista o tensiune, o tensiune intre comportamentele cu privire la sine si alte comportamente fata de altii. Iar aceste tensiuni au radacini adanci evolutionare. Astfel incat comportamentul egoist este adaptiv in anumite circumstante -- lupta sau zbor.
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.
Dar alte comportamente de raportare sunt esentiale pentru evolutia noastra ca fiinte sociale. Si poate si mai interesant din punctul nostru de vedere, o alta tensiune intre comportamentele de cautare a noutatilor si traditie sau conservare. Noutatea este adaptiva atunci cand lucrurile sunt in schimbare si trebuie tu insuti sa te adaptezi. Traditia este esentiala pentru a avea stabilitatea pentru a creste familii si pentru a forma grupuri sociale coezive. Si aici, asa dintr-o data, ne uitam la o harta a inimii omului. Si ea ne dezvaluie, pe neasteptate, enigma lucrurilor importante. Ce-am facut noi este ca am creat economii. Am creat sisteme care privilegiaza sistematic, incurajeaza, un cadran ingust al sufletului omenesc si nu le iau in considerare pe celelalte. Si cu acelasi indiciu, solutia devine clara, pentru ca asta nu este, deci, despre schimbarea naturii umane. Nu este, de fapt, despre privarea de posibilitati. Este despre deschidere lor. Este despre a ne permite noua libertatea de a deveni pe deplin umani, recunoscand datoria si latimea psihicului uman si constructia institutiilor pentru a proteja altruismul fragil al lui Rembrandt din inauntrul sau.
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.
Ce inseamna acest lucru pentru stiinta economica? Cum vor arata economiile daca am prelua acea viziune a naturii umane la inima lor si le-am intinde peste aceste dimensiuni octogonale ale psihicului uman? Pai, ar putea arata un pic precum cele 4.000 de companii create pentru interesul comunitatii care au aparut in Marea Britanie in ultimii cinci ani si o crestere similara a companiilor B in Statele Unite, intreprinderi care au scopuri ecologice si sociale scrise in constitutia lor in inima lor, companii, de fapt, ca aceasta, Ecosia. Si vreau doar sa, foarte repede, sa va arat asta. Ecosia este un motor de cautare pe internet. Motoarele de cautare pe internet functioneaza prin atragerea de venituri din legaturile sponsorizate care apar atunci cand cauti ceva. Iar Ecosia functioneaza cam in acelasi fel. Asa ca putem face asta aici. Putem introduce un mic termen pentru cautare. Iata, Oxford, este locul in care ne aflam. Uitati ce a aparut. Diferenta cu Ecosia totusi este ca, in cazul Ecosiei, isi atrage veniturile in acelasi fel, dar aloca 80 de procente din aceste venituri pentru protejarea padurilor tropicale din Amazon. Si vom face acest lucru. Sa facem click pe Naturejobs.uk. In cazul in care cineva isi cauta de lucru in recesiune, asta-i pagina pe care trebuie sa mergeti. Iar ce s-a intamplat a fost ca sponsorul a dat venituri catre Ecosia, iar Ecosia da 80 la suta din aceste venituri catre proiectul de protejare a padurilor tropicale. Se ia profitul dintr-un loc si se aloca pentru protejarea resurselor ecologice.
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.
Este un fel diferit de intreprindere pentru o noua economie. Este o forma, daca vreti, de altruism ecologic -- poate ceva de genul asta. Poate este asta. Orice este, orice este aceasta noua economie, ce avem nevoie ca economia sa faca, de fapt, este sa puna investitia inapoi in inima modelului, pentru a re-concepe investitia. Doar acum, investitia nu va fi despre neinduratoarea si nepasatoarea cautare a cresterii consumului. Investitia trebuie sa fie o altfel de fiara. Investitia trebuie sa fie, in noua economie, protectiva si educativa cu activele ecologice de care depinde viitorul nostru. Trebuie sa fie despre tranzitie. Trebuie sa fie despre investitii in tehnologii cu nivel redus de carbon si infrastructura Trebuie sa investim, de fapt, in ideea de prosperitate semnificativa, oferind capabilitati pentru ca oamenii de infloreasca.
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.
Si desigur, aceasta sarcina are dimeniuni materiale. Ar fi un nonsens sa vorbesti despre oameni infloritori daca ei nu au mancare, imbracaminte si adapost. Dar e clar si ca prosperitatea este mai mult decat aceste lucruri. Are tinte sociale si psihologice -- familie, prietenie, angajamente, societate, participarea la viata acelei societati. Iar acest lucru de asemenea necesita investitie, investitie, de exemplu, in locuri, in locuri in care sa ne conectam, locuri unde putem participa, spatii pentru toti, sali de concert, gradini, parcuri publice, biblioteci, muzee, centre de liniste, locuri de bucurie si celebrare, locuri de liniste si contemplatie, locuri pentru "cultivarea cetateniei comune" cum spune frumoasa fraza a lui Michael Sandel. O investitie -- investitia, pana la urma, este doar un concept economic de baza -- nu este altceva decat decat o relatie intre prezent si viitor, un prezent al tuturor si un viitor comun. Si noi vrem ca aceasta relatie sa reflecte, sa recupereze speranta.
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.
Dati-mi voie sa revin, cu acest sens al sperantei, la cei doua miliarde de oameni care se chinuie sa traiasca zi de zi cu mai putin decat pretul unui lapte degresat de la cafeneaua din colt. Ce le putem oferi acestor oameni? E clar ca avem o responsabilitate de a-i ajuta sa se ridice din saracie. E clar ca avem o responsabilitate sa facem loc cresterii acolo unde cresterea intr-adevar conteaza, in acele natiuni cele mai sarace. Si e de asemenea clar ca nu vom atinge niciodata asta pana nu vom fi capabili sa redefinim un sens mai bun prosperitatii in natiunile cele mai bogate, o prosperitate care este mai mult semnificativa si mai putin materialistica decat modelul bazat pe crestere. Asa ca acesta nu este doar o fantezie post-materialistica occidentala. De fapt, un filosof african mi-a scris, cand "Prosperitate Fara Crestere" a fost publicata, punctand similaritati intre aceasta viziune asupra prosperitatii si conceptul traditional african ubuntu. Ubuntu spune, "Sunt pentru ca suntem." Prosperitatea este o incercare comuna. Radacinile sale sunt lungi si adanci. Fundatiile sale, cum am incercat sa va arat, exista deja, inauntrul fiecaruia dintre noi. Asa ca aceasta nu este despre a sta in calea dezvoltarii. Nu este despre renuntarea la capitalism. Nu este despre a incerca sa schimbam natura umana. Ce facem aici este ca facem cativa pasi simpli catre o stiinta economica pregatita sa-si atinga scopul. Iar in inima acelei stiinte economice, am plasat o viziune mai credibila, mai robusta, si mai realistica, despre ce inseamna sa fii om.
Thank you very much.
Va multumesc mult.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
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: Cat se indeparteaza podiumul, doar o intrebare scurta. In primul rand, economistii n-ar trebui sa fie surse de inspiratie, asa ca s-ar putea sa trebuiasca sa lucrezi un pic la ton. (Rasete) Ai putea descrie politicienii care ar cumpara chestia asta? Vreau sa spun, poti descrie cum ar arata un politician ridicandu-se in picioare in Marea Britanie si spunand, "PIB-ul scade cu doua procente anul acesta. Vesti bune! Suntem de fapt toti bucurosi, iar tara este si mai frumoasa, iar vietile noastre sunt si mai bune."
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: Pai e clar ca noi nu facem asta. Nu faci o stire din lucruri care se prabusesc. Faci o stire din lucruri care iti spun ca vom inflori. Pot descrie un politician facand asta? De fapt, eu deja vad un pic din asta. Cand am inceput acest tip de munca, politicienii se ridicau, purtatorul de cuvant al trezoreriei se ridica, si ne acuza ca vrem sa ne intoarcem in timp si sa locuim in pesteri. Si chiar in perioada in care am lucrat in ultimii 18 ani -- partial din cauza crizei financiare si putin de umilitate in profesiunea stiintei economice -- oamenii s-au angajat in aceasta problema in tot felul de tari din jurul lumii.
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: Dar va trebui ca in primul rand politicienii sa actioneze impreuna, sau va trebui ca societatea civila si companiile sa actioneze in primul rand?
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: Trebuie sa actioneze companiile. Trebuie sa actioneze societate civila. Dar trebuie sa aiba leadership politic. Este un fel de agenda, in care politicienii insisi sunt intr-un fel prinsi in aceasta dilema, pentru ca sunt agatati ei insisi in modelul cresterii. Dar deschizand spatiul pentru a gandi despre diferitele moduri de a guverna, diferite feluri de politici, si creand spatiul pentru ca societatea civila si afacerile sa opereze diferit -- absolut vital.
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: Si daca cineva poate sa te convinga ca noi chiar putem face - ce era? -- o imbunatatire in eficienta de 130 de ori, o reducere a amprentei de carbon, atunci ti-ar placea imaginea cresterii economice in mai multe bunuri bazate pe cunoastere?
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: Tot mai vreau sa stiu daca putem face asta si sa ajungem sub zero pana la sfarsitul secolului, in sensul eliminarii din atmosfera a carbonului, si sa rezolvam problema biodiversitatii si sa reducem impactul utilizarii pamantului si sa facem ceva cu privire la eroziunea solului si calitatea apei. Daca ma puteti convinge ca putem face toate acestea, atunci, da, as lua cele doua procente.
CA: Tim, thank you for a very important talk. Thank you.
CA: Tim, multumesc pentru un foarte important discurs. Multumesc
(Applause)
(Aplauze)