Alison Jackson: An unusual glimpse at celebrity

0:12
I'm a contemporary artist and I show in art galleries and museums. I show a number of photographs and films, but I also make television programs, books and some advertising, all with the same concept. And it's about our fixation with celebrity and celebrity culture, and the importance of the image: celebrity is born of photography.
0:36
I'm going to start with how I started with this concept seven years ago, when Princess Diana died. There was a sort of a standstill in Britain the moment of her death, and people decided to mourn her death in a sort of mass way. I was fascinated by this phenomenon, so I wondered: could one erase the image of Diana, actually quite crudely and physically? So, I got a gun and started to shoot at the image of Diana, but I couldn't erase this from my memory and certainly it was not being erased from the public psyche. Momentum was being built. The press wrote about her death in rather, I felt, pornographic ways -- like, "Which bit of artery left which bit of body?" and "How did she die in the back of the car?" -- and I was intrigued by this sort of mass voyeurism, so I made these rather gory images.
1:39
I then went on wondering whether I could actually replace her image, so I got a look-alike of Diana and posed her in the right positions and angles and created something that was in, or existed in, the public imagination. So people were wondering: was she going to marry Dodi? Was she in love with him? Was she pregnant? Did she want his baby? Was she pregnant when she died? So I created this image of Diana, Dodi and their imaginary mixed-race child and this image came out, which caused a huge public outcry at the time.
2:18
I then went on to make more comments on the media and press imagery, so I started making reference to media imagery -- made it grainy, shot through doorways and so on and so forth -- to titillate the public or the viewer further in terms of trying to make the viewer more aware of their own voyeurism. So, this is an image of Diana looking at Camilla kissing her husband, and this was a sequence of images. And this gets shown in art galleries like this, as a sequence. And similarly with the Di-Dodian baby imagery -- this is another art gallery installation.
2:58
I'm particularly interested in how you can't rely on your own perception. This is Jane Smith and Jo Bloggs, for instance, but you think it's Camilla and the Queen, and I'm fascinated how what you think is real isn't necessarily real. And the camera can lie, and it makes it very, very easy with the mass bombardment of imagery to tell untruths. So, I continued to work on this project of how photography seduces us and is more interesting to look at than the actual real subject matter. And at the same time, it removes us from the real subject matter,
3:46
and this acts as a sort of titillating thing. So, the photograph becomes this teaser and incites desire and voyeurism; what you can't have, you want more. In the photograph, the real subject doesn't exist so it makes you want that person more. And that is the way, I think, that celebrity magazines work now: the more pictures you see of these celebrities, the more you feel you know them, but you don't know them and you want to know them further.
4:23
Of course, the Queen goes to her stud often to watch her horses ... watch her horses. (Laughter). And then I was sort of making imagery. In England there's an expression: "you can't imagine the Queen on the loo." So I'm trying to penetrate that. Well, here is the image.
4:47
All this imagery was creating a lot of fuss and I was cited as a disgusting artist. The press were writing about this, giving full pages about how terrible this was. Which I found very interesting that it was going full cycle: I was making comments about the press and about how we know facts and information only by media -- because we don't know the real people; very few of us know the real people -- but it was going back into the press and they were publicizing, effectively, my filthy work. So, these are broadsheets, tabloids, debates were being had all about this work, films were being banned before people had actually had the look at the work, politicians were getting involved -- all sorts of things -- great headlines.
5:38
Then suddenly, it started to get on front pages. I was being asked and paid to do front covers. Suddenly I was becoming sort of acceptable, which I found also fascinating. How one moment -- it was disgusting -- journalists would lie to me to get a story or a photograph of me, saying my work was wonderful, and the next minute there were terrible headlines about me. But then this changed suddenly.
6:05
I then started to work for magazines and newspapers. This was, for example, an image that went into Tatler. This was another newspaper image. It was an April fool actually, and to this day some people think it's real. I was sitting next to someone at dinner the other day, and they were saying there's this great image of the Queen sitting outside William Hill. They thought it was real.
6:28
I was exploring, at the time, the hyperbole of icons -- and Diana and Marilyn -- and the importance of celebrity in our lives. How they wheedle their way into the collective psyche without us even knowing, and how that should happen. I explored with actually dressing up as the celebrities myself. There's me as Diana -- I look like the mass murderer Myra Hindley, I think, in this one. (Laughter). And me as the Queen. I then continued on to make a whole body of work about Marilyn -- the biggest icon of all -- and trying to titillate by shooting through doorways and shutters and so on and so forth, and only showing certain angles to create a reality that, obviously, is completely constructed. This is the look-alike, so the crafting elements of this is completely enormous. She looks nothing like Marilyn, but by the time we've made her up and put wigs and makeup on, she looks exactly like Marilyn, to the extent that her husband couldn't recognize her -- or recognize this look-alike -- in these photographs, which I find quite interesting. So, all this work is getting shown in art galleries. Then I made a book. I was also making a TV series for the BBC at the time. Stills from the TV series went into this book.
7:54
But there was a real legal problem because it looks real, but how do you get over that? Because obviously it's making a comment about our culture right now: that we can't tell what's real. How do we know when we're looking at something whether it's real or not? So, from my point of view, it's important to publish it, but at the same time it does cause a confusion -- intentional on my behalf, but problematic for any outlet that I'm working with. So a big disclaimer is put on everything that I do, and I made narratives about all the European or Brit celebrities and comments about our public figures. You know, what does Tony Blair get up to in private with his fashion guru? And also dealing with the perceptions that are put about Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the links that were put about pre-Iraq war. And what is going to happen to the monarchy? Because obviously the British public, I think, would prefer William to Charles on the throne.
9:21
And it's that wish, or that desire, that I suppose I'm dealing with in my work. I'm not really interested in the celebrity themselves. I'm interested in the perception of the celebrity. And with some look-alikes, they are so good you don't know whether they're real or not.
9:42
I did an advertising campaign for Schweppes, which is Coca-Cola, and so that was very interesting in terms of the legalities. It's highly commercial. But it was a difficulty for me -- because this is my artwork; should I do advertising? -- at the time. So I made sure the work was not compromised in any way and that the integrity of the work remained the same. But the meanings changed in the sense that with the logo on, you're closing all the lines of interpretation down to selling a product and that's all you're doing. When you take the logo off, you're opening up the interpretations and making the work inconclusive, opposed to conclusive when you are advertising.
10:36
This image is quite interesting, actually, because I think we made it three years ago. And it's Camilla in her wedding dress, which, again, nearly got re-used now, recently prior to her wedding. Tony Blair and Cherie. And again, the legalities -- we had to be very careful. It's obviously a very big commercial company, and so this little, "Shh -- it's not really them," was put on the side of the imagery. And Margaret Thatcher visiting Jeffery Archer in jail.
11:11
I then was asked by Selfridges to do a series of windows for them, so I built a sauna bath in one of their windows and created little scenes -- live scenes with look-alikes inside the windows, and the windows were all steamed up. So, it's Tony Blair reading and practicing his speech; I've got them doing yoga inside there with Carole Caplin; Sven making out with Ulrika Jonsson, who he was having an affair with at that time. This was a huge success for them because the imagery got shown in the press the day after in every single newspaper, broadsheets and tabloids. It was a bit of a road stopper, which was problematic because the police kept on trying to clear away the crowds, but huge fun -- it was great for me to do a performance. Also, people were taking photographs of this, so it was being texted around the world extremely quickly, all this imagery. And the press were interviewing, and I was signing my book. (Laughter).
12:20
Further imagery. I'm making a new book now with Taschen that I'm working on really for a sort of global market -- my previous book was only for the U.K. market -- that I suppose it could be called humorous. I suppose I come from a sort of non-humorous background with serious intent, and then suddenly my work is funny. And I think it doesn't really matter that my work is considered humorous, in a way; I think it's a way in for me to deal with the importance of imagery and how we read all our information through imagery. It's an extremely fast way of getting information. It's extremely difficult if it's constructed correctly, and there are techniques of constructing iconic imagery.
13:10
This image, for example, is sort of spot-on because it exactly sums up what Elton may be doing in private, and also what might be happening with Saddam Hussein, and George Bush reading the Koran upside-down. For example, George Bush target practice -- shooting at Bin Laden and Michael Moore. And then you change the photograph he's shooting at, and it suddenly becomes rather grim and maybe less accessible. (Laughter). Tony Blair being used as a mounting block, and Rumsfeld and Bush laughing with some Abu Ghraib photos behind, and the seriousness, or the intellect, of Bush. And also, commenting on the behind the scenes -- well, as we know now -- what goes on in prisons. And in fact, George Bush and Tony Blair are having great fun during all of this.
14:10
And really commenting, you know, based on the perception we have of the celebrities. What Jack Nicholson might be up to in his celebrity life, and the fact that he tried to ... he had a bit of road rage and golf-clubbed a driver the other day. I mean, it's extremely difficult to find these look-alikes, so I'm constantly going up to people in the street and trying to ask people to come and be in one of my photographs or films. And sometimes asking the real celebrity, mistaking them for someone who just looks like the real person, which is highly embarrassing. (Laughter).
14:52
I've also been working with The Guardian on a topical basis -- a page a week in their newspaper -- which has been very interesting, working topically. So, Jamie Oliver and school dinners; Bush and Blair having difficulty getting alongside Muslim culture; the whole of the hunting issue, and the royal family refusing to stop hunting; and the tsunami issues; and obviously Harry; Blair's views on Gordon Brown, which I find very interesting; Condi and Bush. This image I've decided to show having a reservation about it. I made it a year ago. And just how meanings change, and there were a terrible thing that has happened, but the fear is lurking around in our minds prior to that. That's why this image was made one year ago, and what it means today. So, I'll leave you with these clips to have a look. (Music)
17:29
Chris Anderson: Thank you.
0:12
我是一個當代藝術家，我的作品在畫廊和博物館展出。 我秀大量照片和電影， 同時我也製作電視節目，出書，拍廣告， 全部都表達了一個相同的概念。 就是我們對名人和名人文化的迷戀 以及圖像的重要性。 名人是從攝影中產生的。
0:36
所以現在我從自己如何在七年前產生這一概念開始講起， 當時戴安娜王妃去世了。 那一天，在英國，可以說時間停滯了， 或者在她去世那一刻， 人民決定通過一種大眾的方式來哀悼她的離去。 我迷上了這一現象。 所以我想知道： 一個人能粗暴地和完全地抹去戴安娜的形象嗎？ 於是我拿了一把槍，開始射擊戴安娜的肖像。 但我無法把這形像從我的記憶中抹去， 當然，它也沒有從公眾心理中被抹去 一種動力正在興起 我覺得新聞界以色情的方式來描述她的死， 比如描述哪根動脈離開了她身體的哪個部分， 以及她如何在車的尾部死去。 我對這種公眾的窺私欲產生了興趣。 所以我製造了一些有點血淋淋的圖片。
1:39
然後我接著自問可否以此取代她的形象 所以我找了一個酷似戴安娜的人 給她擺好姿勢和角度 創作了一個存在於公眾的想像力中的故事 所以人們都在想，她當時要嫁給多迪嗎? 她愛上了他嗎？ 她懷孕了嗎？她想要他的孩子嗎？ 她死時懷孕了嗎？ 所以我創造了戴安娜、多迪和想像中他倆的混血兒的圖片。 圖片一出，在當時引起巨大的公憤
2:18
進而我對媒體和出版物中戴安娜的形象作出更多評論。 然後我開始參考借鑒媒體中的圖像- 對圖片作顆粒化處理，從門口向內拍攝，諸如此類， 通過這種方式進一步激起公眾或觀眾的興趣, 試圖讓觀眾更加意識到自己的偷窺欲。 這是黛安娜看著卡米拉親吻她丈夫的圖片。 這是一組圖片。 在畫廊像這樣地作為一個系列展出， 和與此相類的有戴安娜和多迪的嬰兒的圖片。 這是另一個畫廊裝置。
2:58
我特別感興趣的是你如何無法依賴自己的感覺。 例如這是簡史密斯和喬佈洛格斯 ， 但你會以為這是卡米拉和女王。 我著迷於為什麼你以為是真實的東西卻並不一定是真實的， 以及照相機如何撒謊。 令這一切變得非常非常容易 以大量圖片轟炸來説謊。 所以我繼續致力於探索攝影如何迷惑我們這一課題， 以及爲什麽看這類圖片比真正的主題更有趣。 與此同時，攝影將我們從真正的主題旁拉開。
3:46
這是一件使人興奮的事。 照片成為這樣一個挑逗者在煽動願望和窥私欲。 越是你沒有的東西，你越是想要。 因此，在照片中，真正的主題並不存在。 這讓你更想要這一個人。 我認為這就是現在名人雜誌的經營手段。 你看到的這些名人的圖片越多， 你越會覺得自己認識他們， 但你不認識他們， 結果你想進一步認識他們。
4:23
當然女王經常去馬房看她的馬... 看她的馬。（眾笑）。 然後，從某種意義上來說，我創造了一種形像。 在英格蘭有一個説法：“你無法想像女王上廁所的樣子。” 於是，我在試著打破它。 嗯，這就是那張圖片。
4:47
這一形像引起了無數的大驚小怪。 我被描述成一個令人討厭的藝術家。新聞界當時正在寫這個， 你知道，他們用大量篇幅充分描述我的風格有多可怖， 我認爲這很有意思，這是一個完整的循環中的一個環節。 我對新聞界做過一些評論, 以及有關我們如何只能通過媒體了解事實和獲得信息 因為我們不認識當事人。 很少人認識當事人。 但回頭看新聞界 他們有效地在宣傳我的骯髒的作品 因此，這些報紙、小報、辯論都被利用了，它們全都是有關這種作品的。 實際上，在人們實際看到這類作品之前，新聞膠片都被禁止公開。 政治家介入。 各種各樣的事情，巨大的新聞頭條。
5:38
然後突然它開始出現在頭版。 人們花錢請我去做封面。 我突然變得有點讓人能夠接受了， 我發現這件事也很迷人。 現實一度曾是多麼令人作嘔啊- 記者爲了從我這裏搞到一個故事或一張照片會對我撒謊， 說我的作品很精彩， 然后下一分鐘就發有關我的可怕的頭條。 但是，突然這一情況改變了。
6:05
我開始為雜誌和報紙工作。 舉個例子，這是一張入選塔特勒的圖片。 這是另一家報紙的圖片。 這是一個愚人節笑話，而時至今日，有些人還認為這是真的。 有一天晚餐時我坐在一個人旁邊， 他們說有一張很棒的女王的圖片 她坐在“威廉•希爾”門口。 他們認為這是真的。
6:28
所以，在那段時間我在探討形象的誇張， 戴安娜和瑪麗蓮•夢露，以及名人在我們的生活中的重要性。 他們如何迎合了大眾心理 甚至在我們不知不覺中， 以及這一情況是怎樣發生的。 我試著把自己打扮成名人。 這是打扮成戴安娜的我。 我覺得這張我看起來像連環殺手邁拉•亨利。（眾笑）。 扮成女王的我。 然後我繼續創作整個一系列關於夢露的作品 她是第一偶像。 我試圖通過從門口和百葉窗向內拍照之類的手段來引起人們的興趣。 只展示某些特定的角度以創造一個 完全虛構的現實。 這是那個酷似夢露的人，這裡技巧的成分絕對是極大的。 她看上去一點也不像夢露。 但是，當我們給她戴上假髮化好妝以後， 她看起來簡直和夢露一模一樣 以至於連她的丈夫都不認得她 或者從這些照片裡把她認出來了， 這讓我覺得非常有趣。 這些作品正在各個畫廊中展出。 然後我出了一本書。 當時我還為BBC製作了一部電視連續劇。 電視連續劇的劇照放在這本書裡。
7:54
但是，這裡有一個真正的法律問題，因為它看起來是真實的， 但你如何解決這個問題呢？ 因為它顯然對我們時下的文化作出了一個評論， 那就是：我們無法辨別什麼是真實的。 當我們看一個東西時，我們怎麼知道它是不是真的？ 所以我的觀點是，將它出版是很重要的， 但同時這也造成混亂- 在我看來這是有意的- 但對於和我合作的任何發行部門，它都是棘手的。 所以我的所有作品裡都被放了一個大大的聲明， 我對所有歐洲或英國名人做了一個描述 並對我們的這些公眾人物作出評論。 譬如，英國首相布萊爾跟他私人造型師單獨在一起的時候幹什麽？ 我還詮釋過人們對本拉丹和薩達姆侯賽因的看法， 他們在伊拉克戰爭之前的關連。 還有，關於王室將會發生什麽事？ 因為很明顯，英國公眾， 我認為，寧願威廉多於查爾斯繼承王位。
9:21
我想在作品裏詮釋這個希望，或者說願望。 我並不真正關心名人自身。 我感興趣的是人們對名人的看法。 至於那些酷似這些名人的人，他們是那麼出色。 你不知道他們是否真正的名人。
9:42
我為史威士，就是可口可樂這類產品，做了個大廣告, 從法律角度來看，这非常有趣。 它高度商業化。 但這又是我的藝術作品，所以對我來說這是一個難題。 我那時應不應該做廣告？ 於是，我當時確保我的作品不會以任何方式妥協， 以及作品的完整性始終如一。 但是，從帶有商標這個意義上講，意義還是改變了， 你關閉一切詮釋的途徑，只為銷售一樣產品- 這就是你要做的一切。 當你去掉商標，你才能開放詮釋 讓作品沒有定論。 這和你做廣告時的明確態度相反。
10:36
說真的，這張圖片非常有趣， 因為我記得這是我們3年前做的， 它表現卡米拉穿著結婚禮服， 最近在她的婚禮之前它差點又被用了一次。 這是英國首相布萊爾和切麗。這次，我們同樣必須非常小心地處理它的合法性。 這顯然是一個非常大的商業公司，所以我們大事化小 把“噓...你知道這不是真的他們，” 放在圖片旁邊。 這是撒切爾夫人訪問獄中的杰弗裡•阿徹。
11:11
然後，塞爾福裏奇百貨公司請我幫他們做一個櫥窗系列。 於是我在其中一個櫥窗搞了一個桑拿浴，並設置了一些小場景- 在櫥窗裡，酷似名人的人現場表演， 櫥窗里全都布滿蒸汽。 於是，這裡有英國首相布萊爾在練習和朗讀他的演講。 我讓他們與卡羅爾•卡普林在櫥窗裡一起做瑜伽， 斯文在和烏爾裡卡•約翰遜親熱，就是當時與他關係曖昧的人。 這對於他們是一個巨大的成功 因為第二天這些形像出現在新聞媒體上 出現在每一張報紙，巨幅印刷品和小報上。 這是一個吸引路人注意的現象，所以有點麻煩 因為警方一直試圖驅散圍觀的人群。 巨大的樂趣—搞一場秀這種事對我來説太有意思了。 此外，人們為這些形象拍照， 結果這些形像飛速傳遍世界。 媒體採訪了我，我還為自己的書搞了簽售活動。（眾笑）。
12:20
至於另外一些圖片，我現在在與塔森合作出版一本新書， 這書是針對全球市場的。 我的前一本書是僅僅針對英國市場的。 我猜這稱得上幽默。 我猜我來自一種不幽默的背景， 你知道，有嚴肅的目的。 可是出乎意料，我的作品很好笑。 從某個角度來說，我的作品被認為是幽默的，我認為這沒什麼大問題，- 我認為對於我這是處理圖像重要性的一種方式， 以及我們如何通過圖像會了解所有的信息。 這是獲取信息的極快的方式。 如果它是正確建造的，那就極其困難， 我們有構建偶像圖像的技巧。
13:10
比方說，這個圖像就是個準確的例子， 因為它準確地概括了艾爾頓私下可能做的事 這種事也可能發生在薩達姆•侯賽因和喬治•布什身上 閱讀拿倒了的可蘭經。 例如，這是布什總統在練習射擊， 射擊本拉丹和邁克爾•摩爾。 然後你把他射擊的那張相片換掉， 它突然變得相當嚴峻，也許不太容易理解。（眾笑）。 英國首相布萊爾被當成上馬的踏腳板。 拉姆斯菲爾德和布什在阿布格萊布監獄的照片前笑, 布什的嚴肅，或智力。 還有對這場景背后的內容的評論， 嗯，正如我們現在所知，什麼在監獄裡。 而且事實上布什和布萊爾 樂在其中
14:10
評論真的，你知道， 建立在我們對名人的看法之上， 傑克•尼科爾森在他的名人生活可能做什麼。 而實際上，他幹過類似當街發飆這種事， 不久前有一天，他差點用高爾夫球棍打了一位司機。 我的意思是，極難找到這些酷似名人的人， 所以我不斷攔住路人 試圖請他們來 在我的照片或電影擔任角色。 有時問的就是真正的名人， 把他們錯認成長得像名人的人， 這讓我非常尷尬。（眾笑）。
14:52
我與《衛報》也一直在合作一個專題- 他們的報紙上每星期有一頁- 這是非常有趣的，按照專題做工作。 這裡有一些專題: 吉米•奧利弗和學校晚餐; 布什和布萊爾在與穆斯林文化合作中遇到困難; 整個狩獵的問題， 王室拒絕停止狩獵。 以及海嘯問題。顯然，哈里。 布萊爾對現首相戈登•布朗的看法，我覺得非常有趣。 賴斯和布什。 這個形象我決定要展示出來，雖然我對此還有保留。 我在一年前拍的-讓我們看含義是如何改變的， 剛剛發生過的一件可怕的事。 但在此之前恐懼已經潛在於我們的意識中。 這就是一年前拍攝這個形象的原因。 以及它在今天意味著什麼。 好，剩下的時間請你們看這些照片。
17:29
克里斯•安德森：謝謝你。

Dame Ellen MacArthur: The surprising thing I learned sailing solo around the world

0:11
When you're a child, anything and everything is possible. The challenge, so often, is hanging on to that as we grow up. And as a four-year-old, I had the opportunity to sail for the first time.
0:26
I will never forget the excitement as we closed the coast. I will never forget the feeling of adventure as I climbed on board the boat and stared into her tiny cabin for the first time. But the most amazing feeling was the feeling of freedom, the feeling that I felt when we hoisted her sails. As a four-year-old child, it was the greatest sense of freedom that I could ever imagine. I made my mind up there and then that one day, somehow, I was going to sail around the world.
0:59
So I did what I could in my life to get closer to that dream. Age 10, it was saving my school dinner money change. Every single day for eight years, I had mashed potato and baked beans, which cost 4p each, and gravy was free. Every day I would pile up the change on the top of my money box, and when that pile reached a pound, I would drop it in and cross off one of the 100 squares I'd drawn on a piece of paper. Finally, I bought a tiny dinghy. I spent hours sitting on it in the garden dreaming of my goal. I read every book I could on sailing, and then eventually, having been told by my school I wasn't clever enough to be a vet, left school age 17 to begin my apprenticeship in sailing.
1:43
So imagine how it felt just four years later to be sitting in a boardroom in front of someone who I knew could make that dream come true. I felt like my life depended on that moment, and incredibly, he said yes. And I could barely contain my excitement as I sat in that first design meeting designing a boat on which I was going to sail solo nonstop around the world. From that first meeting to the finish line of the race, it was everything I'd ever imagined. Just like in my dreams, there were amazing parts and tough parts. We missed an iceberg by 20 feet. Nine times, I climbed to the top of her 90-foot mast. We were blown on our side in the Southern Ocean. But the sunsets, the wildlife, and the remoteness were absolutely breathtaking. After three months at sea, age just 24, I finished in second position. I'd loved it, so much so that within six months I decided to go around the world again, but this time not in a race: to try to be the fastest person ever to sail solo nonstop around the world. Now for this, I needed a different craft: bigger, wider, faster, more powerful. Just to give that boat some scale, I could climb inside her mast all the way to the top. Seventy-five foot long, 60 foot wide. I affectionately called her Moby. She was a multihull. When we built her, no one had ever made it solo nonstop around the world in one, though many had tried, but whilst we built her, a Frenchman took a boat 25 percent bigger than her and not only did he make it, but he took the record from 93 days right down to 72. The bar was now much, much higher.
3:31
And these boats were exciting to sail. This was a training sail off the French coast. This I know well because I was one of the five crew members on board. Five seconds is all it took from everything being fine to our world going black as the windows were thrust underwater, and that five seconds goes quickly. Just see how far below those guys the sea is. Imagine that alone in the Southern Ocean plunged into icy water, thousands of miles away from land.
4:02
It was Christmas Day. I was forging into the Southern Ocean underneath Australia. The conditions were horrendous. I was approaching a part in the ocean which was 2,000 miles away from the nearest town. The nearest land was Antarctica, and the nearest people would be those manning the European Space Station above me. (Laughter) You really are in the middle of nowhere. If you need help, and you're still alive, it takes four days for a ship to get to you and then four days for that ship to get you back to port. No helicopter can reach you out there, and no plane can land. We are forging ahead of a huge storm. Within it, there was 80 knots of wind, which was far too much wind for the boat and I to cope with. The waves were already 40 to 50 feet high, and the spray from the breaking crests was blown horizontally like snow in a blizzard. If we didn't sail fast enough, we'd be engulfed by that storm, and either capsized or smashed to pieces. We were quite literally hanging on for our lives and doing so on a knife edge.
5:10
The speed I so desperately needed brought with it danger. We all know what it's like driving a car 20 miles an hour, 30, 40. It's not too stressful. We can concentrate. We can turn on the radio. Take that 50, 60, 70, accelerate through to 80, 90, 100 miles an hour. Now you have white knuckles and you're gripping the steering wheel. Now take that car off road at night and remove the windscreen wipers, the windscreen, the headlights and the brakes. That's what it's like in the Southern Ocean. (Laughter) (Applause) You could imagine it would be quite difficult to sleep in that situation, even as a passenger. But you're not a passenger. You're alone on a boat you can barely stand up in, and you have to make every single decision on board. I was absolutely exhausted, physically and mentally. Eight sail changes in 12 hours. The mainsail weighed three times my body weight, and after each change, I would collapse on the floor soaked with sweat with this freezing Southern Ocean air burning the back of my throat.
6:12
But out there, those lowest of the lows are so often contrasted with the highest of the highs. A few days later, we came out of the back of the low. Against all odds, we'd been able to drive ahead of the record within that depression. The sky cleared, the rain stopped, and our heartbeat, the monstrous seas around us were transformed into the most beautiful moonlit mountains.
6:39
It's hard to explain, but you enter a different mode when you head out there. Your boat is your entire world, and what you take with you when you leave is all you have. If I said to you all now, "Go off into Vancouver and find everything you will need for your survival for the next three months," that's quite a task. That's food, fuel, clothes, even toilet roll and toothpaste. That's what we do, and when we leave we manage it down to the last drop of diesel and the last packet of food. No experience in my life could have given me a better understanding of the definition of the word "finite." What we have out there is all we have. There is no more.
7:18
And never in my life had I ever translated that definition of finite that I'd felt on board to anything outside of sailing until I stepped off the boat at the finish line having broken that record.
7:29
(Applause)
7:35
Suddenly I connected the dots. Our global economy is no different. It's entirely dependent on finite materials we only have once in the history of humanity. And it was a bit like seeing something you weren't expecting under a stone and having two choices: I either put that stone to one side and learn more about it, or I put that stone back and I carry on with my dream job of sailing around the world.
8:01
I chose the first. I put it to one side and I began a new journey of learning, speaking to chief executives, experts, scientists, economists to try to understand just how our global economy works. And my curiosity took me to some extraordinary places.
8:17
This photo was taken in the burner of a coal-fired power station. I was fascinated by coal, fundamental to our global energy needs, but also very close to my family. My great-grandfather was a coal miner, and he spent 50 years of his life underground. This is a photo of him, and when you see that photo, you see someone from another era. No one wears trousers with a waistband quite that high in this day and age. (Laughter) But yet, that's me with my great-grandfather, and by the way, they are not his real ears. (Laughter)
8:52
We were close. I remember sitting on his knee listening to his mining stories. He talked of the camaraderie underground, and the fact that the miners used to save the crusts of their sandwiches to give to the ponies they worked with underground. It was like it was yesterday. And on my journey of learning, I went to the World Coal Association website, and there in the middle of the homepage, it said, "We have about 118 years of coal left." And I thought to myself, well, that's well outside my lifetime, and a much greater figure than the predictions for oil. But I did the math, and I realized that my great-grandfather had been born exactly 118 years before that year, and I sat on his knee until I was 11 years old, and I realized it's nothing in time, nor in history. And it made me make a decision I never thought I would make: to leave the sport of solo sailing behind me and focus on the greatest challenge I'd ever come across: the future of our global economy.
9:48
And I quickly realized it wasn't just about energy. It was also materials. In 2008, I picked up a scientific study looking at how many years we have of valuable materials to extract from the ground: copper, 61; tin, zinc, 40; silver, 29. These figures couldn't be exact, but we knew those materials were finite. We only have them once. And yet, our speed that we've used these materials has increased rapidly, exponentially. With more people in the world with more stuff, we've effectively seen 100 years of price declines in those basic commodities erased in just 10 years. And this affects all of us. It's brought huge volatility in prices, so much so that in 2011, your average European car manufacturer saw a raw material price increase of 500 million Euros, wiping away half their operating profits through something they have absolutely no control over.
10:44
And the more I learned, the more I started to change my own life. I started traveling less, doing less, using less. It felt like actually doing less was what we had to do. But it sat uneasy with me. It didn't feel right. It felt like we were buying ourselves time. We were eking things out a bit longer. Even if everybody changed, it wouldn't solve the problem. It wouldn't fix the system. It was vital in the transition, but what fascinated me was, in the transition to what? What could actually work?
11:13
It struck me that the system itself, the framework within which we live, is fundamentally flawed, and I realized ultimately that our operating system, the way our economy functions, the way our economy's been built, is a system in itself. At sea, I had to understand complex systems. I had to take multiple inputs, I had to process them, and I had to understand the system to win. I had to make sense of it. And as I looked at our global economy, I realized it too is that system, but it's a system that effectively can't run in the long term.
11:49
And I realized we've been perfecting what's effectively a linear economy for 150 years, where we take a material out of the ground, we make something out of it, and then ultimately that product gets thrown away, and yes, we do recycle some of it, but more an attempt to get out what we can at the end, not by design. It's an economy that fundamentally can't run in the long term, and if we know that we have finite materials, why would we build an economy that would effectively use things up, that would create waste? Life itself has existed for billions of years and has continually adapted to use materials effectively. It's a complex system, but within it, there is no waste. Everything is metabolized. It's not a linear economy at all, but circular.
12:36
And I felt like the child in the garden. For the first time on this new journey, I could see exactly where we were headed. If we could build an economy that would use things rather than use them up, we could build a future that really could work in the long term. I was excited. This was something to work towards. We knew exactly where we were headed. We just had to work out how to get there, and it was exactly with this in mind that we created the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in September 2010.
13:06
Many schools of thought fed our thinking and pointed to this model: industrial symbiosis, performance economy, sharing economy, biomimicry, and of course, cradle-to-cradle design. Materials would be defined as either technical or biological, waste would be designed out entirely, and we would have a system that could function absolutely in the long term.
13:29
So what could this economy look like? Maybe we wouldn't buy light fittings, but we'd pay for the service of light, and the manufacturers would recover the materials and change the light fittings when we had more efficient products. What if packaging was so nontoxic it could dissolve in water and we could ultimately drink it? It would never become waste. What if engines were re-manufacturable, and we could recover the component materials and significantly reduce energy demand. What if we could recover components from circuit boards, reutilize them, and then fundamentally recover the materials within them through a second stage? What if we could collect food waste, human waste? What if we could turn that into fertilizer, heat, energy, ultimately reconnecting nutrients systems and rebuilding natural capital? And cars -- what we want is to move around. We don't need to own the materials within them. Could cars become a service and provide us with mobility in the future? All of this sounds amazing, but these aren't just ideas, they're real today, and these lie at the forefront of the circular economy. What lies before us is to expand them and scale them up.
14:35
So how would you shift from linear to circular? Well, the team and I at the foundation thought you might want to work with the top universities in the world, with leading businesses within the world, with the biggest convening platforms in the world, and with governments. We thought you might want to work with the best analysts and ask them the question, "Can the circular economy decouple growth from resource constraints? Is the circular economy able to rebuild natural capital? Could the circular economy replace current chemical fertilizer use?" Yes was the answer to the decoupling, but also yes, we could replace current fertilizer use by a staggering 2.7 times. But what inspired me most about the circular economy was its ability to inspire young people. When young people see the economy through a circular lens, they see brand new opportunities on exactly the same horizon. They can use their creativity and knowledge to rebuild the entire system, and it's there for the taking right now, and the faster we do this, the better.
15:37
So could we achieve this in their lifetimes? Is it actually possible? I believe yes. When you look at the lifetime of my great-grandfather, anything's possible. When he was born, there were only 25 cars in the world; they had only just been invented. When he was 14, we flew for the first time in history. Now there are 100,000 charter flights every single day. When he was 45, we built the first computer. Many said it wouldn't catch on, but it did, and just 20 years later we turned it into a microchip of which there will be thousands in this room here today. Ten years before he died, we built the first mobile phone. It wasn't that mobile, to be fair, but now it really is, and as my great-grandfather left this Earth, the Internet arrived. Now we can do anything, but more importantly, now we have a plan.
16:32
Thank you.
16:35
(Applause)

0:11
如果你還小， 凡事都有無限可能。 但是隨著我們的成長， 挑戰也隨之而來。 我 4 歲時， 第一次有機會航行。
0:26
我忘不了第一次靠岸的興奮。 我也忘不了， 第一次登上甲板， 盯著小船艙時的熱血沸騰。 但最強烈的感受是自由， 尤其揚帆時的感受。 身為一個才 4 歲的孩子， 我能夠想像到最大的自由之感。 我當時下定決心， 要駕船環遊世界。
0:59
我努力實現這個夢想。 10 歲時，我開始省學校的午餐錢。 8 年來，午餐只吃薯泥和焗豆， 每樣只要 4 鎊，還附免費肉汁。 我每天把省下來的錢 放在存錢罐的頂部， 每集滿一鎊時，就放進存錢罐裡， 然後劃掉我自己畫的 100 個格子中的ㄧ格。 最後我買了一艘小船。 花幾小時，坐在院子裡的船， 想像我在環遊世界。 我讀了我能夠獲得的所有航海書， 最後，學校也跟我說， 我太笨了當不上獸醫， 我 17 歲畢業後，就去拜師學航海。
1:43
想像一下 4 年後， 我坐在會議室， 面對可以幫我實現夢想的人。 我想，這輩子就取決於那一刻， 不可思議的是，他答應了。 在首次的設計會議上我非常興奮， 設計我要駕駛的船， 獨自不間斷繞世界一周。 從首次會議到比賽結束， 就像我想的那樣。 但就如我預期， 有困難也有精彩的地方， 途中，我曾和冰山擦身而過； 9 次爬上 90 尺高的桅； 在南極海還一度快被吹倒。 但夕陽落日、野生動物、杳無人煙， 這些都讓我驚嘆不已。 航行了 3 個月，當時我 24 歲， 我獲得第二名。 我很享受過程，以致 6 個月內， 我決定再次踏上環遊世界的旅程， 但這次不是比賽。 我想挑戰獨自不間斷 繞行地球的紀錄。 為此，我需要一艘新船： 更大、更寬、更快、更有力。 只要把船做得大一點， 它的桅要能讓我向上攀爬到頂部。 長 75 英尺，寬 60 英尺。 我把它暱稱為「摩比」。 她是艘「多體船」。 當我們建造它的時候， 沒有人能夠不停靠 獨自環航世界， 雖然很多人試過了， 但我們在造它的同時 一名法國人以比她大 25% 的船， 他不只成功了，還把紀錄 從 93 天減少到 72 天。 門檻越來越高。
3:31
我的船也迫不急待要出航。 這是在法國外海的訓練。 我很了解這艘船， 因為我是船上 5 個船員之一。 5 秒鐘前進展顺利， 之後，一個大浪打過來， 船就翻了， 那五秒很快，完全來不及反應。 你看，我們在水下有多深。 想像一下，獨自一人在南極海， 陷入冰冷的海水， 離陸地有千里之遙。
4:02
那天是聖誕節， 我航行到澳洲下方的南極海。 天氣情況很惡劣。 我在某片海域航行， 最近的城鎮離我 2000 英里。 最近的陸地是南極洲， 距離我最近的人是 歐洲太空站的宇航員。 (笑聲) 真的是孤立無援。 如果你需要幫助， 而且還活著的話， 一艘船要 4 天才能到達這個位置， 再花 4 天才能送你回到港口。 直升機到不了這裡， 飛機也無法降落。 在巨大的風暴中前行。 這裡的風速有 80 節， 我跟船都無法承受。 浪已經有 40 到 50 英尺高， 濺起來的浪花， 像暴風雪迎面打來。 但如果不開快點， 我們就會被風暴捲走， 不是翻船就是解體。 我們幾乎是把命 掛在刀口上。 但高速航行同時也很危險。 都知道，就像開車， 時速二三十或四十英里， 不是很緊張，可以很專心， 也可以一邊聽音樂。 如果加速到五、六十甚至到一百， 你會緊抓方向盤而且指節發白。 想像一下，晚上以這個車速， 沒有雨刷和擋風玻璃、 車頭燈和煞車。 這就我在南極海的情況。 (笑聲)(掌聲) 你能想像， 這種情況下怎麼能睡得著， 就算只是乘客。 況且你不是乘客， 你是孤伶伶的駕駛， 而且站都站不穩， 還要做出每個決定。 我身心俱疲。 12 個小時內換了 8 張帆。 主帆是我體重的 3 倍， 而且每換一次， 我就會滿身大汗倒在甲板上， 南極海的冰冷空氣侵蝕我的喉嚨。
6:12
但俗話說烏雲背後有陽光、 大難不死必有後福。 幾天後，我們總算苦盡甘來， 出乎意料的，儘管情緒低落， 我們還是刷新了紀錄。 天晴了，雨也停了， 本來急促的心跳和周圍像猛獸的海， 都變成月光撒落的靜謐山巒。
6:39
很難形容，但你知道 進入了不同的境界。 這艘船就是你的世界， 離開時所帶的東西 就是你的全部家當。 如果我現在說：「去溫哥華， 購買出海 3 個月會用到的所有物品。」 那也不是個小工程， 食物、燃油、衣服， 甚至衛生紙、牙膏。 我們全部買好， 出發後開始精打細算。 從每一滴柴油到每一份食物。 這輩子沒有其他時候， 能更讓我體會到 「資源有限」的含義。 我們帶了多少就是多少， 不會有更多了。 我也沒想到我會把這種體悟， 運用到我航海之外的生活， 直到我踏上岸，破了紀錄的那一刻。
7:29
(掌聲)
7:35
我恍然大悟， 全球經濟不也是如此嗎？ 它完全倚仗在人類史上， 可能只能使用一次的有限資源。 這就像從石頭底下發現了新玩意， 你有兩個選擇： 要不是把石頭搬開， 然後開始研究， 或者把石頭堆回去， 然後繼續我繞行全球的夢想。
8:01
我選了前者。 我把石頭搬開，開始了新的學習。 去拜訪官員、專家、 科學家、經濟學家， 試著了解全球經濟體系。 我的好奇心開拓了一個新視野。
8:17
這張照片是一座火力發電廠， 我對煤很感興趣， 它是能源的基礎， 同時跟我很有淵源。 我的曾祖父是礦工， 他在地底賣力了 50 年。 這是他的照片，看著這張照片， 你能看到時代的痕跡。 現在已經沒人把鬆緊帶的褲子， 穿這麼高了。(笑聲) 這是我和我的曾祖父， 順帶一提，那不是真的耳朵。 (笑聲)
8:52
我們很親近。我會坐在他腿上 聽他的礦工故事。 他會說那些地下的同袍之誼， 他們會把三明治的吐司邊留下， 餵給礦坑拉車的小馬。 就像昨天才發生。 在我的學習過程中， 我曾上世界煤礦協會的網站， 在首頁的中間寫著： 「煤礦存量可供 118 年使用。」 我還想，至少有生之年用不完， 而且比石油存量多多了。 但我一算，發現我曾祖父， 正是網站所說的 118 年前出生。 我坐在他的膝上直到 11 歲， 我發現那其實很短， 無論就時間或歷史來說。 這讓我下了一個意想不到的決定： 不再從事單人航海的運動， 更專注在我從未遇過的大挑戰： 全球經濟的未來。
9:48
我很快發現不只是能源， 原料也岌岌可危。 2008 年，我看了一篇科學研究， 想知道我們還有多少年， 可以從地下獲取珍貴資源。 銅 61 年；錫、鋅 40 年； 銀 29 年。 這些數字未必精確， 但至少確定有用完的一天。 我們只能用一次。 但我們消耗的速度卻快速增加， 呈指數成長。 地球上有越多人、越多需求， 100 年來， 我們親眼目睹使用期限 只有 10 年的生活必需品不斷降價。 這影響我們每個人， 也帶來了價格的巨大浮動。 影響之大，在 2011年， 歐洲的汽車製造商都發現， 原物料的價格漲了 5 億歐元。 吃掉了他們一半的利潤， 而且他們無能為力。
10:44
當了解越多，我的生活也開始發生改變。 我開始少旅遊、少做、少消耗。 我發現我們該做的就是「少做」。 但這很難做到， 覺得哪裡怪怪的。 好像我們只是在拖延時間， 只是讓資源可以用久一點。 就算大家改變習慣，問題還是沒解決。 整個大環境還是一樣。 轉型很重要，但我在想的是， 要轉型成怎樣？怎樣才能解決問題？
11:13
我想到這個系統本身， 我們存在的這個架構， 本質是有缺陷的。 所以我最後明白， 整個經濟的運作模式， 「經濟」被建構成一個「系統」。 在海上，我必須了解複雜的系統。 有很多輸入， 我去處理它們， 我要更了解系統才能贏， 我必須去理解。 所以我發現全球經濟也是個系統， 卻不是個可以長久運作的系統。
11:49
在過去 150 年，我們已經 把「線性經濟」發揮到極致： 從地表下取出資源， 做出點產品，然後最後用完了， 產品就被丟棄。 我們的確實有在回收， 但到最後只想試圖擺脫， 而不是有計畫再利用什麼。 這種設計本來就不為了長久。 如果我們知道資源有限， 為什麼要用一個不斷丟棄， 然後會造成浪費的系統？ 生命已經存在數十億年之久， 不斷試著去有效運用資源。 聽起來複雜， 但這樣就沒有所謂「垃圾」， 每個產物被代謝掉了。 不是「線性經濟」，而是「循環經濟」。
12:36
我就像當年坐在院子裡， 初次踏上新旅程， 我可以預見我們的發展。 如果經濟是「用」但不「用完」， 我們的未來就可以持續下去。 我好興奮。 這是值得努力的目標。 我們有目標， 只是要想怎麼達成， 也就是這樣的想法， 我們在 2010 年 9 月， 創辦了艾倫麥克阿瑟基金會。
13:06
很多學派接受我們的論點， 並結合工業共棲、效益經濟、 共享經濟、生物擬態， 當然，還有「搖籃到搖籃」的設計。 物質被分為技術性或生物性， 把浪費排除在設計之外， 我們就可以有一個系統， 長久地運轉下去。
13:29
所以這種經濟會是怎樣呢？ 可能我們不買燈具， 但我們買「燈光」的服務， 廠商就負責管理回收這些材料， 如果有更環保的燈具， 就由他們更換。 或是無毒、可被水分解的包裝， 最後可以喝掉，就沒有空瓶垃圾。 或是組裝式的引擎， 我們可以替換裡面的零件， 有效減少能源消耗。 如果可以替換、再利用電路板零件， 然後經過第二階段， 改變使用的素材。 或著回收廚餘、排泄物， 然後轉換成肥料、熱、能量， 甚至重新建立養分的循環， 恢復我們的自然資源。 如果車子只是移動的手段， 我們不需要每個人都有車， 未來可能以服務的形式， 購買「移動」這項產品。 乍聽之下很神奇， 但這都是真實存在。 這就是「循環經濟」的核心。 我們要做的是去擴充、升級。
14:35
要怎麼從線性變成循環經濟呢？ 我們基金會的團隊就想， 要和世界一流的院校合作、 和世界知名的企業合作、 與世界最大的智庫平台合作、 還有各國政府。 你可能想和專家共事，問他們： 你可能想和專家共事，問他們： 「循環經濟可以讓經濟成長， 不再受制於有限資源嗎？」 「循環經濟可以重建自然資本嗎？」 「「循環經濟可以取代化肥使用嗎？」 答案：是的， 而且我們還可以取代現代化肥， 化肥使用也可以減少 2.7 倍。 但循環經濟最讓我訝異的， 是對年輕人的啟發。 當他們從這樣的角度看經濟， 他們在相同的議題上看見了新可能。 他們用創意和知識， 重建了整個系統。 這就是大家該努力的目標， 而且越早行動越好。
15:37
在他們有生之年可能完成嗎？ 這真的可行嗎？ 我的答案是肯定的。 在我曾祖父的年代，凡事都有可能。 他出生的時候全世界只有 25 輛車， 車才剛被發明。 他 14 歲時， 人類第一次翱翔天際。 現在每天 有 10 萬架航班起降。 他 45 歲，人類有了第一台電腦。 當時很多人都不看好， 但在短短 20 年 我們把它變成薄薄的晶片， 相信在場就有上千片的晶片。 他死前 10 年， 人類有了第一支行動電話， 雖然剛開始很笨重， 但現在太方便了。 在他過世那年，有了網路。 現在我們無所不能， 更重要的是， 我們也有了計畫。
16:32
謝謝！
16:35
(掌聲)

Beeban Kidron: The shared wonder of film

0:11
Evidence suggests that humans in all ages and from all cultures create their identity in some kind of narrative form. From mother to daughter, preacher to congregant, teacher to pupil, storyteller to audience. Whether in cave paintings or the latest uses of the Internet, human beings have always told their histories and truths through parable and fable. We are inveterate storytellers.
0:40
But where, in our increasingly secular and fragmented world, do we offer communality of experience, unmediated by our own furious consumerism? And what narrative, what history, what identity, what moral code are we imparting to our young?
1:02
Cinema is arguably the 20th century's most influential art form. Its artists told stories across national boundaries, in as many languages, genres and philosophies as one can imagine. Indeed, it is hard to find a subject that film has yet to tackle. During the last decade we've seen a vast integration of global media, now dominated by a culture of the Hollywood blockbuster. We are increasingly offered a diet in which sensation, not story, is king. What was common to us all 40 years ago -- the telling of stories between generations -- is now rarified. As a filmmaker, it worried me. As a human being, it puts the fear of God in me. What future could the young build with so little grasp of where they've come from and so few narratives of what's possible? The irony is palpable; technical access has never been greater, cultural access never weaker.
2:04
And so in 2006 we set up FILMCLUB, an organization that ran weekly film screenings in schools followed by discussions. If we could raid the annals of 100 years of film, maybe we could build a narrative that would deliver meaning to the fragmented and restless world of the young. Given the access to technology, even a school in a tiny rural hamlet could project a DVD onto a white board.
2:33
In the first nine months we ran 25 clubs across the U.K., with kids in age groups between five and 18 watching a film uninterrupted for 90 minutes. The films were curated and contextualized. But the choice was theirs, and our audience quickly grew to choose the richest and most varied diet that we could provide. The outcome, immediate. It was an education of the most profound and transformative kind. In groups as large as 150 and as small as three, these young people discovered new places, new thoughts, new perspectives. By the time the pilot had finished, we had the names of a thousand schools that wished to join.
3:20
The film that changed my life is a 1951 film by Vittorio De Sica, "Miracle in Milan." It's a remarkable comment on slums, poverty and aspiration. I had seen the film on the occasion of my father's 50th birthday. Technology then meant we had to hire a viewing cinema, find and pay for the print and the projectionist. But for my father, the emotional and artistic importance of De Sica's vision was so great that he chose to celebrate his half-century with his three teenage children and 30 of their friends, "In order," he said, "to pass the baton of concern and hope on to the next generation."
4:04
In the last shot of "Miracle in Milan," slum-dwellers float skyward on flying brooms. Sixty years after the film was made and 30 years after I first saw it, I see young faces tilt up in awe, their incredulity matching mine. And the speed with which they associate it with "Slumdog Millionaire" or the favelas in Rio speaks to the enduring nature.
4:29
In a FILMCLUB season about democracy and government, we screened "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Made in 1939, the film is older than most of our members' grandparents. Frank Capra's classic values independence and propriety. It shows how to do right, how to be heroically awkward. It is also an expression of faith in the political machine as a force of honor.
4:54
Shortly after "Mr. Smith" became a FILMCLUB classic, there was a week of all-night filibustering in the House of Lords. And it was with great delight that we found young people up and down the country explaining with authority what filibustering was and why the Lords might defy their bedtime on a point of principle. After all, Jimmy Stewart filibustered for two entire reels.
5:20
In choosing "Hotel Rwanda," they explored genocide of the most brutal kind. It provoked tears as well as incisive questions about unarmed peace-keeping forces and the double-dealing of a Western society that picks its moral fights with commodities in mind. And when "Schindler's List" demanded that they never forget, one child, full of the pain of consciousness, remarked, "We already forgot, otherwise how did 'Hotel Rwanda' happen?"
5:51
As they watch more films their lives got palpably richer. "Pickpocket" started a debate about criminality disenfranchisement. "To Sir, with Love" ignited its teen audience. They celebrated a change in attitude towards non-white Britons, but railed against our restless school system that does not value collective identity, unlike that offered by Sidney Poitier's careful tutelage.
6:21
By now, these thoughtful, opinionated, curious young people thought nothing of tackling films of all forms -- black and white, subtitled, documentary, non-narrative, fantasy -- and thought nothing of writing detailed reviews that competed to favor one film over another in passionate and increasingly sophisticated prose. Six thousand reviews each school week vying for the honor of being review of the week.
6:49
From 25 clubs, we became hundreds, then thousands, until we were nearly a quarter of a million kids in 7,000 clubs right across the country. And although the numbers were, and continue to be, extraordinary, what became more extraordinary was how the experience of critical and curious questioning translated into life. Some of our kids started talking with their parents, others with their teachers, or with their friends. And those without friends started making them.
7:21
The films provided communality across all manner of divide. And the stories they held provided a shared experience. "Persepolis" brought a daughter closer to her Iranian mother, and "Jaws" became the way in which one young boy was able to articulate the fear he'd experienced in flight from violence that killed first his father then his mother, the latter thrown overboard on a boat journey.
7:50
Who was right, who wrong? What would they do under the same conditions? Was the tale told well? Was there a hidden message? How has the world changed? How could it be different? A tsunami of questions flew out of the mouths of children who the world didn't think were interested. And they themselves had not known they cared. And as they wrote and debated, rather than seeing the films as artifacts, they began to see themselves.
8:20
I have an aunt who is a wonderful storyteller. In a moment she can invoke images of running barefoot on Table Mountain and playing cops and robbers. Quite recently she told me that in 1948, two of her sisters and my father traveled on a boat to Israel without my grandparents. When the sailors mutinied at sea in a demand for humane conditions, it was these teenagers that fed the crew. I was past 40 when my father died. He never mentioned that journey.
8:50
My mother's mother left Europe in a hurry without her husband, but with her three-year-old daughter and diamonds sewn into the hem of her skirt. After two years in hiding, my grandfather appeared in London. He was never right again. And his story was hushed as he assimilated.
9:12
My story started in England with a clean slate and the silence of immigrant parents. I had "Anne Frank," "The Great Escape," "Shoah," "Triumph of the Will." It was Leni Riefenstahl in her elegant Nazi propaganda who gave context to what the family had to endure. These films held what was too hurtful to say out loud, and they became more useful to me than the whispers of survivors and the occasional glimpse of a tattoo on a maiden aunt's wrist.
9:50
Purists may feel that fiction dissipates the quest of real human understanding, that film is too crude to tell a complex and detailed history, or that filmmakers always serve drama over truth. But within the reels lie purpose and meaning. As one 12-year-old said after watching "Wizard of Oz," "Every person should watch this, because unless you do you may not know that you too have a heart."
10:19
We honor reading, why not honor watching with the same passion? Consider "Citizen Kane" as valuable as Jane Austen. Agree that "Boyz n the Hood," like Tennyson, offers an emotional landscape and a heightened understanding that work together. Each a piece of memorable art, each a brick in the wall of who we are. And it's okay if we remember Tom Hanks better than astronaut Jim Lovell or have Ben Kingsley's face superimposed onto that of Gandhi's. And though not real, Eve Harrington, Howard Beale, Mildred Pierce are an opportunity to discover what it is to be human, and no less helpful to understanding our life and times as Shakespeare is in illuminating the world of Elizabethan England.
11:09
We guessed that film, whose stories are a meeting place of drama, music, literature and human experience, would engage and inspire the young people participating in FILMCLUB. What we could not have foreseen was the measurable improvements in behavior, confidence and academic achievement. Once-reluctant students now race to school, talk to their teachers, fight, not on the playground, but to choose next week's film -- young people who have found self-definition, ambition and an appetite for education and social engagement from the stories they have witnessed.
11:45
Our members defy the binary description of how we so often describe our young. They are neither feral nor myopically self-absorbed. They are, like other young people, negotiating a world with infinite choice, but little culture of how to find meaningful experience. We appeared surprised at the behaviors of those who define themselves by the size of the tick on their shoes, yet acquisition has been the narrative we have offered.
12:17
If we want different values we have to tell a different story, a story that understands that an individual narrative is an essential component of a person's identity, that a collective narrative is an essential component of a cultural identity, and without it it is impossible to imagine yourself as part of a group. Because when these people get home after a screening of "Rear Window" and raise their gaze to the building next door, they have the tools to wonder who, apart from them, is out there and what is their story.
12:57
Thank you.
12:59
(Applause)

0:11
研究顯示不同年紀與文化的人們 從不同的敘事文本創造自我認同 從母親到女兒，牧師到會眾 老師到學生，說書人到聽眾 不管在洞穴壁畫 或近來的網路使用 人類不斷傳頌他們的歷史與真理 透過寓言或故事 我們都是本能的說故事者
0:40
但在日漸世俗、破碎無條理的世界中 我們要在哪裡分享共通的經驗 且不受到浮誇消費主義的影響？ 而哪種敘事、歷史 身份、道德規範 我們正在灌輸給我們的年輕人？
1:02
電影可以說是 20世紀以來最有影響力的藝術形式 藝術家藉由電影說故事 跨越國際疆界 語言隔閡、類型和思潮 你想的到電影就做得到 是的，沒有主題 是電影仍未涉及的 過去十年 我們看見大量結合的全球媒體 被現今好萊塢的商業大片文化所占據 我們不斷被賦予這樣的胃口 讓感官刺激，非故事本身，重於一切 40年前我們視為普及的 世代間故事傳頌的方式 現今已不復存在 身為電影工作者，這使我憂慮 身為人類，它使我感到恐懼 我們的年輕人要如何創造未來？ 他們如此缺乏 對自身背景的了解 對未來的可能性，也幾乎沒有文本可參照 這十分諷刺 當科技史無前例的發達 接觸文化的機會卻前所未有的貧乏
2:04
在2006年我們創立「電影俱樂部」組織 每週在學校放映電影 並舉辦映後座談 如果我們能取得這100年來的電影資料 也許我們能建立一套論述 能賦予意義 給這些生活在片斷、浮躁社會中的年輕人 因為科技的發達與便利 即使在小鄉村的偏遠學校 也能在白牆上投影DVD
2:33
在剛開始的9個月中 我們在英國設立25個俱樂部 讓5到18歲的小孩 不間斷的看完一部90分鐘的電影 這些電影都經過篩選和考量 但孩童有最終的電影選擇 我們的觀眾很快的 選擇我們提供影片中 最有價值跟多元性的片子 很快的，成果顯示 這是最影響深遠的教育方式 我們的俱樂部大至150人，小至3人 這些年輕人發掘新的事物 新的想法和觀點 當我們的組織結束試驗階段 有1000多個學校 都希望能加入俱樂部
3:20
改變我人生的電影 是1951年狄西嘉導演的《慈航普渡》 這部電影深入的探討 和貧民窟、貧窮和夢想有關的主題 我在我父親50歲生日的那天看了這部片 現今的科技迫使我們須租用放映廳 影片、並支付沖洗膠卷和放映師的費用 但對我父親而言 狄西嘉在情感和藝術上的著墨對他如此重要 他選擇在半百生日這天 與他3個青少年的孩子和其他30位朋友一同觀賞 他說："這是為了 將關懷與期望的火棒 傳遞給下一代"
4:04
《慈航普渡》的最後一幕 貧民窟的人們乘著掃帚向上飛翔 這部電影上映60年後 也是我第一次看這部片的30年後 我看到年輕人臉上著迷的神情 和不可置信的樣子與我當時相同 他們很快的將之與《貧民百萬富翁》 或里約貧民區產生聯結 證明電影內容能歷久不衰
4:29
某一季，俱樂部的主題是民主與政府 我們放映《史密斯遊美京》 本片於1939年上映 比大部分成員的祖父母都還要老 這部導演法蘭克‧卡普拉的經典電影 看重獨立與禮節 這部電影傳達如何做對的事 如何見義勇為不畏特立獨行 電影也宣揚在政治機器中 如何抱持信念並引以為榮
4:54
《史密斯遊美京》成為俱樂部的經典影片 不久之後 英國上議院中正徹夜上演著議事阻撓 而我們感到十分欣慰 我們發現國內的年輕人 能帶有權威的解釋 「議事阻撓」是什麼 而為什麼議員們必須犧牲睡眠來捍衛原則 畢竟，這是演員Jimmy Stewart在整部電影裡所做的事
5:20
當我們放映《盧安達飯店》 年輕人從最殘酷的方式了解種族屠殺 電影讓年輕人流淚 也激發他們提出尖銳的問題 關於沒有武裝的維和部隊 和西方社會的偽善 我們表面上為理念而戰 心裡卻盤算著商業利益 而當《辛德勒的名單》中提到 人們將不會忘記這場歷史教訓 一位感到痛心與自覺的小孩說： "我們已經忘記過去的歷史教訓 不然《盧安達飯店》事件怎會重演？"
5:51
當他們看更多影片時， 他們的生命明顯的更加豐富 《扒手》激起罪犯是否需被剝奪公民權的思辨 《吾愛吾師》激勵青年學子 頌揚人們對於非白人的英國人 態度的轉變 但也抱怨我們的學校制度 因它並不看重集體認同 一點都不像演員Sidney Poitoer的悉心教導
6:21
現在，這些很有想法、好奇的年輕人 毫不畏懼的涉獵各種型式的電影 黑白片、外語片 記錄片、非敘事性影片、奇幻片 他們也能輕易的寫出詳細的影評 熱情的爭相寫出日益複雜的文章 來比較不同的電影 每個星期，有6000篇的影評投稿 競爭以得到「當周影評」的榮耀
6:49
一開始只有25個俱樂部，接著成百、上千 直到我們有將近25萬名學童 分佈於全英國7000個俱樂部中 雖然，這個數目從以前到現在都持續卓越的成長 最特別的是 他們將批判和好奇提問的經驗 帶到日常生活中 許多孩童開始與父母親展開溝通 有些與老師 或跟朋友 而那些沒有朋友的孩童 也開始結交新朋友
7:21
電影跨越各種分界而帶來共通性 用故事以提供共通經驗 《茉莉人生》讓一位女兒與伊朗籍母親更加親近 《大白鯊》讓一位年輕男孩有辦法 說出他害怕的感受和經驗 當他逃離一場暴力事件 在這場事件裡 他的父親與母親被殺害 接著母親在途中被丟下船
7:50
誰對、誰錯？ 在同樣的狀況下他們該怎麼做？ 故事有沒有說明白？ 有沒有隱藏含義？ 這世界怎麼改變？如何變得不一樣？ 許多問題從孩童口中如海嘯般的湧來 我們過去以為他們不會關心這些事 他們自己過去也不曉得自己對這些議題有興趣 當他們書寫、辨論 不將電影看成藝術品 他們開始看見、認識自己
8:20
我有一位很會說故事的阿姨 在很短的時間，她便能營造出 在桌山赤足奔跑和扮演警匪的情景 最近，她告訴我 1948年，她的兩個姊姊和我爸 一起乘船去以色列 沒有與我祖父母同行 當水手在海上叛變希望得到人道待遇 當時是這些青少年餵飽了船員 我父親去世時我已超過40歲 他從來沒告訴我這段故事
8:50
我祖母在緊急狀況下離開歐洲 丈夫沒在身邊 但帶著三歲大的女兒 並把鑽石縫在裙子褶縫 躲藏兩年之後 我祖父到倫敦 但他整個人從此不對勁 我祖父的故事隨著他被同化而從此塵封
9:12
我的故事始於英國 與開始嶄新人生並沉默的移民雙親一起 我看過《安妮日記》、《第三集中營》 《大屠殺》、《德意志的勝利》 是Leni Riefenstahl（舞者、演員） 她跟親納粹友好的意識形態 讓我更加了解祖父母所歷經的苦難 這些電影包含太沉痛而無法說出的故事 對我十分有幫助 比倖存者的耳語、 我單身的阿姨手腕上 偶爾被我瞧見的刺青都還要多
9:50
純粹主義者也許認為虛構故事會消滅 對人類知識的探索 認為電影太粗糙 無法交代複雜又詳細的歷史 或認為電影導演或製作人會著重戲劇性而非真相 但電影中其實存在著目的與意義 當一位12歲的小孩看了《綠野仙蹤》後，他說： "每個人都應該看這部電影 因為如果你沒看 你永遠不知道你也有一顆心"
10:19
我們看重閱讀 為什麼我們不也同樣熱切的看重觀影 認為《大國民》跟珍奧斯汀同樣有價值 同意《鄰家少年殺人事件》跟詩人丁尼生一樣 將各式情感與崇高的知識 相輔相成 每件令人記憶深刻的藝術品 都是建築我們人生的一塊磚 這一點都沒有關係 如果我們記得湯姆漢克斯 多過太空人Jim Lovell 或把甘地的臉想像成班金斯利的樣子 即使這些都是杜撰，伊娃．哈林頓（演員）、 Howard Beale（角色）、《慾海情魔》 都是機會去探索 人生的各種可能 電影幫助人們了解人生和時代不亞於 莎士比亞幫人們了解英國的伊莉莎白時期
11:09
我們認為電影 是個匯聚之處 聚集戲劇、音樂、文學和人類經驗 能吸引和啟發參與電影俱樂部的年輕人 讓我們過去所不能預見的 都能有長足進步 不論是行為、自信或學業成績 以前不願上學的學生 現在會衝到學校跟老師談天 爭吵，但不是為了玩 而是為了選擇下週的電影 年輕人找到自我意義、抱負 並對教育和社會時間產生渴望 這都來自他們親眼所見的故事
11:45
我們的成員挑戰二元論述 挑戰我們對年輕人一向的看法 他們一點也不可怕也不自私近利 他們，與其他的年輕人一樣 正在經歷這充滿無限選擇的世界 但對於如何找到有意義的人生 缺乏參考文化 對於那些年紀輕輕 就能找到自我價值的人們 我們對這樣的能力感到驚訝 但，他們這樣的能力來自於我們所賦予的文本
12:17
如果我們希望有不同的價值觀 我們必須講不同的故事 這樣的故事了解 個人敘事 是形塑個人認同的必要元素 而集體敘事 則是形成文化認同的必要元素 沒有這些文本 我們不可能想像自己 是整個群體的一部分 因為當這些成員回家 才剛看完《後窗》 將他們的目光望向隔壁大樓 他們有能力知道 除了他們以外 在外頭的世界有誰 而他們的故事又是什麼
12:57
謝謝
12:59
（掌聲）

安妮.蘭尼克斯（Annie Lennox ）：爲什麽我要從事愛滋病防治運動

0:11
我今天要跟你們分享這個故事 我要告訴你們 爲什麽我要從事愛滋病防治運動 這是我領導的活動名稱：SING 活動。 2003年11月 我受邀參加 曼德拉46664基金會的 創會活動。 這是一個愛滋病防治基金會。 46664是當時 曼德拉在羅本島被關的編號。 照片中是我和Youssou N'Dour 在舞臺上 這是我生命中最美好的時光之一 隔天，所有的表演者都受邀 在羅本島和曼德拉見面 曼德拉要在那裏 跟國際媒體開記者會 地點就在他之前的牢房前。 你可以看到他窗戶前的鐵窗。 這對大家來説都是重要的一刻。 就在這歷史的一刻 曼德拉告訴國際媒體說 在他的國家裏 有一個集體的滅種屠殺正在發生 在這種族隔離浩劫後的 彩虹國度 每天有一千人死去 其中首當其衝的 最脆弱的一群 是婦女和小孩。
1:28
這在我心裏產生了相當大的衝擊 因爲，我既是個婦女，也是媽媽。 我那時還沒能了解 愛滋病能如此直接地 使婦女受害。 所以我給自己許了個承諾 在離開南非，開普敦的時候 我告訴自己說 我要告訴大家這個真相 我要在這上面作一些事 所以，接下來 我盡可能地 參加了每個 46664基金會的活動 我也舉辦記者會 給專訪 用我音樂人的身份 爲的是我對曼德拉的承諾 和對他完成的 偉大的功業的尊敬。 世上的每人都很尊重曼德拉 大家都他都很崇敬。 但是大家都知道 在南非 在曼德拉的國家裏 愛滋病的傳染率 是全世界最高的嗎？ 我想，要是我現在走到路上 告訴大家南非的慘狀 大家都會嚇一跳吧
2:37
我，很幸運地，幾年以後 遇到了Zackie Achmat “治療（Treatment Action ）” 活動的創辦人 他是個很棒的遊説家和社會運動領導 我在一個46664的活動上遇到他 他那時穿著跟我這件一樣的 T 裇 這是一個工具 這告訴你 我和愛滋病人、跟愛滋病毒共存的人 站在同一陣綫。 因爲愛滋病已被惡名化，藉著這件 T 裇 我要表達 “是的，我們可以公開討論這個議題” 這不是見不得人的事。 我也變成“治療（Treatment Action ）” 活動的一員 我覺得很驕傲 能成爲這個不平凡組織的一員。 這是個草根性的組織 80%的會員都是婦女 大部分的人都是愛滋病帶原者。 他們在社會基層工作 他們與 直接受到愛滋病毒影響的人 能有密切的接觸。 他們有一系列的教育課程 他們主動談及這個惡名禁忌 他們做了很多不凡的貢獻 我領導的SING活動 也支持了Treatment Action 活動 我試者喚起人們的認知 也試著替他們募款。 很多我募到的款 直接都捐給了這個組織 和資助他們，在南非， 仍持續著的不凡的活動。
4:00
這就是我的SING活動。 SING 基本上就是我 和另外三四個 支持我的了不起的人。 我走遍這個世界 在過去的兩年半 我去了12個國家 我在挪威的奧斯陸 去領一筆大的捐款 我在香港唱歌，試著讓人們多捐一點錢。 在約翰尼斯堡，我有機會 對一群大部分是白人的中產階級演唱 他們最後都熱淚盈眶 因爲我用了一些影片 真的感動到他們的心 讓他們看看這個這正在上演的悲劇 這個大家都不想去看的事實 因爲大家都累了 沒有人知道解答在哪裏。 現任的衛生部長 Aaron Motsoaledi 也在那個演唱會裏 我有機會跟他碰面 他也給了他的承諾 他要試著做一些改變 這改變是絕對必要的。 這是蘇格蘭議會 我後來也變成 蘇格蘭的愛滋特使 我跟他們分享了我的經驗 也再一次地喚起大家的意識 在愛丁堡 跟這個美妙的非洲兒童合唱團 這樣天真無邪的兒童 因爲愛滋病毒奪取了他們的父母 很多都變成了孤兒。
5:19
我在紐約跟Michel Sidibe在一起 他是聯合國愛滋病計劃（UNAIDS）的主席 在幾個月以前 Michel 邀請我 成爲聯合國愛滋病計劃的大使 這使我深感榮耀。 藉由這項新的身份， 更能使我的觸角更廣泛。 聯合國愛滋病計劃 現在要傳遞的訊息是： 我們希望能夠 在2015年以前 消除愛滋病垂直的母子傳染。 這是個很有野心的目標 但是我們相信在政治決策上有共識的話 這是可能發生的。
5:56
這是我跟一個懷孕的媽媽 她是愛滋病帶原者 但是我們都面帶自信的微笑， 因爲我們知道這個媽媽 接受了愛滋病治療 所以她的生命可以沿續 她可以照顧即將出世的嬰兒 她的嬰兒也會接受PMTCT療程 這表示說她的嬰兒 可以不受愛滋病毒的感染。 現在這是 在生命起點就開始的預防。 這是另一種角度 來看愛滋病的預防。
6:29
最後，我要再告訴你們 一個有關 Avelile 小故事 來結束我的演講。 這就是 Avelile 她一直跟我在一起 我到處跟人說她的故事 因爲她正代表了 幾百萬個愛滋孤兒的 其中之一。 Avelile 的媽媽 是愛滋病帶原者 她死於 愛滋病倂發的疾病 Avelile 也是病毒帶原者 她一出世就帶病毒。 在這裡她七歲 卻只有一歲嬰兒的體重 她在這時 正受著愛滋病病發的折磨 還有肺炎。 我們在東開普省的醫院發現她 我們跟她相處了一個下午，她實在很可愛 醫生和護士也都很另人敬佩 他們給她特別的飲食 細心地照顧她 我們拍了她的影片 離開醫院的時候，沒有人知道她能不能活下來 所以，這實在是十分令人感動的相遇 遇到這個小孩，這麽直接的經驗 讓我們每個人的心裏都產生極大的共鳴 這個孩子，這個故事。 五個月以後 我們又回到南非 去看 Avelile 我手臂上的毛都竪起來了 不知道你能不能看到 我有這樣的反應因爲我知道 下一張照片裏你將看到的轉變 這不是很棒嗎？
8:01
（掌聲）
8:11
現場的這些掌聲應該 要獻給醫院裏照顧她的醫生和護士。 我相信在場的人也都喜歡這種轉變。 所以，我想問你們 在場的每一位 如果，你覺得世上的 每個媽媽和小孩 都有權利得到 好的營養、醫藥、照顧 你也認同千禧年發展計劃裏 特別是第五、六項 要被世上所有的政府 所承諾、實踐的話 尤其是南撒哈拉非洲的國家 可以請你站起來嗎？ 我想，我們可以說 現場幾乎每一個人都站起來了。
8:59
十分感謝大家
9:01
（掌聲）

0:11
I'm going to share with you the story as to how I have become an HIV/AIDS campaigner. And this is the name of my campaign: SING Campaign. In November of 2003, I was invited to take part in the launch of Nelson Mandela's 46664 Foundation -- that is his HIV/AIDS foundation. And 46664 is the number that Mandela had when he was imprisoned in Robben Island. And that's me with Youssou N'Dour, onstage, having the time of my life. The next day, all the artists were invited to join Mandela in Robben Island, where he was going to give a conference to the world's press, standing in front of his former prison cell. You can see the bars of the window there. It was quite a momentous occasion for all of us. In that moment in time, Mandela told the world's press that there was a virtual genocide taking place in his country; that post-apartheid Rainbow Nation, a thousand people were dying on a daily basis and that the front line victims, the most vulnerable of all, were women and children.
1:28
This was a huge impact on my mind, because I am a woman and I am a mother, and I hadn't realized that the HIV/AIDS pandemic was directly affecting women in such a way. And so I committed -- when I left South Africa, when I left Capetown, I told myself, "This is going to be something that I have to talk about. I have to serve." And so, subsequently I participated in every single 46664 event that I could take part in and gave news conferences, interviews, talking and using my platform as a musician, with my commitment to Mandela -- out of respect for the tremendous, unbelievable work that he had done. Everyone in the world respects Nelson Mandela, everyone reveres Nelson Mandela. But do they all know about what has been taking place in South Africa, his country, the country that had one of the highest incidents of transmission of the virus? I think that if I went out into the street now and I told people what was happening there, they would be shocked.
2:37
I was very, very fortunate a couple of years later to have met Zackie Achmat, the founder of Treatment Action Campaign, an incredible campaigner and activist. I met him at a 46664 event. He was wearing a t-shirt like the one I wear now. This is a tool -- this tells you I am in solidarity with people who have HIV, people who are living with HIV. And in a way because of the stigma, by wearing this t-shirt I say, "Yes, we can talk about this issue. It doesn't have to be in the closet." I became a member of Treatment Action Campaign and I'm very proud to be a member of that incredible organization. It's a grassroots campaign with 80 percent membership being women, most of whom are HIV-positive. They work in the field. They have tremendous outreach to the people who are living directly with the effects of the virus. They have education programs. They bring out the issues of stigma. It's quite extraordinary what they do. And yes, my SING Campaign has supported Treatment Action Campaign in the way that I have tried to raise awareness and to try to also raise funds. A lot of the funding that I have managed to raise has gone directly to Treatment Action Campaign and the incredible work that they do, and are still continuing to do in South Africa.
4:00
So this is my SING Campaign. SING Campaign is basically just me and about three or four wonderful people who help to support me. I've traveled all over the world in the last two and a half years -- I went to about 12 different countries. Here I am in Oslo in Norway, getting a nice, fat check; singing in Hong Kong, trying to get people to raise money. In Johannesburg, I had the opportunity to play to a mainly white, middle-class South African audience who ended up in tears because I use film clips that really touch the heart, the whole nature, of this terrible tragedy that is taking place, that people are tending to avoid, because they are fatigued, and they really don't quite know what the solutions are. Aaron Motsoaledi, the current health minister, attended that concert and I had an opportunity to meet with him, and he gave his absolute commitment to try to making a change, which is absolutely necessary. This is in the Scottish Parliament. I've subsequently become an envoy for Scotland and HIV. And I was showing them my experiences and trying to, again, raise awareness. And once again, in Edinburgh with the wonderful African Children's Choir who I simply adore. And it's children like this, many of whom have been orphaned because of their family being affected by the AIDS virus.
5:19
I'm sitting here in New York with Michel Sidibe -- he's the director of UNAIDS. And I'm very honored by the fact that Michel invited me, only a few months ago, to become a UNAIDS ambassador. And in this way, I've been strengthening my platform and broadening my outreach. The message that UNAIDS are currently sending out to the world is that we would like to see the virtual elimination of the transmission of the virus from mother to child by 2015. It's a very ambitious goal but we believe it can be achieved with political will. This can happen.
5:56
And here I am with a pregnant woman, who is HIV positive and we're smiling, both of us are smiling, because we're very confident, because we know that that young woman is receiving treatment so her life can be extended to take care of the baby she's about to give birth to. And her baby will receive PMTCT, which will mean that that baby can be born free of the virus. Now that is prevention at the very beginning of life. It's one way to start looking at intervention with the AIDS pandemic.
6:29
Now, I just would like to finish off to tell you the little story about Avelile. This is Avelile -- she goes with me wherever I go. I tell her story to everyone because she represents one of millions of HIV/AIDS orphans. Avelile's mother had HIV virus -- she died from AIDS-related illness. Avelile had the virus, she was born with the virus. And here she is at seven years old, weighing no more than a one year-old baby. At this point in her life, she's suffering with full-blown AIDS and had pneumonia. We met her in a hospital in the Eastern Cape and spent a whole afternoon with her -- an adorable child. The doctors and nurses were phenomenal. They put her on very special nutritious diet and took great care of her. And we didn't know when we left the hospital -- because we filmed her story -- we didn't know if she was going to survive. So, it was obviously -- it was a very emotional encounter and left us feeling very resonant with this direct experience, this one child, you know, that story. Five months later, we went back to South Africa to meet Avelile again. And I'm getting -- the hairs on my -- I don't know if you can see the hairs on my arms. They're standing up because I know what I'm going to show you. This is the transformation that took place. Isn't it extraordinary?
8:01
(Applause)
8:11
That round of applause is actually for the doctors and nurses of the hospital who took care of Avelile. And I take it that you appreciate that kind of transformation. So, I would like to say to you, each one in the audience, if you feel that every mother and every child in the world has the right to have access to good nutrition and good medical care, and you believe that the Millennium Development Goals, specifically five and six, should be absolutely committed to by all governments around the world -- especially in sub-Saharan Africa -- could you please stand up. I think that's fair to say, it's almost everyone in the hall.
8:59
Thank you very much.
9:01
(Applause)

Elaine Morgan: I believe we evolved from aquatic apes

0:15
Well, this is 2009. And it's the Bicentenary of Charles Darwin. And all over the world, eminent evolutionists are anxious to celebrate this. And what they're planning to do is to enlighten us on almost every aspect of Darwin and his life, and how he changed our thinking. I say almost every aspect, because there is one aspect of this story which they have thrown no light on. And they seem anxious to skirt around it and step over it and to talk about something else. So I'm going to talk about it. It's the question of, why are we so different from the chimpanzees?
1:02
We get the geneticists keeping on telling us how extremely closely we are related -- hardly any genes of difference, very, very closely related. And yet, when you look at the phenotypes, there's a chimp, there's a man; they're astoundingly different, no resemblance at all. I'm not talking about airy-fairy stuff about culture or psychology, or behavior. I'm talking about ground-base, nitty-gritty, measurable physical differences. They, that one, is hairy and walking on four legs. That one is a naked biped. Why? I mean -- (Laughter) if I'm a good Darwinist, I've got to believe there's a reason for that. If we changed so much, something must have happened. What happened?
1:51
Now 50 years ago, that was a laughably simple question. Everybody knew the answer. They knew what happened. The ancestor of the apes stayed in the trees; our ancestors went out onto the plain. That explained everything. We had to get up on our legs to peer over the tall grass, or to chase after animals, or to free our hands for weapons. And we got so overheated in the chase that we had to take off that fur coat and throw it away. Everybody knew that, for generations.
2:24
But then, in the '90s, something began to unravel. The paleontologists themselves looked a bit more closely at the accompanying microfauna that lived in the same time and place as the hominids. And they weren't savanna species. And they looked at the herbivores. And they weren't savanna herbivores. And then they were so clever, they found a way to analyze fossilized pollen. Shock, horror. The fossilized pollen was not of savanna vegetation. Some of it even came from lianas, those things that dangle in the middle of the jungle.
3:04
So we're left with a situation where we know that our earliest ancestors were moving around on four legs in the trees, before the savanna ecosystem even came into existence. This is not something I've made up. It's not a minority theory. Everybody agrees with it.
3:26
Professor Tobias came over from South Africa and spoke to University College London. He said, "Everything I've been telling you for the last 20 years, forget about it. It was wrong. We've got to go back to square one and start again." It made him very unpopular. They didn't want to go back to square one.
3:49
I mean, it's a terrible thing to happen. You've got this beautiful paradigm. You've believed it through generations. Nobody has questioned it. You've been constructing fanciful things on top of it, relying on it to be as solid as a rock. And now it's whipped away from under you. What do you do? What does a scientist do in that case?
4:10
Well, we know the answer because Thomas S. Kuhn wrote a seminal treatise about this back in 1962. He said what scientists do when a paradigm fails is, guess what -- they carry on as if nothing had happened. (Laughter) If they haven't got a paradigm they can't ask the question. So they say, "Yes it's wrong, but supposing it was right ..." (Laughter) And the only other option open to them is to stop asking the questions. So that is what they have done now. That's why you don't hear them talking about it. It's yesterday's question.
4:55
Some of them have even elevated it into a principle. It's what we ought to be doing. Aaron Filler from Harvard said, "Isn't it time we stopped talking about selective pressures? I mean, why don't we talk about, well, there's chromosomes, and there's genes. And we just record what we see." Charles Darwin must be spinning in his grave! He knew all about that kind of science. And he called it hypothesis-free science. And he despised it from the bottom of his heart. And if you're going to say, "I'm going to stop talking about selective pressures," you can take "The Origin of Species" and throw it out of the window, for it's about nothing else but selective pressures.
5:36
And the irony of it is, that this is one occasion of a paradigm collapse where we didn't have to wait for a new paradigm to come up. There was one waiting in the wings. It had been waiting there since 1960 when Alister Hardy, a marine biologist, said, "I think what happened, perhaps our ancestors had a more aquatic existence for some of the time." He kept it to himself for 30 years. But then the press got hold of it and all hell broke loose. All his colleagues said, "This is outrageous. You've exposed us to public ridicule! You must never do that again." And at that time, it became set in stone: the aquatic theory should be dumped with the UFOs and the yetis, as part of the lunatic fringe of science.
6:27
Well I don't think that. I think that Hardy had a lot going for him. I'd like to talk about just a handful of what have been called the hallmarks of mankind, the things that made us different from everybody else, and all our relatives. Let's look at our naked skin. It's obvious that most of the things we think about that have lost their body hair, mammals without body hair, are aquatic ones, like the dugong, the walrus, the dolphin, the hippopotamus, the manatee. And a couple of wallowers-in-mud like the babirusa. And you're tempted to think, well perhaps, could that be why we are naked?
7:11
I suggested it and people said, "No no no. I mean, look at the elephant. You've forgotten all about the elephant haven't you?" So back in 1982 I said, "Well perhaps the elephant had an aquatic ancestor." Peals of merry laughter! "That crazy woman. She's off again. She'll say anything won't she?" But by now, everybody agrees that the elephant had an aquatic ancestor. This has come 'round to be that all those naked pachyderms have aquatic ancestors. The last exception was supposed to be the rhinoceros.
7:42
Last year in Florida they found extinct ancestor of a rhinoceros and said, "Seems to have spent most of its time in the water." So this is a close connection between nakedness and water. As an absolute connection, it only works one way. You can't say all aquatic animals are naked, because look at the sea otter. But you can say that every animal that has become naked has been conditioned by water, in its own lifetime, or the lifetime of its ancestors. I think this is significant. The only exception is the naked Somalian mole-rat, which never puts its nose above the surface of the ground.
8:25
And take bipedality. Here you can't find anybody to compare it with, because we're the only animal that walks upright on two legs. But you can say this: all the apes and all the monkeys are capable of walking on two legs, if they want to, for a short time. There is only one circumstance in which they always, all of them, walk on two legs, and that is when they are wading through water. Do you think that's significant? David Attenborough thinks it's significant, as the possible beginning of our bipedalism.
8:59
Look at the fat layer. We have got, under our skin, a layer of fat, all over: nothing in the least like that in any other primate. Why should it be there? Well they do know, that if you look at other aquatic mammals, the fat that in most land mammals is deposited inside the body wall, around the kidneys and the intestines and so on, has started to migrate to the outside, and spread out in a layer inside the skin. In the whale it's complete: no fat inside at all, all in blubber outside. We cannot avoid the suspicion that in our case it's started to happen. We have got skin lined with this layer. It's the only possible explanation of why humans, if they're very unlucky, can become grossly obese, in a way that would be totally impossible for any other primate, physically impossible. Something very odd, matter-of-factly, never explained.
10:01
The question of why we can speak. We can speak. And the gorilla can't speak. Why? Nothing to do with his teeth or his tongue or his lungs or anything like that -- purely has to do with its conscious control of its breath. You can't even train a gorilla to say "Ah" on request. The only creatures that have got conscious control of their breath are the diving animals and the diving birds. It was an absolute precondition for our being able to speak.
10:35
And then again, there is the fact that we are streamlined. Trying to imagine a diver diving into water -- hardly makes a splash. Try to imagine a gorilla performing the same maneuver, and you can see that, compared with gorilla, we are halfway to being shaped like a fish. I am trying to suggest that, for 40-odd years, this aquatic idea has been miscategorized as lunatic fringe, and it is not lunatic fringe.
11:05
And the ironic thing about it is that they are not staving off the aquatic theory to protect a theory of their own, which they've all agreed on, and they love. There is nothing there. They are staving off the aquatic theory to protect a vacuum. (Laughter) (Applause)
11:29
How do they react when I say these things? One very common reaction I've heard about 20 times is, "But it was investigated. They conducted a serious investigation of this at the beginning, when Hardy put forward his article." I don't believe it. For 35 years I've been looking for any evidence of any incident of that kind, and I've concluded that that's one of the urban myths. It's never been done.
12:00
I ask people sometimes, and they say, "I like the aquatic theory! Everybody likes the aquatic theory. Of course they don't believe it, but they like it." Well I say, "Why do you think it's rubbish?" They say "Well ... everybody I talk to says it's rubbish. And they can't all be wrong, can they?" The answer to that, loud and clear, is, "Yes! They can all be wrong." History is strewn with the cases when they've all got it wrong. (Applause) And if you've got a scientific problem like that, you can't solve it by holding a head count, and saying, "More of us say yes than say no."
12:43
(Laughter)
12:44
Apart from that, some of the heads count more than others. Some of them have come over. There was Professor Tobias. He's come over. Daniel Dennett, he's come over. Sir David Attenborough, he's come over. Anybody else out there? Come on in. The water is lovely.
13:04
(Applause)
13:07
And now we've got to look to the future. Ultimately one of three things is going to happen. Either they will go on for the next 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. "Yeah well we don't talk about that. Let's talk about something interesting." That would be very sad. The second thing that could happen is that some young genius will arrive, and say, "I've found it. It was not the savanna, it was not the water, it was this!" No sign of that happening either. I don't think there is a third option.
13:42
So the third thing that might happen is a very beautiful thing. If you look back at the early years of the last century, there was a stand-off, a lot of bickering and bad feeling between the believers in Mendel, and the believers in Darwin. It ended with a new synthesis: Darwin's ideas and Mendel's ideas blending together. And I think the same thing will happen here. You'll get a new synthesis. Hardy's ideas and Darwin's ideas will be blended together.
14:18
And we can move forward from there, and really get somewhere. That would be a beautiful thing. It would be very nice for me if it happened soon. (Laughter) Because I'm older now than George Burns was when he said, "At my age, I don't even buy green bananas."
14:48
(Laughter)
14:54
So if it's going to come and it's going to happen, what's holding it up? I can tell you that in three words. Academia says no. They decided in 1960, "That belongs with the UFOs and the yetis." And it's not easy to change their minds. The professional journals won't touch it with a barge pole. The textbooks don't mention it. The syllabus doesn't mention even the fact that we're naked, let alone look for a reason to it. "Horizon," which takes its cue from the academics, won't touch it with a barge pole. So we never hear the case put for it, except in jocular references to people on the lunatic fringe.
15:42
I don't know quite where this diktat comes from. Somebody up there is issuing the commandment, "Thou shalt not believe in the aquatic theory. And if you hope to make progress in this profession, and you do believe it, you'd better keep it to yourself, because it will get in your way."
16:07
So I get the impression that some parts of the scientific establishment are morphing into a kind of priesthood. But you know, that makes me feel good, because Richard Dawkins has told us how to treat a priesthood. (Laughter) He says, "Firstly, you've got to refuse to give it all the excessive awe and reverence it's been trained to receive." Right. I'll go ahead with that. And secondly, he says, "You must never be afraid to rock the boat." I'll go along with that too. Thank you very much.
16:47
(Applause)

0:15
現在是2009年 查爾斯達爾文的兩百年紀念 世界各地著名的進化論者 都迫不及待想要大肆慶祝 他們想要啟發我們 去了解達爾文所有的 思想與人生 以及他如何改變我們的觀念 我說"幾乎"每一個面向 是因為當中有一個面向 他們並沒有提到 他們似乎急著走避和略過 去談其他的事情 所以我決定來談一談 那問題就是：為何我們跟黑猩猩如此不同？
1:02
基因學家不斷告訴我們 人類和黑猩猩有多麼相像，基因幾乎一模一樣 是非常非常相近的物種 可是當你觀察外顯型時 一邊是黑猩猩 一邊是人類 兩者的差異令人震驚 完全沒有相似之處 我不是在談不切實際的東西 如文化或心理或行為 而是基本關鍵的 外表差異 牠們，那一群 是多毛且用四腳走路 另一群則是赤裸的兩足動物，為什麼？ 我是指 （笑聲） 如果我是個虔誠的達爾文主義者 我就要相信 此事必有因 一定是發生了什麼事，讓我們的改變這麼大 究竟發生了什麼事呢?
1:51
五十年前，這是個可笑的簡單問題 人人都知道答案 他們知道發生了什麼事 人猿的祖先留在樹上 我們的祖先則移向平原 這解釋了一切 我們必須站立才能看過高草原 或追逐動物 或者張開手好握住武器 而在打獵中因為過熱 我們必須丟掉身上的厚毛 好幾世代的人都知道這個演化過程
2:24
可是到了90年代，有些事情開始浮現 古生物學家更仔細地研究 一些伴隨型的微型動物 他們和原始人類生長在同一個時間，同一個地點 但發現他們並非熱帶草原的物種 古生物學家研究草食動物,發現他們不是大草原的草食動物 接著聰明的學者發現一個方法，他們去分析 花粉的化石 震驚，且難以置信 那些花粉化石並不是大草原的植物 有些甚至來自藤蔓植物 那些懸盪在叢林裡的植物
3:04
現在面對的狀況是 我們知道自己最早的祖先 用四腳走動 住在樹上 早在大草原生態形成之前就如此了 這不是我捏造的故事 這不是少數理論 而是每個人都認同的
3:26
南非教受托比亞斯 他到英國大學演講 他說：過去20年來我所告訴過你們的事 都忘掉吧 全是錯的 我們必須回到一壘 從頭開始 這讓他遭到排斥 因為大家都不想從頭開始
3:49
這是件令人難過的事 眼前有個很好的典範 好幾世代以來都一直相信著 大家都如此深信 你在上面蓋了許多奇異的東西 期望它就像石頭一樣堅實 現在這基礎卻從你底下被抽離了 你該怎麼辦？這時候科學家該怎麼做呢？
4:10
其實我們知道答案 因為湯姆士.孔恩 寫了一篇相關的開創性論文 在1962年 他說：科學家們要如何面對 一個典範的殞落呢？ 猜他怎麼說？他說：就當一切都沒有發生過吧 （笑聲） 如果科學家沒有典範就無法做學問 於是他們就說：這是錯的 但萬一它是對的呢？ （笑聲） 另外唯一的選擇就是 停止探討所有的問題 這正是他們現在所做的 這是你現在聽不到大家討論水猿理論的原因，
4:55
有些科學家甚至將這問題變成一種信念 一件我們都該遵照的事 哈佛大學的菲勒博士曾說過： 我們是否該停止討論選擇壓力了呢？ 我是指：為何不從染色體和基因來討論 看到什麼就說什麼 查爾斯達爾文一定氣得在墳墓裡跳腳 他對那種科學再清楚不過 他稱之為「無假設科學」 達爾文打從心底鄙視這種科學 如果你想說 「我要開始停止討論選擇壓力」 那你大可把「物種原始」丟出窗外了 因為那整本書都在談選擇壓力
5:36
諷刺的是 這次典範的殞落 並不需要等待新的典範出現才發生 其實早有另一典範準備取代 自1960年就開始等著了 海洋生物學家哈帝爵士當時曾說： 我想原因是 也許我們的祖先 有更長的時間 生活在水裡 他把這想法藏了三十年 可是最後被媒體揭露，搞得天翻地覆 他所有的同事都認為：這簡直駭人聽聞 你讓我們全成了眾人的笑話！ 你以後永遠不准再犯 在當時這理論被判了死刑 水猿理論應該跟 幽浮和雪人一起 被當作瘋狂的邊緣科學被丟掉
6:27
但我可不這麼想 我認為哈帝有許多有力的說法 我想談談少數幾個 被稱為 人類正字標記的特徵 和其他動物 以及近親動物不同的地方 先來看我們赤裸的皮膚 很明顯的，大多數我們想到的 無體毛的哺乳類動物 都是水生動物，比如像：儒艮 海象 海豚 河馬 海牛 還有一兩個在泥中打滾的動物 如鹿豬 你不禁會想 也許這就是 我們赤裸的原因
7:11
我如此表明 別人就會說：不 不 不 看看大象 難道你忘了大象嗎？ 1982年的時候我回答： 也許大象的祖先也是水生動物啊 這回答引來一陣陣的笑聲！ 「那瘋女人！她又錯亂了！老是胡言亂語…」 但是現在，每個人都認同大象有個水生動物的祖先 所有赤裸的厚皮動物的祖先 都是水生動物 排名最後的是犀牛
7:42
去年在佛羅里達發現了犀牛已絕種的祖先 那些人說：看來似乎大部分的時間都生活在水裡 所以這就是赤裸皮膚與水之間的密切關聯 這種絕對關係是單向的 你不能說所有水生動物都是赤裸的 看看海獺就會明白 不過你可以說 所有赤裸的動物 牠或牠祖先的生命都跟水有關係 我認為這具有重大意義 只有索馬利亞鼴鼠例外 牠的鼻子從不超出地面
8:25
看看用兩腳行動 你無法找到與人類相媲美的動物 因為我們是唯一以兩隻腳挺立行走的動物 但是你可以說 所有的黑猩猩和猴子也能用兩隻腳走路 如果牠們願意的話 但只是暫時的 只有一種情況 會讓牠們全部一直用兩腳走路 就是費力走過水的時候 你覺得這有意義嗎？ 大衛艾登堡認為很有意義 因為這有可能就是兩足類的原始
8:59
看看體脂肪 我們全身的皮膚底下都鋪著厚厚一層的脂肪 其他靈長類動物是沒有的 為什麼我們會有皮下脂肪呢 專家知道如果你觀察其他水生哺乳類動物 一般陸上動物的脂肪 都囤積在體內的體壁上 在腎臟和大小腸周圍等等 水生哺乳類的脂肪則轉移到體壁外 分散成皮膚內的脂肪層 鯨魚是進化完整的 體內毫無脂肪 全是體外的鯨脂 我們不得不去懷疑 人類才正開始這樣的演化 所以皮膚下才有脂肪層 這是唯一能夠解釋為何人類 如果不幸 就會變得極度肥胖 這是其他靈長類在體型上根本不會發生的事 有些從未獲得解釋的奇怪現象
10:01
關於我們為何會說話的問題 我們會說話 為什麼大猩猩不會說話？ 跟牠的牙齒或舌頭或肺部等等都無關 而是跟有意識的控制呼吸有關係 你甚至無法訓練及要求大猩猩說「啊」 唯一能夠有意識地控制呼吸的生物 就是潛水型的動物和鳥類 控制呼吸是我們會說話的絕對性先決條件
10:35
還有事實上我們是流線型的 試想潛水者潛入水中 幾乎不激起任何水花 試想大猩猩 做出一樣的動作 你將會發現，和大猩猩比起來 我們有一半的肢體就像魚一樣 我想提出的是 在過去四十多年來 這個水猿理論一直被誤歸類為瘋狂的邊緣科學 實際上並非如此
11:05
諷刺的是 人們並不是擊退水猿理論 來維護他們自己所認同 而且熱愛的理論 根本就沒有其他理論存在 他們避開水猿理論 只為了維護一片空白 （笑聲） （鼓掌）
11:29
我談水猿理論時他們有何反應呢？ 一個我已經聽過20次的普遍反應是： 「已經有人調查過了」 當哈帝公開他的論文時 他們徹底地對這理論進行過研究過了 我不相信 35年來我一直在尋找 類似的調查證據 我的結論是：這是現代的迷思之一 哈帝的理論從來就沒有調查
12:00
有時候我會問人 他們就說： 我喜歡水猿理論！ 每個人都喜歡水猿理論 當然他們不會相信 可是卻會喜歡 我又問：為什麼你認為那是胡說呢？ 他們回答：嗯….. 因為其他人都這麼說啊 而且他們不可能全都錯吧？ 那答案再明顯不過：沒錯 他們可能全都錯了！ 歷史上到處都有我們全都錯了的實例 （鼓掌） 如果你面對一個像這樣的科學問題 你不能用數人頭來解決 然後說：你看 大多數都同意啊
12:43
（笑聲）
12:44
除此之外 有些人頭比其他人重要 有些人則改變立場 像是托比亞斯教授就認同了水猿理論 丹尼爾丹奈特認同了 大衛艾登堡也認同了 還有沒有人？都過來吧 水是非常迷人的
13:04
（鼓掌）
13:07
接著我們必須看向未來 到最後 以下三種情況之中，有一種可能會發生 第一是人們在未來40 50 或60年會繼續說： 我們不討論那個 來討論更有趣的話題吧 這將令人非常難過 第二個可能發生的是 有些年輕的天才會出現 然後說：我找到了！ 不是大草原 也不是水 而是這個！ 但看不到這個可能發生的跡象 我不認為還有第三種理論
13:42
第三個可能發生的情況 則是一樁美事 如果你回溯到上個世紀初期 總有僵持的局面 爭吵和彼此反感 存在於孟德爾信徒 與達爾文信徒之間 一個新綜合理論平息了爭執 將達爾文與孟德爾的思想 結合在一起 而我認為同樣的結果將會發生 大家將會得到一個全新綜合的理論 哈帝與達爾文的理論 將會被結合在一起
14:18
接著我們就可以從新理論出發 真正到達某個目的地 那將會很美好 如果這快點實現 對我來說將會很美好 （笑聲） 因為我現在比喬治伯恩斯說出這句話時還老 他說：到我這把年紀 都不敢買青香蕉了
14:48
（笑聲）
14:54
如果這日子就要到來 就快成真 是什麼阻礙了它呢？ 我可以用五個字回答你們： 學術界說不 學術界在1960年決定 「水猿理論就跟幽浮和雪人一樣」 要改變他們的觀念是困難的 專業刊物 不想與它有關連 教科書不會提到它 課程大綱甚至不提及我們是赤裸的事實 更不用提背後的原因了 Horizon雜誌由學術界主導 也不想與水猿理論有任何瓜葛 所以我們從來聽不到任何關於水猿理論的資訊 除了拿來消遣 科學狂熱份子的時候才會出現
15:42
我不太確定這定見來自何處 某個高高在上的人 正在發出聖誡： 汝等不可採信「水猿理論」 如果你期許在這行做出成績 而且又相信「水猿理論」的話，你最好保持緘默 因為它將會阻擾你的前程
16:07
所以我感覺到 科學組織的某些部分 已經轉型成神職 但是你知道嗎 這讓我覺得很好 因為李察道金斯告訴過我們 如何對付神職人員 （笑聲） 他說：首先你必須拒絕過度的的敬畏 因為宗教一直以來 就被訓練獲得過度的敬畏與崇拜 很好 這我認同 接著他又說： 你必需勇於打破現狀 我也同意這說法 謝謝大家
16:47
（鼓掌）

Susan Blackmore: Memes and "temes" (transcript)

https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes/transcript?language=zh-tw#t-0

0:11
Cultural evolution is a dangerous child for any species to let loose on its planet. By the time you realize what's happening, the child is a toddler, up and causing havoc, and it's too late to put it back. We humans are Earth's Pandoran species. We're the ones who let the second replicator out of its box, and we can't push it back in. We're seeing the consequences all around us.
0:41
Now that, I suggest, is the view that comes out of taking memetics seriously. And it gives us a new way of thinking about not only what's going on on our planet, but what might be going on elsewhere in the cosmos. So first of all, I'd like to say something about memetics and the theory of memes, and secondly, how this might answer questions about who's out there, if indeed anyone is.
1:07
So, memetics: memetics is founded on the principle of Universal Darwinism. Darwin had this amazing idea. Indeed, some people say it's the best idea anybody ever had. Isn't that a wonderful thought, that there could be such a thing as a best idea anybody ever had? Do you think there could? Audience: No. (Laughter) Susan Blackmore: Someone says no, very loudly, from over there. Well, I say yes, and if there is, I give the prize to Darwin.
1:36
Why? Because the idea was so simple, and yet it explains all design in the universe. I would say not just biological design, but all of the design that we think of as human design. It's all just the same thing happening. What did Darwin say? I know you know the idea, natural selection, but let me just paraphrase "The Origin of Species," 1859, in a few sentences.
2:04
What Darwin said was something like this: if you have creatures that vary, and that can't be doubted -- I've been to the Galapagos, and I've measured the size of the beaks and the size of the turtle shells and so on, and so on. And 100 pages later. (Laughter) And if there is a struggle for life, such that nearly all of these creatures die -- and this can't be doubted, I've read Malthus and I've calculated how long it would take for elephants to cover the whole world if they bred unrestricted, and so on and so on. And another 100 pages later. And if the very few that survive pass onto their offspring whatever it was that helped them survive, then those offspring must be better adapted to the circumstances in which all this happened than their parents were.
2:54
You see the idea? If, if, if, then. He had no concept of the idea of an algorithm, but that's what he described in that book, and this is what we now know as the evolutionary algorithm. The principle is you just need those three things -- variation, selection and heredity. And as Dan Dennett puts it, if you have those, then you must get evolution. Or design out of chaos, without the aid of mind.
3:24
There's one word I love on that slide. What do you think my favorite word is? Audience: Chaos. SB: Chaos? No. What? Mind? No. Audience: Without. SB: No, not without. (Laughter) You try them all in order: Mmm...? Audience: Must. SB: Must, at must. Must, must. This is what makes it so amazing. You don't need a designer, or a plan, or foresight, or anything else. If there's something that is copied with variation and it's selected, then you must get design appearing out of nowhere. You can't stop it. Must is my favorite word there.
4:04
Now, what's this to do with memes? Well, the principle here applies to anything that is copied with variation and selection. We're so used to thinking in terms of biology, we think about genes this way. Darwin didn't, of course; he didn't know about genes. He talked mostly about animals and plants, but also about languages evolving and becoming extinct. But the principle of Universal Darwinism is that any information that is varied and selected will produce design.
4:33
And this is what Richard Dawkins was on about in his 1976 bestseller, "The Selfish Gene." The information that is copied, he called the replicator. It selfishly copies. Not meaning it kind of sits around inside cells going, "I want to get copied." But that it will get copied if it can, regardless of the consequences. It doesn't care about the consequences because it can't, because it's just information being copied. And he wanted to get away from everybody thinking all the time about genes, and so he said, "Is there another replicator out there on the planet?" Ah, yes, there is.
5:08
Look around you -- here will do, in this room. All around us, still clumsily drifting about in its primeval soup of culture, is another replicator. Information that we copy from person to person, by imitation, by language, by talking, by telling stories, by wearing clothes, by doing things. This is information copied with variation and selection. This is design process going on. He wanted a name for the new replicator. So, he took the Greek word "mimeme," which means that which is imitated. Remember that, that's the core definition: that which is imitated. And abbreviated it to meme, just because it sounds good and made a good meme, an effective spreading meme. So that's how the idea came about. It's important to stick with that definition.
5:59
The whole science of memetics is much maligned, much misunderstood, much feared. But a lot of these problems can be avoided by remembering the definition. A meme is not equivalent to an idea. It's not an idea. It's not equivalent to anything else, really. Stick with the definition. It's that which is imitated, or information which is copied from person to person. So, let's see some memes.
6:24
Well, you sir, you've got those glasses hung around your neck in that particularly fetching way. I wonder whether you invented that idea for yourself, or copied it from someone else? If you copied it from someone else, it's a meme. And what about, oh, I can't see any interesting memes here. All right everyone, who's got some interesting memes for me? Oh, well, your earrings, I don't suppose you invented the idea of earrings. You probably went out and bought them. There are plenty more in the shops. That's something that's passed on from person to person. All the stories that we're telling -- well, of course, TED is a great meme-fest, masses of memes.
6:59
The way to think about memes, though, is to think, why do they spread? They're selfish information, they will get copied, if they can. But some of them will be copied because they're good, or true, or useful, or beautiful. Some of them will be copied even though they're not. Some, it's quite hard to tell why.
7:17
There's one particular curious meme which I rather enjoy. And I'm glad to say, as I expected, I found it when I came here, and I'm sure all of you found it, too. You go to your nice, posh, international hotel somewhere, and you come in and you put down your clothes and you go to the bathroom, and what do you see? Audience: Bathroom soap. SB: Pardon? Audience: Soap. SB: Soap, yeah. What else do you see? Audience: (Inaudible) SB: Mmm mmm. Audience: Sink, toilet! SB: Sink, toilet, yes, these are all memes, they're all memes, but they're sort of useful ones, and then there's this one. (Laughter) What is this one doing? (Laughter) This has spread all over the world. It's not surprising that you all found it when you arrived in your bathrooms here. But I took this photograph in a toilet at the back of a tent in the eco-camp in the jungle in Assam. (Laughter) Who folded that thing up there, and why? (Laughter) Some people get carried away. (Laughter) Other people are just lazy and make mistakes. Some hotels exploit the opportunity to put even more memes with a little sticker. (Laughter) What is this all about? I suppose it's there to tell you that somebody's cleaned the place, and it's all lovely. And you know, actually, all it tells you is that another person has potentially spread germs from place to place. (Laughter)
8:41
So, think of it this way. Imagine a world full of brains and far more memes than can possibly find homes. The memes are all trying to get copied -- trying, in inverted commas -- i.e., that's the shorthand for, if they can get copied, they will. They're using you and me as their propagating, copying machinery, and we are the meme machines.
9:06
Now, why is this important? Why is this useful, or what does it tell us? It gives us a completely new view of human origins and what it means to be human, all conventional theories of cultural evolution, of the origin of humans, and what makes us so different from other species. All other theories explaining the big brain, and language, and tool use and all these things that make us unique, are based upon genes. Language must have been useful for the genes. Tool use must have enhanced our survival, mating and so on. It always comes back, as Richard Dawkins complained all that long time ago, it always comes back to genes.
9:44
The point of memetics is to say, "Oh no, it doesn't." There are two replicators now on this planet. From the moment that our ancestors, perhaps two and a half million years ago or so, began imitating, there was a new copying process. Copying with variation and selection. A new replicator was let loose, and it could never be -- right from the start -- it could never be that human beings who let loose this new creature, could just copy the useful, beautiful, true things, and not copy the other things. While their brains were having an advantage from being able to copy -- lighting fires, keeping fires going, new techniques of hunting, these kinds of things -- inevitably they were also copying putting feathers in their hair, or wearing strange clothes, or painting their faces, or whatever.
10:34
So, you get an arms race between the genes which are trying to get the humans to have small economical brains and not waste their time copying all this stuff, and the memes themselves, like the sounds that people made and copied -- in other words, what turned out to be language -- competing to get the brains to get bigger and bigger. So, the big brain, on this theory, is driven by the memes.
10:58
This is why, in "The Meme Machine," I called it memetic drive. As the memes evolve, as they inevitably must, they drive a bigger brain that is better at copying the memes that are doing the driving. This is why we've ended up with such peculiar brains, that we like religion, and music, and art. Language is a parasite that we've adapted to, not something that was there originally for our genes, on this view. And like most parasites, it can begin dangerous, but then it coevolves and adapts, and we end up with a symbiotic relationship with this new parasite.
11:34
And so, from our perspective, we don't realize that that's how it began. So, this is a view of what humans are. All other species on this planet are gene machines only, they don't imitate at all well, hardly at all. We alone are gene machines and meme machines as well. The memes took a gene machine and turned it into a meme machine.
11:57
But that's not all. We have a new kind of memes now. I've been wondering for a long time, since I've been thinking about memes a lot, is there a difference between the memes that we copy -- the words we speak to each other, the gestures we copy, the human things -- and all these technological things around us? I have always, until now, called them all memes, but I do honestly think now we need a new word for technological memes.
12:23
Let's call them techno-memes or temes. Because the processes are getting different. We began, perhaps 5,000 years ago, with writing. We put the storage of memes out there on a clay tablet, but in order to get true temes and true teme machines, you need to get the variation, the selection and the copying, all done outside of humans. And we're getting there. We're at this extraordinary point where we're nearly there, that there are machines like that. And indeed, in the short time I've already been at TED, I see we're even closer than I thought we were before.
12:58
So actually, now the temes are forcing our brains to become more like teme machines. Our children are growing up very quickly learning to read, learning to use machinery. We're going to have all kinds of implants, drugs that force us to stay awake all the time. We'll think we're choosing these things, but the temes are making us do it. So, we're at this cusp now of having a third replicator on our planet. Now, what about what else is going on out there in the universe? Is there anyone else out there? People have been asking this question for a long time. We've been asking it here at TED already. In 1961, Frank Drake made his famous equation, but I think he concentrated on the wrong things. It's been very productive, that equation. He wanted to estimate N, the number of communicative civilizations out there in our galaxy, and he included in there the rate of star formation, the rate of planets, but crucially, intelligence.
14:01
I think that's the wrong way to think about it. Intelligence appears all over the place, in all kinds of guises. Human intelligence is only one kind of a thing. But what's really important is the replicators you have and the levels of replicators, one feeding on the one before. So, I would suggest that we don't think intelligence, we think replicators.
14:24
And on that basis, I've suggested a different kind of equation. A very simple equation. N, the same thing, the number of communicative civilizations out there [that] we might expect in our galaxy. Just start with the number of planets there are in our galaxy. The fraction of those which get a first replicator. The fraction of those that get the second replicator. The fraction of those that get the third replicator. Because it's only the third replicator that's going to reach out -- sending information, sending probes, getting out there, and communicating with anywhere else.
14:59
OK, so if we take that equation, why haven't we heard from anybody out there? Because every step is dangerous. Getting a new replicator is dangerous. You can pull through, we have pulled through, but it's dangerous. Take the first step, as soon as life appeared on this earth. We may take the Gaian view. I loved Peter Ward's talk yesterday -- it's not Gaian all the time. Actually, life forms produce things that kill themselves. Well, we did pull through on this planet.
15:32
But then, a long time later, billions of years later, we got the second replicator, the memes. That was dangerous, all right. Think of the big brain. How many mothers do we have here? You know all about big brains. They are dangerous to give birth to, are agonizing to give birth to. (Laughter) My cat gave birth to four kittens, purring all the time. Ah, mm -- slightly different. (Laughter)
15:58
But not only is it painful, it kills lots of babies, it kills lots of mothers, and it's very expensive to produce. The genes are forced into producing all this myelin, all the fat to myelinate the brain. Do you know, sitting here, your brain is using about 20 percent of your body's energy output for two percent of your body weight? It's a really expensive organ to run. Why? Because it's producing the memes.
16:21
Now, it could have killed us off. It could have killed us off, and maybe it nearly did, but you see, we don't know. But maybe it nearly did. Has it been tried before? What about all those other species? Louise Leakey talked yesterday about how we're the only one in this branch left. What happened to the others? Could it be that this experiment in imitation, this experiment in a second replicator, is dangerous enough to kill people off?
16:47
Well, we did pull through, and we adapted. But now, we're hitting, as I've just described, we're hitting the third replicator point. And this is even more dangerous -- well, it's dangerous again. Why? Because the temes are selfish replicators and they don't care about us, or our planet, or anything else. They're just information, why would they? They are using us to suck up the planet's resources to produce more computers, and more of all these amazing things we're hearing about here at TED. Don't think, "Oh, we created the Internet for our own benefit." That's how it seems to us. Think, temes spreading because they must. We are the old machines.
17:29
Now, are we going to pull through? What's going to happen? What does it mean to pull through? Well, there are kind of two ways of pulling through. One that is obviously happening all around us now, is that the temes turn us into teme machines, with these implants, with the drugs, with us merging with the technology. And why would they do that? Because we are self-replicating. We have babies. We make new ones, and so it's convenient to piggyback on us, because we're not yet at the stage on this planet where the other option is viable. Although it's closer, I heard this morning, it's closer than I thought it was. Where the teme machines themselves will replicate themselves. That way, it wouldn't matter if the planet's climate was utterly destabilized, and it was no longer possible for humans to live here. Because those teme machines, they wouldn't need -- they're not squishy, wet, oxygen-breathing, warmth-requiring creatures. They could carry on without us.
18:28
So, those are the two possibilities. The second, I don't think we're that close. It's coming, but we're not there yet. The first, it's coming too. But the damage that is already being done to the planet is showing us how dangerous the third point is, that third danger point, getting a third replicator. And will we get through this third danger point, like we got through the second and like we got through the first? Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I have no idea. (Applause) Chris Anderson: That was an incredible talk. SB: Thank you. I scared myself. CA: (Laughter)

0:11
文化的演化是個危險小孩 任何物種如果放任它在星球上。 等你察覺出了事，小孩已在學步， 四處闖禍，將它帶回已太遲。 我們人類是地球的潘朵拉物種。 我們把第二個複製體放出盒子， 而我們無法將它收回。 我們正看到身邊的後果。
0:41
現在，我認為這個觀點 是認真看待迷因論而來的。 它提供我們一個新方法去思考 不僅我們星球發生了什麼事， 還有宇宙他處可能有什麼事。 首先，我要談談迷因論， 就是迷因的理論, 其次，談這可能解答外太空有誰， 是否真的有誰。
1:07
迷因論。 迷因論是根據通用達爾文理論而來的。 達爾文有這個驚奇想法。 真的，有人說： 那是有史以來最好的想法。 那豈不是絕妙的觀點，認為有件事可以是 有史以來最好的想法？ 你認為有可能嗎？ (觀眾：不) (笑聲) 那邊有人很大聲地說：｢不｣。 但我說｢有｣，如果有，我將頒獎給達爾文。
1:36
為什麼？ 因為這個想法那麼簡單， 卻解釋了宇宙的一切設計。 我認為不只是生物的設計， 還有一切我們認為的人為設計。 其發生的原理完全一樣。 達爾文說了什麼？ 我想你知道他的想法：｢天擇｣ 讓我用｢物種起源｣， 1859 年版， 套幾句話解釋一下。
2:04
達爾文說的就像 － 如果你有生物的變異，這是無庸置疑的 － 我到過加拉巴哥群島，測量過鳥嘴 和龜殼的尺寸等等... 翻過 100 頁 － (笑聲) 如果有生存競爭， 使幾乎所有的生物都死亡 － 這無庸置疑，我讀過馬爾薩斯 我計算過要多少時間會使大象 在不受限制的成長下，充滿整個世界，等等... 再翻過 100 頁。 如果少數幾個活下來，傳承給子孫 有助它們存活的任何條件， 則這些子孫必然比祖先 更能適應發生這一切 的環境情況。
2:54
你看到這個想法了嗎？ 如果、如果、如果，則 他並沒有運算法的概念。 但他在書上寫的就是這樣， 就是現在我們所知的演化運算法。 原則上你只需三樣東西 － 變異、選擇、及遺傳。 就如 Dan Dennett 所說，如果有這些 必然會有演化。 或：不用心智的輔助，混沌即會產出設計。
3:24
幻燈片中有個字我很喜歡， 你猜我喜歡的是哪個字？ (觀眾：混沌) ｢混沌｣？不是。｢心智｣？不是。 (觀眾：不用) 不是，不是「不用」。 (笑聲) 你們依序再猜：嗯？ (觀眾：必然) 必然、必然、必然、必然。 就是它才那麼驚奇。 你不需要設計師， 或計畫，或先見、或任何什麼。 如果有變異的複製 並被選擇，則無中必然會有設計出現。 你無法停止它。 此處，「必然」是我喜歡的字。
4:04
而這和迷因有什關係？ 嗯，這個原則適用任何情形 就是有變異和選擇的複製。 我們太習慣於生物學的觀點， 我們以此方式思考基因。 達爾文則當然沒有, 他不知道基因。 他大部分提到動物、植物， 但也提到語言的演化與滅絕。 但通用達爾文論的原則 是任何有變異及被選擇的資訊 都會產生設計。
4:33
這也是理察·道金斯在他的 1976 年暢銷書「自私的基因」中談的。 被複製的資訊，他叫做複製體。 它自私地複製。 不是說它躺在細胞裡叫著「我要被複製」。 而是只要能夠，它就會被複製， 不論後果如何。 它不在意後果，因為它無從在意， 因為複製的只是資訊。 他想要跳脫， 大家總是想到基因， 因此他說：「行星上還有另一個複製體嗎？」 是的，有的。
5:08
看看四周，這房間裡就有。 我們四周，仍拙然浮現著 文化原汁的，是另一個複製體。 經由模仿，資訊在人與人之間複製著， 經由語言、交談、敍事、 穿著、行為等。 這是有變異與選擇的資訊複製。 是進行中的設計過程。 他要為這新複製體取個新名字。 因此他用希臘字 mimeme，意指「模仿之物」。 記住，這是它的本義。 指「模仿之物」。 將它簡化為 meme，因為好唸 而成為好的迷因，有效傳播的迷因。 這就是此想法的來源。 謹守這個定義是重要的。
5:59
整個迷因論受到太多詆毀， 太多誤解，太多憂懼。 但許多問題可以避免掉， 只要記住這個定義。 迷因不等於一個想法。 它不是想法，它也不等於任何事,，真的。 謹守這個定義。 它是模仿之物。 或指在人與人之間複製的資訊。 那麼，讓我們來看一些迷因。
6:24
先生，你的眼鏡掛在脖子上 是一種特別的拿取方式。 我好奇那是你自己發明的想法， 或複製自別人？ 如果你複製自別人，那就是個迷因。 還有，這裡我看不到任何有趣的迷因。 各位，誰有有趣的迷因？ 好，你的耳環， 我不認為你發明了耳環的想法。 或許是你出去買的。 店裡有很多。 這就是在人與人之間傳遞的。 所有我們說的故事，當然 TED 是個大的迷因饗宴，有大量的迷因。
6:59
考慮迷因的一個方式是， 想想它們為什麼會傳播？ 它們是自私的資訊，它們盡可能讓人複製。 有些被複製，因為它們很好、 真實、有用、或美妙。 有些雖不是，也將被複製。 有些，很難說明為什麼。
7:17
有一種特別好奇的迷因我很欣賞。 我很高興地說，如預期地我在這裡找到了它， 我確定你們也都發現了它。 你到某處的豪華國際旅館， 進去後，放下你的衣服 到了浴室，你看到什麼？ (觀眾：肥皂) 什麼？ (觀眾：肥皂) 肥皂，是呀。還看到什麼？ (觀眾：...) 嗯、嗯。 (觀眾：洗臉盆、馬桶) 洗臉盆、馬桶，對，這些都是迷因，都是迷因， 它們是有用的迷因，還有這個。 (笑聲) 這個做什麼？ (笑聲) 這已傳遍全世界。 無疑你們都發現了它 在你來到這裡的浴室時。 但這張照片拍自一個帳篷後的廁所 是在阿隡姆叢林的生態營中。 (笑聲) 誰把它摺成那樣，為什麼？ (笑聲) 有些人受影響過了頭。 (笑聲) 其他人則太懶並弄錯了。 有些旅館趁機會加入更多迷因 附上小貼標。 (笑聲) 到底是怎麼了？ 我想它是要告訴你：有人已經 清潔了這地方，全都好了。 你知道，實際上它告訴你的是：另個人 有可能散播細菌到各處。 (笑聲)
8:41
因此用這方式去想它。 想像世界上充滿了頭腦 但有更多的迷因找不到家。 迷因都試著要被複製， 試著，明白地講 就是：｢盡其所能地被複製｣。 它們利用你我當擴散的複製機， 我們是迷因機器。
9:06
為什麼這個重要？ 為什麼它有用？它告訴我們什麼？ 它給我們全新觀點的人類起源 及它對人類的意義。 所有傳統的文化演化理論， 人類起源理論， 及我們異於其他物種的理論。 其他理論都解釋大腦、語言、及工具使用 是這些事使我們獨特， 都是基於基因。 語言必須對基因有用。 工具使用必須加強我們的存活、交配等。 它總是回到，如同理察·道金斯所埋怨 長時以來，它總是回到基因。
9:44
迷因論則說：｢不，它不會。｣ 現在有兩種複製體在這星球上。 自從我們祖先 大約 250 萬年前， 開始模仿，就有一個新的複製過程。 以變異及選擇而複製。 釋出了一個新複製體，它將永不會 － 在一開始，它就永不會是 釋放了這個新生物的人類， 只複製有用的、美妙的、真實的事物， 而不複製其他事物。 人類的頭腦有利於去複製 － 取火、保存火、打獵新技法， 這些東西 － 難免他們也複製頭髮裝飾羽毛， 或穿新奇衣服、畫臉、 或什麼的。
10:34
因而有了武器競賽： 基因試著要人類有小而經濟的頭腦 不要浪費時間複製所有東西， 而迷因自己，像人類創造及複製的聲音 － 換言之，就是語言 － 競爭著要頭腦越來越大。 因此大頭腦理論是來自迷因的。
10:58
這是為什麼在｢迷因機器｣裡，我叫它迷因驅動機。 當迷因演化時，當它們難免必須， 它們驅動較會複製迷因的較大頭腦 去做驅動。 這是為什麼我們有這樣奇特的頭腦， 我們喜歡宗教、音樂、和藝術。 語言是我們已適應的寄生物， 不是我們基因原本就有的， 這樣一個觀點。 像大部分寄生物一樣，它一開始有危險， 然後一起演化、調適 結果我們和這寄生物 形成共生關係。
11:34
因此從我們的觀點， 我們不知它是如何開始的。 這是人類是什麼的一個觀點。 地球上的其他物種只是基因機器而已， 它們不太會模仿，幾乎不會。 只有我們是基因機器，也是迷因機器。 迷因取用基因機器，將它變成迷因機器。
11:57
但這還不是全部。 我們現在有新種的迷因了。 我已經驚奇一段長時間了， 因為我一直常在思考迷因， 迷因複製的東西有差別嗎 － 我們彼此交談的話， 我們複製的姿勢，人為的物品 － 以及所有我們四周的科技物品？ 我一直到現在都叫它們迷因， 但現在我坦誠思考 我們需要為科技迷因取個新詞。
12:23
我們來把它叫做「技術迷因」或「技因」。 因為過程已經在變。 我們約在五千年前開始書寫。 我們將迷因典藏放在泥板上， 但為了取得真正的技因及真正的技因機器， 必須有變異、選擇、和複製， 都在人類以外進行。 我們快有了。 我們已趨近這快有了的特殊點， 已有類似的機器。 真的，在我到 TED 的短暫時間裡， 我認為，我們已比我想的還接近了。
12:58
實際上，此時技因正強迫我們的大腦 變成更像技因機器。 我們的孩子成長中更快學會讀書， 學會使用機器。 我們將有各種植入物， 迫使我們一直清醒的藥物。 以為是我們自己選擇這些事物， 卻是技因使我們這樣的。 因此我們正在此一頂點 正要有我們星球上的第三複製體。 而宇宙他處又有什麼在發生？ 外太空有誰嗎？ 人們問這個問題已很長久了。 我們在 TED 也已問過。 1961 年，Frank Drake 提出有名的等式， 但我覺得他聚焦到錯的事項上。 那個等式很有生產力。 他要預估 N， 我們星系中具溝通文明的數量。 他包含在式子裡有星星形成率、 行星率，及最關鍵的智慧。
14:01
我認為這樣思考法是錯的。 智慧到處都有，以各種變貌。 人類智慧只是其中一種。 但最重要的是你有的複製體 及複製體的層級，各須依賴其前一個。 因此我建議，我們不考慮智慧， 我們考慮複製體。
14:24
基於此，我提議一個不同的等式。 很單純的等式。 N 一樣， 具溝通的文明數量， 預期在我們星系中的。 以我們星系中的行星數開始。 擁有第一種複製體的分數。 擁有第二種複製體的分數。 擁有第三種複製體的分數。 因為只有第三種複製體會伸展出去 － 送出資訊、送出探測器、對外探索， 並和外界做溝通。
14:59
好，我們用這個等式， 為何我們沒聽到有誰在外界？ 因為每一步都是危險的。 取得新種複製體是危險的。 你能擺脫，我們擺脫了， 但那是危險的。 第一步，生命一開始在地球出現。 我們可以採用蓋亞的觀點。 我喜歡昨天 Peter Ward 的演講 － 並非一直是蓋亞論。 事實上，生命體製造殺死自己的事物。 嗯，我們在這星球上擺脫了。
15:32
但，過了一段長時間，幾十億年後， 我們得到第二種複製體：迷因。 那是危險的，沒錯。 想想大頭腦。 這裡有幾位媽媽？ 妳們都知道大頭腦。 大頭腦的生產很危險。 生得很折磨。 (笑聲) 我的貓生了四隻小貓，嗚個不停。 嗯 － 有點不同。 (笑聲)
15:58
它不但痛苦，害死許多嬰兒， 害死許多媽媽， 它的產生也很昂貴。 基因被迫去生產髓磷脂， 供應大腦的髓磷脂。 你知道嗎？坐在這裡， 你的大腦大約使用身體能量產出的百分之 20. 它只有體重的百分之二。 這器官的運轉真的很貴。 為什麼？因為它生產迷因。
16:21
它可能害我們死光 － 可能害我們死光， 也許它差點做到了，但我們並不清楚。 也許它差點做到了。 它曾試過嗎？ 其他的物種又如何？ Louise Leakey 昨天談到 我們是這一支系唯一存下的。 其他的怎麼了？ 會是因為實驗了模仿， 實驗了第二種複製體 危險到足以害死大家？
16:47
我們擺脫了，我們適應了。 而現在，我們碰上了如我剛說的， 我們碰上了第三種複製體。 這個更危險 － 它又是危險的。 為什麼？因為技因是自私的複製體 它不在乎我們、我們的星球、或任何東西。 它只是資訊 － 為何它要在乎？ 它只利用我們去吸取地球資源 去產生更多電腦， 更多驚奇事物，我們在 TED 聽到的事物。 不要以為：｢喔，我們為自己的好處創造了網路。｣ 那是我們認為如此。 想想：技因的傳播是因為它必須如此。 我們是老舊機器。
17:29
現在我們能擺脫嗎？ 會出什麼事嗎？ 擺脫了又怎樣？ 嗯，有兩種擺脫的方式。 一種顯然正在我們四周發生， 即技因把我們變成技因機器， 用植入物、用藥物， 把我們併入科技中。 為什麼它要這麼做？ 因為我們自我複製。 我們有後代。 我們生產新生命，因此騎著我們很方便， 因為在地球上，我們還未到達 其他方式可行的階段。 雖然接近了，早上我聽到了， 比我以為的還接近了。 到了技因機器會複製自己。 那時，就無所謂地球氣候 是否極度不穩定， 不再可能讓人類生存於此。 因為技因機器將不需要 － 它們不是血肉之軀、呼吸氧氣、 需要溫暖的生物。 沒有我們，它們也能生存。
18:28
因此，有這兩種可能。 第二種，我不認為我們有那麼接近。 它會來，但我們還未到達。 第一種，也會來。 但已造成對地球的損害 這告訴了我們第三點有多危險， 即第三危險點：取得第三種複製體。 我們能擺脫這第三危險點， 像我們擺脫第二個，像我們擺脫第一個？ 也許我們能，也許不能。 我也不知道。 (掌聲) 演講很精彩。 謝謝。我嚇到自己。 (笑聲)