When ideas have sex | Matt Ridley

Translator: Laila Pedersen Reviewer: Louise Frilund

When I was a student here in Oxford in the 1970s,

Da jeg studerede her i Oxford i 1970erne,

the future of the world was bleak.

så Verdens fremtid ikke godt ud.

The population explosion was unstoppable.

Befolkningstilvæksten var ustoppelig.

Global famine was inevitable.

Global hungersnød var uundgåelig.

A cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment

En cancerepidemi, forårsaget af kemikalier i miljøet,

was going to shorten our lives.

ville forkorte vores liv.

The acid rain was falling on the forests.

Syreregnen faldt på skovene.

The desert was advancing by a mile or two a year.

Ørkenen spredte sig med to-tre km om året.

The oil was running out,

Olien var ved at slippe op.

and a nuclear winter would finish us off.

Og en atomvinter ville gøre en ende på os.

None of those things happened,

Intet af det skete.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

and astonishingly, if you look at what actually happened in my lifetime,

Og forbløffende nok, hvis man ser på, hvad der faktisk er sket i min livstid,

the average per-capita income

så er gennemsnitsindkomsten

of the average person on the planet,

for gennemsnitsindbyggeren på denne planet

in real terms, adjusted for inflation,

i faste priser og justeret for inflation;

has tripled.

tredoblet.

Lifespan is up by 30 percent in my lifetime.

I løbet af min livstid er levealderen øget med 30 procent.

Child mortality is down by two-thirds.

Børnedødeligheden er faldet med to trediedele.

Per-capita food production

Fødevareproduktionen pr. indbygger

is up by a third.

er øget med en trediedel.

And all this at a time when the population has doubled.

Og alt dette samtidig med, at befolkningstallet er fordoblet.

How did we achieve that, whether you think it's a good thing or not?

Hvordan opnåede vi det - hvad end du mener, det er en god ting eller ej -

How did we achieve that?

hvordan opnåede vi det?

How did we become

Hvordan blev vi

the only species

den eneste art,

that becomes more prosperous

der bliver mere velstående

as it becomes more populous?

samtidig med, at befolkningen øges?

The size of the blob in this graph represents the size of the population,

Plettens størrelse i denne graf, repræsenterer befolkningens størrelse.

and the level of the graph

Og højden af grafen

represents GDP per capita.

repræsenterer BNP pr. indbygger.

I think to answer that question

Jeg tror, at for at besvare det spørgsmål,

you need to understand

må man først forstå,

how human beings bring together their brains

hvordan mennesker kobler sine hjerner sammen

and enable their ideas to combine and recombine,

og derved muliggør kombinationer af idéer,

to meet and, indeed, to mate.

deres møde og ja; deres parring.

In other words, you need to understand

Med andre ord, man skal forstå,

how ideas have sex.

hvordan idéer dyrker sex.

I want you to imagine

Du skal forestille dig,

how we got from making objects like this

hvordan vi kom fra at lave ting, som denne

to making objects like this.

til at lave ting, som denne.

These are both real objects.

De er begge ægte ting.

One is an Acheulean hand axe from half a million years ago

Den ene er en halv million år gammel acheulean håndøkse

of the kind made by Homo erectus.

af den slags, Homo erectus lavede.

The other is obviously a computer mouse.

Den anden er naturligvis en computermus.

They're both exactly the same size and shape to an uncanny degree.

I en utrolig grad har de præcis samme størrelse og form.

I've tried to work out which is bigger,

Jeg har prøvet at beregne, hvilken af dem er størst,

and it's almost impossible.

og det er næsten umuligt.

And that's because they're both designed to fit the human hand.

Og det er fordi, de begge er designede til at passe til en menneskehånd.

They're both technologies. In the end, their similarity is not that interesting.

De er begge teknologier. I sidste ende er deres lighed ikke så interessant.

It just tells you they were both designed to fit the human hand.

Den fortæller blot, at begge var designede til at passe til en menneskehånd.

The differences are what interest me,

Forskellene er, hvad interesserer mig.

because the one on the left was made to a pretty unvarying design

Fordi, den til venstre blev lavet efter et temmelig uvarieret design

for about a million years --

i omkring en million år -

from one-and-a-half million years ago to half a million years ago.

fra 1½ millioner til ½ millioner år siden.

Homo erectus made the same tool

Homo erectus lavede det samme redskab

for 30,000 generations.

i 30.000 generationer.

Of course there were a few changes,

Selvfølgelig var der nogle få forandringer,

but tools changed slower than skeletons in those days.

men redskaber ændrede sig langsommere end skeletter dengang.

There was no progress, no innovation.

Der var intet fremskridt, ingen innovation.

It's an extraordinary phenomenon, but it's true.

Det er et usædvanligt fænomen, men det er rigtigt.

Whereas the object on the right is obsolete after five years.

Derimod er tingen til højre forældet efter fem år.

And there's another difference too,

Og der er endnu en forskel;

which is the object on the left is made from one substance.

tingen til venstre er fremstillet af ét materiale.

The object on the right is made from

Tingen til højre er lavet af

a confection of different substances,

en blanding af forskellige materialer,

from silicon and metal and plastic and so on.

af silikone og metal og plastik osv.

And more than that, it's a confection of different ideas,

Og mere end det, den er en blanding af forskellige idéer,

the idea of plastic, the idea of a laser,

idéeen om plastik, idéen om laser,

the idea of transistors.

idéen om transistorer.

They've all been combined together in this technology.

De er alle blevet kombineret i denne teknologi.

And it's this combination,

Og det er denne kombination,

this cumulative technology, that intrigues me,

denne kumulative teknologi, der fascinerer mig.

because I think it's the secret to understanding

Fordi, jeg tror, den er hemmeligheden bag forståelsen af,

what's happening in the world.

hvad der sker i Verden.

My body's an accumulation of ideas too:

Min krop er også en samling af idéer,

the idea of skin cells, the idea of brain cells, the idea of liver cells.

idéen om hudceller, idéen om hjerneceller, idéen om leverceller.

They've come together.

De er blevet sat sammen.

How does evolution do cumulative, combinatorial things?

Hvordan laver evolutionen kumulative kombinerede ting?

Well, it uses sexual reproduction.

Ja, den bruger seksuel reproduktion.

In an asexual species, if you get two different mutations in different creatures,

Hvis en ikke-seksuel art laver to mutationer i forskellige individer,

a green one and a red one,

en grøn og en rød,

then one has to be better than the other.

så må den ene være bedre end den anden.

One goes extinct for the other to survive.

Den ene overlever på bekostning af den andens uddøen.

But if you have a sexual species,

Men hvis du har en seksuel art,

then it's possible for an individual

så er det muligt for et individ

to inherit both mutations

at arve begge mutationer

from different lineages.

fra forskellige slægter.

So what sex does is it enables the individual

Så det sex gør er, at give individet mulighed for,

to draw upon

at drage fordele af

the genetic innovations of the whole species.

hele artens genetiske innovationer.

It's not confined to its own lineage.

Det er ikke begrænset til sin egen slægt.

What's the process that's having the same effect

Hvilken proces har en tilsvarende effekt

in cultural evolution

i en kulturel evolution,

as sex is having in biological evolution?

som sex har i den biologiske evolution?

And I think the answer is exchange,

Jeg tror, svaret er udveksling,

the habit of exchanging one thing for another.

sædvanen med at bytte en ting for en anden.

It's a unique human feature.

Det er et unikt menneskeligt træk.

No other animal does it.

Ingen andre dyr gør det.

You can teach them in the laboratory to do a little bit of exchange --

I laboratoriet kan man lære dem en lille smule bytteri.

and indeed there's reciprocity in other animals --

Og der er bestemt vekselvirkninger mellem andre dyr.

But the exchange of one object for another never happens.

Men udvekslingen af en ting for en anden sker aldrig.

As Adam Smith said, "No man ever saw a dog

Som Adam Smith sagde: "Ingen har nogensinde set en hund

make a fair exchange of a bone with another dog."

lave en fair bytning af kødben med en anden hund."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

You can have culture without exchange.

Man kan have kultur uden bytteri.

You can have, as it were, asexual culture.

Man kan have aseksuel kultur.

Chimpanzees, killer whales, these kinds of creatures, they have culture.

Chimpanser, dræberhvaler, disse skabninger har kultur.

They teach each other traditions

De lærer hinanden traditioner,

which are handed down from parent to offspring.

der går i arv fra forældre til afkom.

In this case, chimpanzees teaching each other

I dette tilfælde lærer chimpanser hinanden,

how to crack nuts with rocks.

hvordan man knækker nødder med sten.

But the difference is

Men forskellen er,

that these cultures never expand, never grow,

at disse kulturer aldrig udvider sig, aldrig vokser,

never accumulate, never become combinatorial,

aldrig akkumulerer, aldrig bliver kombinatoriske.

and the reason is because

Og grunden er,

there is no sex, as it were,

at der ikke er noget sex,

there is no exchange of ideas.

der er ingen udveksling af idéer.

Chimpanzee troops have different cultures in different troops.

Chimpanseflokke har forskellige kulturer i forskellige flokke.

There's no exchange of ideas between them.

Der er ingen udveksling af idéer mellem dem.

And why does exchange raise living standards?

Hvorfor øger udveksling levestandarden?

Well, the answer came from David Ricardo in 1817.

Ja, svaret kom fra David Ricardo i 1817.

And here is a Stone Age version of his story,

Og her er en stenalderversion af hans historie,

although he told it in terms of trade between countries.

selvom han fortalte den m.h.t. handel mellem lande.

Adam takes four hours to make a spear and three hours to make an axe.

Det tager Adam fire timer at lave et spyd og tre timer at lave en økse.

Oz takes one hour to make a spear and two hours to make an axe.

Det tager Oz en time at lave et spyd og to timer at lave en økse.

So Oz is better at both spears and axes than Adam.

Så Oz er bedre til at lave både spyd og økser end Adam.

He doesn't need Adam.

Han har ikke brug for Adam.

He can make his own spears and axes.

Han kan lave sine egne spyd og økser.

Well no, because if you think about it,

Men egentlig ikke, fordi hvis man tænker over det,

if Oz makes two spears and Adam make two axes,

hvis Oz laver to spyd, og Adam laver to økser,

and then they trade,

og de bytter med hinanden,

then they will each have saved an hour of work.

så har de hver sparet en times arbejde.

And the more they do this, the more true it's going to be,

Og jo mere de gør dette, jo mere rigtigt bliver det.

because the more they do this, the better Adam is going to get at making axes

Fordi, jo mere de gør dette, jo dygtigere bliver Adam til at lave økser,

and the better Oz is going to get at making spears.

og jo bedre bliver Oz til at lave spyd.

So the gains from trade are only going to grow.

Så fordelene ved at bytte kommer kun til at vokse.

And this is one of the beauties of exchange,

Og dette er en af skønhederne ved bytteri,

is it actually creates the momentum

det skaber faktisk den drivende kraft

for more specialization,

til mere specialisering,

which creates the momentum for more exchange and so on.

der skaber den drivende kraft til mere udveksling osv.

Adam and Oz both saved an hour of time.

Adam og Oz sparede begge en times arbejde.

That is prosperity, the saving of time

At spare tid på opfyldelse af ens behov,

in satisfying your needs.

det er velstand.

Ask yourself how long you would have to work

Spørg dig selv hvor længe du skulle arbejde

to provide for yourself

for at tilvejebringe

an hour of reading light this evening to read a book by.

en times lys at læse en bog ved i aften.

If you had to start from scratch, let's say you go out into the countryside.

Hvis du skulle starte fra bunden, lad os sige, du tager ud på landet.

You find a sheep. You kill it. You get the fat out of it.

Du finder et får. Du dræber det. Du tager fedtet fra.

You render it down. You make a candle, etc. etc.

Du afsmelter det. Du laver et lys, osv., osv.

How long is it going to take you? Quite a long time.

Hvor længe vil det tage dig? Ret længe!

How long do you actually have to work

I hvor lang tid skal du egentlig arbejde

to earn an hour of reading light

for at tjene en times læselys,

if you're on the average wage in Britain today?

hvis du tjener en gennemsnitsløn i Storbritannien idag?

And the answer is about half a second.

Og svaret er; ca. et sekund.

Back in 1950,

Tilbage i 1950

you would have had to work for eight seconds on the average wage

skulle du arbejde i otte sekunder til en gennemsnitsløn

to acquire that much light.

for at erhverve dig den mængde lys.

And that's seven and a half seconds of prosperity that you've gained

Og det er 7½ sekunders velstand, du har tjent.

since 1950, as it were,

Siden 1950.

because that's seven and a half seconds in which you can do something else,

Fordi, det er 7½ sekunder, du kan bruge på at lave noget andet.

or you can acquire another good or service.

Eller du kan erhverve dig en anden vare eller service.

And back in 1880,

Og tilbage i 1880

it would have been 15 minutes

ville det have taget 15 minutter

to earn that amount of light on the average wage.

at tjene til den mængde lys på en gennemsnitsløn.

Back in 1800,

Tilbage i år 1800

you'd have had to work six hours

skulle du arbejde i 6 timer

to earn a candle that could burn for an hour.

for at tjene til et lys, der kunne brænde i en time.

In other words, the average person on the average wage

Med andre ord, en gennemsnitsperson med en gennemsnitsløn

could not afford a candle in 1800.

havde ikke råd til et lys i år 1800.

Go back to this image of the axe and the mouse,

Vend tilbage til dette billede af øksen og musen

and ask yourself: "Who made them and for who?"

og spørg dig selv: "Hvem lavede dem og til hvem?"

The stone axe was made by someone for himself.

Stenøksen blev lavet af en eller anden til ham selv.

It was self-sufficiency.

Det var selvforsyning.

We call that poverty these days.

Idag kalder vi det fattigdom.

But the object on the right

Men tingen til højre

was made for me by other people.

blev lavet til mig af andre mennesker.

How many other people?

Hvor mange andre mennesker?

Tens? Hundreds? Thousands?

Ti? Hundreder? Tusinder?

You know, I think it's probably millions.

Ved du hvad, jeg tror, det formentlig er millioner.

Because you've got to include the man who grew the coffee,

For man må medregne manden, der dyrkede kaffen,

which was brewed for the man who was on the oil rig,

der blev brygget til manden på boreplatformen,

who was drilling for oil, which was going to be made into the plastic, etc.

ham, der borede efter olien, der blev lavet til plastik, osv.

They were all working for me,

De arbejdede alle for mig,

to make a mouse for me.

for at fremstille en mus til mig.

And that's the way society works.

Og sådan fungerer samfundet.

That's what we've achieved as a species.

Det er det, vi som art har opnået.

In the old days, if you were rich,

I gamle dage, hvis man var rig,

you literally had people working for you.

havde man bogstavelig talt folk til at arbejde for sig.

That's how you got to be rich; you employed them.

Det var sådan, man blev rig; man hyrede folk.

Louis XIV had a lot of people working for him.

Louis XIV havde mange mennesker til at arbejde for sig.

They made his silly outfits, like this,

De fremstillede hans fjollede tøj, som dette.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

and they did his silly hairstyles, or whatever.

Og de satte hans fjollede frisurer eller noget.

He had 498 people

Han havde 498 folk,

to prepare his dinner every night.

til at tilberede sit måltid hver aften.

But a modern tourist going around the palace of Versailles

Men en moderne turist, der besøger paladset i Versailles

and looking at Louis XIV's pictures,

og ser på Louis XIVs billeder,

he has 498 people doing his dinner tonight too.

har også 498 folk til at tilberede sit aftenmåltid.

They're in bistros and cafes and restaurants

De er i bistroer og caféer og restauranter

and shops all over Paris,

og butikker i hele Paris.

and they're all ready to serve you at an hour's notice with an excellent meal

Og med kort varsel står de alle klar til at servere dig et fremragende måltid,

that's probably got higher quality

der formentlig er af højere kvalitet,

than Louis XIV even had.

end selv Loius XIV fik.

And that's what we've done, because we're all working for each other.

Og det er det, vi har opnået, fordi vi alle arbejder for hinanden.

We're able to draw upon specialization and exchange

Vi kan drage nytte af specialisering og udveksling

to raise each other's living standards.

og dermed øge hinandens levestandarder.

Now, you do get other animals working for each other too.

Nuvel, man ser også andre dyr, der arbejder for hinanden.

Ants are a classic example; workers work for queens and queens work for workers.

Myrer er et klassisk eksempel; arbejdere arbejder for dronninger og dronninger arbejder for arbejdere.

But there's a big difference,

Men der er en stor forskel,

which is that it only happens within the colony.

nemlig at det udelukkende sker indenfor kolonien.

There's no working for each other across the colonies.

De arbejder ikke for hinanden kolonierne imellem.

And the reason for that is because there's a reproductive division of labor.

Og grunden til det er, at avlsarbejdet er opdelt.

That is to say, they specialize with respect to reproduction.

Det vil sige, de specialiserer sig m.h.t. reproduktion.

The queen does it all.

Dronningen står for det hele.

In our species, we don't like doing that.

Indenfor vores art kan vi ikke lide det sådan.

It's the one thing we insist on doing for ourselves, is reproduction.

Dét er det eneste vi insisterer på at gøre selv, vi reproducerer os selv.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Even in England, we don't leave reproduction to the Queen.

Selv i England overlader vi ikke reproduktionen til dronningen.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

So when did this habit start?

Så hvornår begyndte denne vane?

And how long has it been going on? And what does it mean?

Og hvor længe har det stået på? Og hvad betyder det?

Well, I think, probably, the oldest version of this

Ja, jeg tror, at det ældste eksempel

is probably the sexual division of labor.

formentlig er det kønsopdelte arbejde.

But I've got no evidence for that.

Men det har jeg ikke noget bevis for.

It just looks like the first thing we did

Det ser blot ud som om, at det første vi foretog os var,

was work male for female and female for male.

at hanner arbejdede for hunner og hunner arbejdede for hanner.

In all hunter-gatherer societies today,

I alle jagt- og samlersamfund idag,

there's a foraging division of labor

er der arbejdsdeling indenfor anskaffelse af mad,

between, on the whole, hunting males and gathering females.

stort set med hanner, der jager og hunner, der samler.

It isn't always quite that simple,

Det er ikke altid helt så simpelt.

but there's a distinction between

Men der er en skelnen mellem

specialized roles for males and females.

specialiserede roller for mænd og kvinder.

And the beauty of this system

Og skønheden ved dette system er,

is that it benefits both sides.

at det kommer begge parter til gode.

The woman knows

Kvinden ved,

that, in the Hadzas' case here --

som her i Hadzas-stammens tilfælde,

digging roots to share with men in exchange for meat --

at rødder kan graves op og byttes for kød.

she knows that all she has to do to get access to protein

Hun ved, at alt hun skal gøre for at få adgang til proteiner er,

is to dig some extra roots and trade them for meat.

at grave nogle ekstra rødder op og bytte dem for kød.

And she doesn't have to go on an exhausting hunt

Og hun behøver ikke gå på en udmattende jagt

and try and kill a warthog.

for at prøve at nedlægge et vildsvin.

And the man knows that he doesn't have to do any digging

Og manden ved, han ikke behøver at grave

to get roots.

for at få rødder.

All he has to do is make sure that when he kills a warthog

Alt han behøver at sørge for er, at vildsvinet, han dræber,

it's big enough to share some.

er stort nok til at dele.

And so both sides raise each other's standards of living

Og derved øger begge parter hinandens levestandarder

through the sexual division of labor.

gennem den kønsbaserede arbejdsdeling.

When did this happen? We don't know, but it's possible

Hvornår begyndte dette? Vi ved det ikke, men det er muligt,

that Neanderthals didn't do this.

at neandertalerne ikke gjorde det.

They were a highly cooperative species.

De var en yderst samarbejdsvillig art.

They were a highly intelligent species.

De var en yderst intelligent art.

Their brains on average, by the end, were bigger than yours and mine

Hen mod slutningen var deres hjerner i gennemsnit større end din og min

in this room today.

i dette lokale idag.

They were imaginative. They buried their dead.

De var fantasifulde. De begravede deres døde.

They had language, probably,

De havde sandsynligvis sprog,

because we know they had the FOXP2 gene of the same kind as us,

for vi ved, at de havde samme slags FOXP2-gen som os,

which was discovered here in Oxford.

hvilket blev opdaget her i Oxford.

And so it looks like they probably had linguistic skills.

Og det tyder på, at de havde sproglige færdigheder.

They were brilliant people. I'm not dissing the Neanderthals.

De var formidable mennesker. Jeg disser ikke neandertalerne.

But there's no evidence

Men der er intet tegn på

of a sexual division of labor.

en kønsopdeling af arbejdet.

There's no evidence of gathering behavior by females.

Der er intet tegn på samleradfærd hos kvinderne.

It looks like the females were cooperative hunters with the men.

Det ser ud som om, kvinderne samarbejdede med mændene om jagten.

And the other thing there's no evidence for

Og den anden ting, der ikke er tegn på

is exchange between groups,

er bytteri mellem grupper.

because the objects that you find in Neanderthal remains,

For tingene man finder blandt neandertalernes efterladenskaber,

the tools they made,

redskaberne de lavede,

are always made from local materials.

er altid lavet af lokale materialer.

For example, in the Caucasus

For eksempel i Kaukasus

there's a site where you find local Neanderthal tools.

der er et område, hvor man finder lokale neandertalredskaber.

They're always made from local chert.

De er altid fremstillet af lokal flint.

In the same valley there are modern human remains

I den samme dal findes også efterladenskaber fra moderne mennesker

from about the same date, 30,000 years ago,

fra ca. samme tid; 30.000 år siden.

and some of those are from local chert,

Og nogle af disse er af lokal flint,

but more -- but many of them are made

men ydermere er mange af dem lavet

from obsidian from a long way away.

af obsidian fra langt væk.

And when human beings began

Og da mennesker begyndte

moving objects around like this,

at flytte ting på den måde,

it was evidence that they were exchanging between groups.

var det tegn på, at de handlede grupperne imellem.

Trade is 10 times as old as farming.

Handel er ti gange ældre end landbrug.

People forget that. People think of trade as a modern thing.

Det glemmer folk. Folk tænker på handel som en moderne ting.

Exchange between groups has been going on

Bytteri mellem grupper har foregået

for a hundred thousand years.

i 100.000 år.

And the earliest evidence for it crops up

Og de tidligste beviser på det dukker op

somewhere between 80 and 120,000 years ago in Africa,

et sted mellem 80.000 og 120.000 år siden i Afrika,

when you see obsidian and jasper and other things

når man ser obsidian og jaspis og andre ting,

moving long distances in Ethiopia.

der er flyttet over store afstande i Etiopien.

You also see seashells --

Man finder også konkylier,

as discovered by a team here in Oxford --

som et hold her fra Oxford opdagede,

moving 125 miles inland

der er transporteret 200km ind i landet

from the Mediterranean in Algeria.

fra Middelhavet til Algeriet.

And that's evidence that people

Og det er bevis på, at mennesker

have started exchanging between groups.

var begyndt at bytte grupperne imellem.

And that will have led to specialization.

Og det må have leddet til specialisering.

How do you know that long-distance movement

Hvordan ved man, at langdistancetransport

means trade rather than migration?

betyder handel fremfor migration?

Well, you look at modern hunter gatherers like aboriginals,

Ja, man ser på moderne jægersamlere som aboriginere,

who quarried for stone axes at a place called Mount Isa,

der brød sten til økser et sted, der hedder Mt. Isa,

which was a quarry owned by the Kalkadoon tribe.

hvilket er et stenbrud, der ejes af Kalkadoon-stammen.

They traded them with their neighbors

De byttede økserne med naboerne

for things like stingray barbs,

for ting som pilrokker.

and the consequence was that stone axes

Og konsekvensen var, at stenøkser

ended up over a large part of Australia.

endte op i store dele af Australien.

So long-distance movement of tools

Så langdistancetransport af redskaber

is a sign of trade, not migration.

er et tegn på handel, ikke migration.

What happens when you cut people off from exchange,

Hvad sker der, når man afskærer folk fra udveksling,

from the ability to exchange and specialize?

fra muligheden for at udveksle og specialisere sig?

And the answer is that

Og svaret er, at

not only do you slow down technological progress,

ikke alene sinker man deres teknologiske udvikling,

you can actually throw it into reverse.

man kan faktisk få den til at gå baglæns.

An example is Tasmania.

Et eksempel er Tasmanien.

When the sea level rose and Tasmania became an island 10,000 years ago,

Da havniveauet steg og Tasmanien blev en ø for 10.000 år siden,

the people on it not only experienced

oplevede de lokale ikke alene

slower progress than people on the mainland,

en langsommere udvikling, end folk på hovedlandet gjorde,

they actually experienced regress.

de oplevede faktisk tilbagegang.

They gave up the ability to make stone tools

De mistede evnen til at lave benredskaber

and fishing equipment and clothing

og fiskeudstyr og beklædning,

because the population of about 4,000 people

fordi befolkningen på ca. 4.000 mennesker

was simply not large enough

simpelthen ikke var stor nok

to maintain the specialized skills

til at opretholde de specialiserede færdigheder,

necessary to keep the technology they had.

der behøves for at bevare teknologierne, de havde.

It's as if the people in this room were plonked on a desert island.

Det svarer til, at menneskene i dette lokale plumpede ned på en øde ø.

How many of the things in our pockets

Hvor mange af tingene i vore lommer,

could we continue to make after 10,000 years?

ville vi stadig kunne lave om 10.000 år?

It didn't happen in Tierra del Fuego --

Det skete ikke i Tierra del Fuego -

similar island, similar people.

lignende ø, lignende folk.

The reason: because Tierra del Fuego

Grunden er, at Tierra del Fuego

is separated from South America by a much narrower straight,

er adskilt fra Sydamerika af et meget smallere stræde.

and there was trading contact across that straight

Og der var handelskontakter på tværs af strædet

throughout 10,000 years.

gennem 10.000 år.

The Tasmanians were isolated.

Tasmanierne var isolerede.

Go back to this image again

Vend igen tilbage til dette billede

and ask yourself, not only who made it and for who,

og spørg dig selv, ikke blot hvem der lavede den til hvem,

but who knew how to make it.

men hvem vidste, hvordan man laver den.

In the case of the stone axe, the man who made it knew how to make it.

I stenøksens tilfælde vidste manden, der lavede den, hvordan den laves.

But who knows how to make a computer mouse?

Men hvem ved, hvordan man laver en computermus?

Nobody, literally nobody.

Ingen, bogstavelig talt ingen!

There is nobody on the planet who knows how to make a computer mouse.

Der er ingen på planeten, der ved, hvordan man laver en computermus.

I mean this quite seriously.

Det mener jeg ret alvorligt.

The president of the computer mouse company doesn't know.

Direktøren for computermusfirmaet ved det ikke.

He just knows how to run a company.

Han ved bare, hvordan man leder et firma.

The person on the assembly line doesn't know

Personen ved samlebåndet ved det ikke,

because he doesn't know how to drill an oil well

for han ved ikke, hvordan man borer en oliebrønd

to get oil out to make plastic, and so on.

og får olie op, så man kan lave plastik osv.

We all know little bits, but none of us knows the whole.

Vi ved alle mindre dele, men ingen af os ved det hele.

I am of course quoting from a famous essay

Jeg citerer selvfølgelig fra et berømt essay

by Leonard Read, the economist in the 1950s,

af økonomen Leonard Reed fra 1950erne

called "I, Pencil"

med titlen "Jeg, en Blyant",

in which he wrote about how a pencil came to be made,

i hvilken han skriver om, hvordan en blyant blev fremstillet,

and how nobody knows even how to make a pencil,

og om hvordan ingen ved, hvordan man fremstiller en blyant,

because the people who assemble it don't know how to mine graphite,

fordi folkene, der samler den, ikke ved, hvordan man udvinder grafit.

and they don't know how to fell trees and that kind of thing.

Og de ved ikke, hvordan man fælder træer og den slags ting.

And what we've done in human society,

Og hvad vi har opnået i det menneskelige samfund,

through exchange and specialization,

gennem udveksling og specialisering

is we've created

er, at vi har skabt

the ability to do things that we don't even understand.

evnen til at lave ting, vi ikke selv forstår.

It's not the same with language.

Det er ikke det samme som sprog.

With language we have to transfer ideas

Med sprog overfører vi idéer,

that we understand with each other.

som vi forstår sammen.

But with technology,

Men med teknologi

we can actually do things that are beyond our capabilities.

kan vi faktisk lave ting, der ligger hinsides vore evner.

We've gone beyond the capacity of the human mind

Vi er rejst hinsides den menneskelige hjernes evner

to an extraordinary degree.

i en ekstraordinær grad.

And by the way,

Og i øvrigt,

that's one of the reasons that I'm not interested

det er en af grundene til, at jeg ikke er interesseret

in the debate about I.Q.,

i I.Q.-debatten,

about whether some groups have higher I.Q.s than other groups.

om nogle grupper har højere I.Q. end andre grupper,

It's completely irrelevant.

det er fuldstændig irrelevant.

What's relevant to a society

Det, der er relevant for samfundet,

is how well people are communicating their ideas,

er, hvor godt folk kommunikerer sine idéer

and how well they're cooperating,

og hvor godt, de samarbejder,

not how clever the individuals are.

ikke hvor kloge individerne er.

So we've created something called the collective brain.

Så vi har skabt noget, der hedder den kollektive hjerne.

We're just the nodes in the network.

Vi er blot knobene i nettet.

We're the neurons in this brain.

Vi er neuronerne i denne hjerne.

It's the interchange of ideas,

Det er udvekslingen af idéer,

the meeting and mating of ideas between them,

mødet mellem og parringen af idéer,

that is causing technological progress,

der fremkalder den teknologiske udvikling,

incrementally, bit by bit.

gradvist, lidt efter lidt.

However, bad things happen.

Imidlertid sker der også dårlige ting.

And in the future, as we go forward,

Og i fremtiden, som vi bevæger os fremefter,

we will, of course, experience terrible things.

vil vi, selvfølgelig, opleve frygtelige ting.

There will be wars; there will be depressions;

Der vil komme krige, der vil komme krisetider,

there will be natural disasters.

der vil komme naturkatastrofer.

Awful things will happen in this century, I'm absolutely sure.

Rædselsfulde ting vil ske i dette århundrede, det er jeg helt sikker på.

But I'm also sure that, because of the connections people are making,

Men jeg er også sikker, grundet forbindelserne folk laver

and the ability of ideas

og idéers evner

to meet and to mate

til at mødes og parres

as never before,

som aldrig før.

I'm also sure

Jeg er også sikker på,

that technology will advance,

at teknologi vil gøre fremskridt

and therefore living standards will advance.

og at levestandarder derfor vil øges.

Because through the cloud,

For gennem skyen,

through crowd sourcing,

gennem udbud til mængderne,

through the bottom-up world that we've created,

gennem denne Verden, der står på hovedet og som vi har skabt,

where not just the elites but everybody

hvor ikke blot eliten, men alle

is able to have their ideas

er i stand til at have sine idéer

and make them meet and mate,

og få dem til at mødes og parres,

we are surely accelerating the rate of innovation.

her accelererer vi med sikkerhed innovationshastigheden.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)