Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes

Translator: Fabienne Muggli Reviewer: Niels Justus

Well, this is 2009.

Vi skriver nu 2009

And it's the Bicentenary of Charles Darwin.

Dette er 200-året for Charles Darwin fødselsdag.

And all over the world, eminent evolutionists

Over hele verden er fremtrædende evolotutionister

are anxious to celebrate this.

ivrige efter at fejre dette.

And what they're planning to do is to enlighten us

De vil oplyse os

on almost every aspect

om næsten alt

of Darwin and his life,

omkring Darwin og hans liv

and how he changed our thinking.

og hvordan han ændrede vor tankegang.

I say almost every aspect,

Jeg siger næsten alt,

because there is one aspect of this story

fordi der er eet aspekt ved dette,

which they have thrown no light on.

som de slet ikke har kastet lys over.

And they seem anxious to skirt around it and step over it

De synes ivrige efter at gå udenom eller springe henover det,

and to talk about something else.

og tale om noget andet.

So I'm going to talk about it.

Så det vil jeg nu tale om.

It's the question of, why are we so different from the chimpanzees?

Det er spørgsmålet: Hvorfor vi er så forskellige fra chimpanserne?

We get the geneticists keeping on telling us

Vi har genetikerne, som hele tiden siger

how extremely closely we are related -- hardly any genes of difference,

hvor utrolig tæt vi er beslægtet, der er næsten ingen forskel i generne,

very, very closely related.

meget, meget tæt beslægtet.

And yet, when you look at the phenotypes,

Og så - hvis man kigger på fænotyperne,

there's a chimp, there's a man;

her er en chimpanse, her en mand.

they're astoundingly different,

De er utrolig forskellige.

no resemblance at all.

Ingen ligheder overhovedet.

I'm not talking about airy-fairy stuff

Jeg taler ikke om fantasier

about culture or psychology, or behavior.

eller om kultur eller psykologi eller adfærd.

I'm talking about ground-base, nitty-gritty,

Jeg taler om helt jordnære

measurable physical differences.

målbare fyskiske forskelle.

They, that one,

Den ene er

is hairy and walking on four legs.

pelset og går på fire ben.

That one is a naked biped. Why?

Den anden er nøgen og tobenet. Hvorfor?

I mean --

Altså...

(Laughter)

(latter)

if I'm a good Darwinist, I've got to believe

hvis jeg er en god Darwinist, så er jeg nødt til at tro,

there's a reason for that.

at der er en grund til det.

If we changed so much, something must have happened.

Hvis vi har forandret os så meget, så må der være sket noget.

What happened?

Men hvad skete der?

Now 50 years ago, that was a laughably simple question.

For 50 år siden var det et ret simpelt spørgsmål.

Everybody knew the answer.

Enhver kendte svaret.

They knew what happened.

De vidste, hvad der var sket.

The ancestor of the apes stayed in the trees;

Abernes forfader opholdt sig i træerne.

our ancestors went out onto the plain.

Vore forfædre gik ud i de åbne vidder.

That explained everything.

Det forklarede alt.

We had to get up on our legs to peer over the tall grass,

Vi var nødt til at rejse os op på vore to ben, for at se over det høje græs,

or to chase after animals,

eller for at jage dyr,

or to free our hands for weapons.

eller gøre hænderne frie til våben.

And we got so overheated in the chase

Vi blev så overophedet i jagten,

that we had to take off that fur coat and throw it away.

at vi var nødt til at tage pelsen af og smide den væk.

Everybody knew that, for generations.

I generationer vidste alle det.

But then, in the '90s, something began to unravel.

Men så i 90-erne kom der mere lys over sagen.

The paleontologists themselves looked a bit more closely

Palæontologerne kiggede nærmere

at the accompanying microfauna

på den medfølgende mikrofauna,

that lived in the same time and place as the hominids.

som eksisterede på samme tid og sted som menneskerne.

And they weren't savanna species.

De var ikke savanna-arter.

And they looked at the herbivores. And they weren't savanna herbivores.

De så på planteæderne. Og de var ikke planteædere fra savannaen.

And then they were so clever, they found a way to analyze

De var så kløgtige, at de fandt en måde at analysere

fossilized pollen.

fossil-pollen.

Shock, horror.

Oh rædsel.

The fossilized pollen was not of savanna vegetation.

Dette fossil-pollen kom ikke fra savannaen.

Some of it even came from lianas,

Noget af det kom endda fra lianer,

those things that dangle in the middle of the jungle.

det der hænger inde midt i junglen.

So we're left with a situation where

Så vi havde et problem hvor

we know that our earliest ancestors

vi vidste at vore forfædre

were moving around on four legs in the trees,

bevægede på fire ben oppe i træerne,

before the savanna ecosystem even came into existence.

før savanna-økosystemet overhovedet fandtes.

This is not something I've made up.

Det er ikke noget jeg har fundet på.

It's not a minority theory.

Det er ikke en mindretals-teori.

Everybody agrees with it.

Enhver er enige i det.

Professor Tobias came over from South Africa

Professor Tobias kom hertil fra Sydafrika

and spoke to University College London.

og talte i "University College London".

He said, "Everything I've been telling you for the last 20 years,

Han sagde: "Glem alt hvad jeg har fortalt i de sidste 20 år.

forget about it. It was wrong.

Glem det. Det er forkert.

We've got to go back to square one and start again."

Vi er nødt til at starte helt forfra."

It made him very unpopular. They didn't want to go back to square one.

Det gjorde ham upopulær. De ville ikke starte helt forfra igen.

I mean, it's a terrible thing to happen.

Tro mig: det var forfærdeligt.

You've got this beautiful paradigm.

Man har et dejligt pardigme.

You've believed it through generations.

Man har troet på det i generationer.

Nobody has questioned it.

Ingen har betvivlet det.

You've been constructing fanciful things on top of it,

Man har bygget smukke ting ovenpå det,

relying on it to be as solid as a rock.

i forvisningen om, at det var bundsolidt.

And now it's whipped away from under you.

Og så bliver det revet væk under dig.

What do you do? What does a scientist do in that case?

Hvad gør man så? Hvad gør en forsker i sådan en situation?

Well, we know the answer because

Jo, vi kender svaret fordi

Thomas S. Kuhn

Thomas S. Kuhn

wrote a seminal treatise

skrev en skelsættende afhandling

about this back in 1962.

om det tilbage i 1962.

He said what scientists do

Han sagde, at det en forsker gør,

when a paradigm fails

når et paradigme ikke holder længere, er ...

is, guess what -- they carry on as if nothing had happened.

de fortsætter, som intet var sket.

(Laughter)

(latter)

If they haven't got a paradigm they can't ask the question.

Hvis man ikke har et paradigme, så kan man ikke stille spørgsmålet.

So they say, "Yes it's wrong,

De siger så: "Ja, det er forkert

but supposing it was right ..."

men hvis nu det var rigtigt..."

(Laughter)

(latter)

And the only other option open to them

Den eneste mulighed, der er tilbage

is to stop asking the questions.

er at lade være med at stille spørgsmål.

So that is what they have done now.

Det er hvad de har gjort nu.

That's why you don't hear them talking about it. It's yesterday's question.

Derfor hører man ikke dem tale om det. Det hører gårsdagen til.

Some of them have even elevated it into a principle.

Nogle af dem har endda hævet det op til at være et princip.

It's what we ought to be doing.

Dette er, hvad vi burde gøre.

Aaron Filler from Harvard said,

Aaron Filler fra Harvard sagde:

"Isn't it time we stopped talking about selective pressures?

"Er det ikke på tide at vi hører op med at tale om selektivt tryk?

I mean, why don't we talk about, well, there's chromosomes, and there's genes.

Hvorfor taler vi ikke om... dér er kromosomerne og dér er generne.

And we just record what we see."

Lad os bare notere hvad vi ser."

Charles Darwin must be spinning in his grave!

Charles Darwin må rotere i sin grav!

He knew all about that kind of science.

Han kendte til alt om den slags videnskab.

And he called it hypothesis-free science.

Han kaldte det hypotese-fri videnskab.

And he despised it from the bottom of his heart.

Han foragtede det af hele sit hjerte.

And if you're going to say,

Hvis man vil sige:

"I'm going to stop talking about selective pressures,"

"Jeg vil nu holde op med at tale om selektivt tryk"

you can take "The Origin of Species" and throw it out of the window,

så kan man tage "Arternes Oprindelse" og smide den ud af vinduet,

for it's about nothing else but selective pressures.

for den drejer sig kun om selektivt tryk.

And the irony of it is,

Og det sjove er,

that this is one occasion of a paradigm collapse

at dette var et tilfælde af et paradigme-kollaps,

where we didn't have to wait for a new paradigm to come up.

hvor vi ikke skulle vente på et nyt paradigme.

There was one waiting in the wings.

Der ventede een i kullissen.

It had been waiting there since 1960

Den har ventet siden 1960

when Alister Hardy, a marine biologist,

da Alister Hardy, en havbiolog,

said, "I think what happened,

sagde: "Jeg tror, at det der er sket,

perhaps our ancestors

er, at vore forfædre måske

had a more aquatic existence

- for en tid -

for some of the time."

havde en større tilknytning til vandet."

He kept it to himself for 30 years.

Han holdt det for sig selv i 30 år.

But then the press got hold of it and all hell broke loose.

Men så fik pressen fat i det og helvede brød løs.

All his colleagues said, "This is outrageous.

Alle kollegerne sage: "Det er ude i hampen.

You've exposed us to public ridicule!

Du latterliggør os i offentligheden!

You must never do that again."

Dét gør du ikke igen!"

And at that time, it became set in stone:

Og dengang blev det mejslet i sten:

the aquatic theory should be dumped

Vandabe-teorien bør betragtes

with the UFOs and the yetis,

ligesom UFO'er og Yeti'er,

as part of the lunatic fringe of science.

som noget gak-gak videnskab.

Well I don't think that.

Men det tror jeg ikke det er.

I think that Hardy had a lot going for him.

Jeg tror at Hardy havde fat i noget.

I'd like to talk about just a handful

Jeg vil tale om nogle

of what have been called the

af de ting, som betragtes som

hallmarks of mankind,

særkender for mennesket.

the things that made us different from everybody else,

De ting som gør os forskellige fra alle andre

and all our relatives.

og alle vore slægtninger.

Let's look at our naked skin.

Se på hvor nøgne hud.

It's obvious that most of the things we think about

Det er klart, at de fleste dyr, som vi tænker på,

that have lost their body hair, mammals without body hair,

som har mistet deres kropsbehåring, - pattetdyr uden kropsbehåring -

are aquatic ones, like the dugong, the walrus,

er knyttet til vand. Såsom Dygong'en, Hvalrossen,

the dolphin, the hippopotamus, the manatee.

Delfinen, Flodhesten, Manateren.

And a couple of wallowers-in-mud like the babirusa.

Og nogle mudder-væltende dyr såsom Hjortesvin.

And you're tempted to think, well perhaps,

Man skulle næsten tro, at måske

could that be why we are naked?

er det derfor vi er nøgne?

I suggested it and people said, "No no no.

Jeg foreslog det, men man sagde: "Nej nej nej.

I mean, look at the elephant.

Hvad med elefanten?

You've forgotten all about the elephant haven't you?"

Du har glemt alt om elefanter, ikke også?"

So back in 1982 I said,

I 1982 sagde jeg:

"Well perhaps the elephant had an aquatic ancestor."

"Elefanten har måske en akvatisk forfader."

Peals of merry laughter!

Og de grinede!

"That crazy woman. She's off again. She'll say anything won't she?"

"Det gale kvindemenneske. Hun vrøvler igen."

But by now, everybody agrees that the elephant had an aquatic ancestor.

Men nu er enhver enige om, at elefanten har en akvatisk forfader.

This has come 'round to be that all those naked pachyderms

Nu hedder det, at alle de nøgne tykhudede dyr

have aquatic ancestors.

har en akvatisk forfader.

The last exception was supposed to be the rhinoceros.

Det sidste undtagelse, mente man, var Næsehornet.

Last year in Florida they found extinct ancestor of a rhinoceros

I Florida fandt man sidste år en uddød forfader til Næsehornet

and said, "Seems to have spent most of its time in the water."

og man sagde: "Det synes at den har tilbragt meget tid i vandet."

So this is a close connection between nakedness and water.

Så der er en tæt forbindelse mellem nøgenhed og vandet.

As an absolute connection, it only works one way.

Som en absolut forbindelse, virker det kun i en retning.

You can't say all aquatic animals are naked,

Man kan ikke sige, at alle akvatiske dyr er nøgne,

because look at the sea otter.

for se på havodderen.

But you can say

Men man kan sige

that every animal that has become naked

at ethvert dyr, som er blevet nøgent,

has been conditioned by water, in its own lifetime,

er blevet det af vandet, i dens fortid,

or the lifetime of its ancestors. I think this is significant.

eller i forfædrenes levetid. Jeg mener, at dette er vigtigt.

The only exception is the naked Somalian mole-rat,

Den eneste undtagelse er den somaliske nøgenrotte,

which never puts its nose above the surface of the ground.

som aldrig stikker næsen over jordens overflade.

And take bipedality.

Eller tag to-benet gang.

Here you can't find anybody to compare it with,

Her kan man ikke finde noget at sammenligne det med

because we're the only animal that walks upright on two legs.

for vi er de eneste dyr som går oprejst.

But you can say this: all the apes and all the monkeys

Men man kan sige, at alle aber

are capable of walking on two legs,

er i stand til at gå på to ben,

if they want to, for a short time.

hvis de ønsker det, men kun for en kort tid.

There is only one circumstance in which they

Der er kun een situation, hvor de altid

always, all of them, walk on two legs,

- det gælder alle - går på to ben

and that is when they are wading through water.

og det er, når de vader i vand.

Do you think that's significant?

Tror I at det er vigtigt?

David Attenborough thinks it's significant,

David Attenborough mener der er vigtigt

as the possible beginning of our bipedalism.

som en mulig begyndelse til to-benet gang.

Look at the fat layer.

Se på fedtlaget.

We have got, under our skin, a layer of fat, all over:

Under vor hud har vi et fedtlag over det hele.

nothing in the least like that in any other primate.

Intet ligner dette hos nogen abeart.

Why should it be there?

Hvorfor skulle de have det ?

Well they do know, that if you look at other aquatic mammals,

Man ved, at ser man på andre akvatiske pattedyr,

the fat that in most land mammals

er fedtet i de fleste land-pattedyr

is deposited inside the body wall,

gemt inde i kroppen

around the kidneys and the intestines and so on,

omkring nyrerne og tarmene og sådan

has started to migrate to the outside,

og begyndte at vandre udad

and spread out in a layer inside the skin.

og spredtes i et lag under huden.

In the whale it's complete:

Hos hvalen er det sket fuldstændigt:

no fat inside at all, all in blubber outside.

der er ikke noget fedt inden i den, det hele er spæk under huden.

We cannot avoid the suspicion

Man kan ikke lade være med at tænke,

that in our case it's started to happen.

at det i vores tilfælde allerede er begyndt at ske.

We have got skin lined with this layer.

Vi har dette fedtlag under huden.

It's the only possible explanation of why humans,

Det er den eneste måde at forklare,

if they're very unlucky,

hvorfor mennesker, hvis de er meget uheldige

can become grossly obese,

kan blive voldsomt fede

in a way that would be totally impossible for any other primate, physically impossible.

på en måde, som er fuldstændig umulig for nogen abe - fysisk umuligt.

Something very odd, matter-of-factly, never explained.

Det er noget meget underligt, men sandt og aldrig forklaret.

The question of why we can speak.

Spørgsmålet om hvorfor vi kan tale.

We can speak.

Vi kan tale.

And the gorilla can't speak. Why?

Og gorillaen kan ikke tale - hvorfor ?

Nothing to do with his teeth or his tongue or his lungs or anything like that --

Det har intet at gøre med dens tænder, tunge, lunge eller noget andet.

purely has to do with its conscious control of its breath.

Men har udelukkende noget at gøre med dens bevidste kontrol af vejrtrækningen.

You can't even train a gorilla to say "Ah" on request.

Man kan ikke engang lære en gorilla at sige "Ah" på kommando.

The only creatures that have got conscious control of their breath

De eneste væsener, som har bevidst kontrol af vejrtrækningen

are the diving animals and the diving birds.

er dykkende dyr og dykkende fugle.

It was an absolute precondition for our being able to speak.

Det var en afgørende forudsætning for at være i stand til at tale.

And then again, there is the fact that we are streamlined.

Og en anden ting - den kendsgerning at vi er strømliniede.

Trying to imagine a diver

Prøv at forestille jer en svømmer,

diving into water -- hardly makes a splash.

som dykker ned i vandet, uden noget stort splask.

Try to imagine a gorilla

Forestil jer en gorilla

performing the same maneuver,

som gør det samme.

and you can see that, compared with gorilla,

Man ser, at sammenlignet med gorillaen

we are halfway to being shaped like a fish.

er vi halvt på vej til at være formet som en fisk.

I am trying to suggest that, for 40-odd years,

Jeg vil hævde, at man i omtrent 40 år

this aquatic idea has been miscategorized as lunatic fringe,

har fejlplaceret vandabe-ideen som en gakket ide.

and it is not lunatic fringe.

Men det er ikke en gakket ide.

And the ironic thing about it is that

Og det sjove er,

they are not staving off the aquatic theory

at de ikke udelukker ikke vandabe-teorien

to protect a theory of their own,

for at beskytte deres egen teori

which they've all agreed on, and they love.

som de alle er enige om og holder af.

There is nothing there.

Det er ikke det.

They are staving off the aquatic theory

De udelukker vandabe-teorien

to protect a vacuum.

for at beskytte et vakuum

(Laughter)

(latter)

(Applause)

(applaus)

How do they react when I say these things?

Hvordan reagerer de, når jeg siger sådan noget?

One very common reaction I've heard about 20 times

En meget almindelig reaktion, som jeg har hørt 20 gange er:

is, "But it was investigated.

"Men det er blevet undersøgt.

They conducted a serious investigation of this at the beginning,

Man udførte en seriøs undersøgelse allerede

when Hardy put forward his article."

da Hardy fremkom med sin artikel."

I don't believe it.

Det kan jeg ikke tro.

For 35 years I've been looking for any evidence

I 35 år har jeg ledt efter et bevis

of any incident of that kind,

for dette

and I've concluded that that's one of the urban myths.

og jeg må fastslå, at det er en fritløbende myte.

It's never been done.

Det er aldrig blevet gjort.

I ask people sometimes, and they say,

Jeg spørger ofte nogle, og de svarer:

"I like the aquatic theory!

"Jeg synes godt om vandabe-teorien!

Everybody likes the aquatic theory.

Enhver kan lide vandabe-teorien.

Of course they don't believe it, but they like it."

Naturligvis tror de ikke på det, men de kan lide den."

Well I say, "Why do you think it's rubbish?"

Så spørger jeg: "Hvorfor tror du det er noget vås ?"

They say "Well ...

Så svarer de: "Jah...

everybody I talk to says it's rubbish.

alle jeg har talt med, siger det er noget vås.

And they can't all be wrong, can they?"

Og de kan ikke alle tage fejl, kan de?"

The answer to that, loud and clear, is, "Yes! They can all be wrong."

Svaret til det er et rungende: "Jo! De kan alle tage fejl."

History is strewn with the cases when they've all got it wrong.

Historien er fyldt med tilfælde, hvor de alle tog fejl.

(Applause)

(applaus)

And if you've got a scientific problem like that,

Hvis man har et videnskabeligt problem

you can't solve it by holding a head count,

så kan det ikke løses ved at tælle folk som er for eller imod

and saying, "More of us say yes than say no."

og så sige: "Flere siger ja end nej."

(Laughter)

(latter)

Apart from that, some of the heads count more than others.

Bortset fra det, så tæller nogle mere end andre.

Some of them have come over.

Nogle er kommet hertil.

There was Professor Tobias. He's come over.

Det var professor Tobis. Han kom hertil.

Daniel Dennett, he's come over.

Daniel Dennett kom hertil.

Sir David Attenborough, he's come over.

Sir Dave Attenborough, kom hertil.

Anybody else out there? Come on in.

Er der flere derude?

The water is lovely.

Vandet er rart.

(Applause)

(applaus)

And now we've got to look to the future.

Så nu skal vi se på fremtiden.

Ultimately one of three things is going to happen.

I sidste ende vil een af tre ting ske.

Either they will go on for the next 40 years, 50 years, 60 years.

Enten vil man fortsætte de næste 40, 50, 60 år.

"Yeah well we don't talk about that. Let's talk about something interesting."

"Ja, vi taler ikke om det. Lad os snakke om noget interessant."

That would be very sad.

Det ville være meget trist.

The second thing that could happen

Det andet, som kunne ske

is that some young genius will arrive,

er at et ungt geni kommer på scenen

and say, "I've found it.

og siger: "Jeg har opdaget det.

It was not the savanna, it was not the water, it was this!"

Det var ikke savannaen, det var ikke vandet, det var 'dette'!"

No sign of that happening either.

Der er ikke noget som tyder på, at det sker heller.

I don't think there is a third option.

Jeg tror ikke, at der er en tredie mulighed.

So the third thing that might happen is

Men den tredie mulighed, som kunne ske

a very beautiful thing.

er noget meget smukt.

If you look back at the early years of the last century,

Hvis man ser tilbage på de tidlige år af det forrige århundrede,

there was a stand-off, a lot of bickering and bad feeling

da var der en voldsom diskussion og nag

between the believers in Mendel,

mellem tilhængere af Mendel,

and the believers in Darwin.

og tilhængere af Darwin.

It ended with a new synthesis:

Det endte med en ny syntese:

Darwin's ideas and Mendel's ideas

Darwins tanker og Mendels tanker

blending together.

blandedes.

And I think the same thing will happen here.

Jeg tror, at det samme vil ske her.

You'll get a new synthesis.

Man vil få en syntese.

Hardy's ideas and Darwin's ideas

Hardys og Darwins ideer

will be blended together.

vil blive blandet sammen.

And we can move forward from there,

Så kan vi komme videre derfra

and really get somewhere.

og virkelig opnå noget.

That would be a beautiful thing.

Det ville være dejligt.

It would be very nice for me if it happened soon.

Det ville være skønt for mig, hvis det skete snart.

(Laughter)

(latter)

Because I'm older now than George Burns was when he said,

For jeg er ældre end George Burns var, da han sagde:

"At my age, I don't even buy green bananas."

"I min alder, køber jeg ikke engang grønne bananer."

(Laughter)

(latter)

So if it's going to come and it's going to happen,

Hvis det sker, og det vil ske

what's holding it up?

hvad stopper det så?

I can tell you that in three words.

Jeg kan sige det med tre ord.

Academia says no.

Akademia siger nej.

They decided in 1960,

De afgjorde i 1960:

"That belongs with the UFOs and the yetis."

"Det hører til med UFO'er og Yetier."

And it's not easy to change their minds.

Det er svært at ændre deres opfattelse.

The professional journals

De professionelle journaler

won't touch it with a barge pole.

vil ikke røre det med en ildtang.

The textbooks don't mention it.

Lærebøgerne omtaler den ikke.

The syllabus doesn't mention even the fact that we're naked,

Læseplanen omtaler ikke engang den kendsgerning at vi er nøgne

let alone look for a reason to it.

for ikke at tale om grunden til det.

"Horizon," which takes its cue from the academics,

TV-programmet "Horizon", som følger den akademiske linje

won't touch it with a barge pole.

vil ikke røre det med en ildtang.

So we never hear the case put for it,

Vi har aldrig hørt nogen forsvare det

except in jocular references

med undtagelse af spøgefulde henvisninger

to people on the lunatic fringe.

til gakkede mennesker.

I don't know quite where this diktat comes from.

Jeg ved ikke præcis hvor dette diktat stammer fra.

Somebody up there

Nogen deroppe

is issuing the commandment,

udsteder et bud:

"Thou shalt not believe in the aquatic theory.

"Du må ikke tro på vandabe-teorien.

And if you hope to make progress in this profession,

Og hvis du vil gøre fremskridt i denne profession

and you do believe it, you'd better keep it to yourself,

og du faktisk tror på den, så hold det hellere for dig selv

because it will get in your way."

for det vil blot gøre livet surt for dig."

So I get the impression that some parts

Jeg har det indtryk, at nogle dele af

of the scientific establishment

det videnskabelige opstilling

are morphing into a kind of priesthood.

smelter sig sammen til en slags præsteskab.

But you know, that makes me feel good,

Men jeg skal sige jer, at det gør mig glad

because Richard Dawkins has told us

for Richard Dawkins fortalte os

how to treat a priesthood.

hvordan man skal behandle præsteskab.

(Laughter)

(latter)

He says, "Firstly, you've got to refuse to give it

Han sagde: "For det første, så lad være med at give dem

all the excessive awe and reverence

al den overdrevne ærefrygt og respekt

it's been trained to receive."

som de er vant til at modtage."

Right. I'll go ahead with that.

Så det vil jeg gøre.

And secondly, he says,

For det andet sagde han:

"You must never be afraid to rock the boat."

"Man skal aldrig være bange for at udfordre dem."

I'll go along with that too.

Det vil jeg også gøre.

Thank you very much.

Mange tak.

(Applause)

(applaus)