When ideas have sex | Matt Ridley

Translator: Piret Hion Reviewer: TED Translators admin

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

Kui ma 1970-ndatel siin Oxfordis üliõpilane olin,

the future of the world was bleak.

oli maailma tulevik tume.

The population explosion was unstoppable.

Elanikkonna juurdekasv oli plahvatuslik.

Global famine was inevitable.

Ülemaailmne näljahäda oli vältimatu.

A cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment

Keskkonnas leiduvate kemikaalide tekitatud vähiepideemia

was going to shorten our lives.

oli lühendamas meie eluiga.

The acid rain was falling on the forests.

Meie metsi kastis happevihm.

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

Kõrb tungis peale mitu kilomeetrit aastas.

The oil was running out,

Nafta hakkas otsa lõppema

and a nuclear winter would finish us off.

ja tuumatalv pidi kõigele lõpu peale tegema.

None of those things happened,

Mitte ühtki neist asjadest ei juhtunud.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

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

Hämmastaval kombel juhtus minu eluajal hoopis see,

the average per-capita income

et keskmine sissetulek ühe inimese kohta

of the average person on the planet,

keskmise Maa elaniku jaoks -

in real terms, adjusted for inflation,

reaalne, inflatsiooni arvestav -

has tripled.

on kolmekordistunud.

Lifespan is up by 30 percent in my lifetime.

Eluiga on pikenenud 30%.

Child mortality is down by two-thirds.

Laste suremus on langenud 2/3 võrra.

Per-capita food production

Toidainete tootmine inimese kohta

is up by a third.

on tõusnud kolmandiku võrra.

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

Ning see kõik ajal, kui rahvaarv on kahekordistunud.

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

Kuidas me seda saavutasime, kas see on teie arvates hea või mitte?

How did we achieve that?

Kuidas me seda saavutasime?

How did we become

Kuidas meist sai

the only species

ainus liik,

that becomes more prosperous

mis muutub seda jõukamaks,

as it becomes more populous?

mida rohkearvulisemaks ta saab?

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

Selle laigu suurus graafikul näitab rahvastiku arvu,

and the level of the graph

graafiku tase näitab

represents GDP per capita.

SKT-d inimese kohta.

I think to answer that question

Et sellele küsimusele vastata,

you need to understand

on vaja aru saada,

how human beings bring together their brains

kuidas inimesed ühendavad oma ajud

and enable their ideas to combine and recombine,

ja lubavad oma ideedel ühineda ja taasühineda,

to meet and, indeed, to mate.

kohtuda ja tõesti ühte heita.

In other words, you need to understand

Teisisõnu on vaja aru saada,

how ideas have sex.

kuidas ideed seksivad.

I want you to imagine

Kujutage ette,

how we got from making objects like this

kuidas me liikusime selliste esemete tegemiselt

to making objects like this.

selliste esemete tegemiseni.

These are both real objects.

Need on mõlemad reaalsed esemed.

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

Üks on poole miljoni aasta tagune kivikirves,

of the kind made by Homo erectus.

valmistatud homo erectuse poolt.

The other is obviously a computer mouse.

Teine on muidugi arvutihiir.

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

Nad on mõlemad hämmastavalt sarnased nii suuruselt kui kujult.

I've tried to work out which is bigger,

Ma proovisin aru saada, kumb on suurem -

and it's almost impossible.

see on täiesti võimatu.

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

Põhjus on selles, et mõlemad on loodud kätte sobima.

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

Mõlemad on tehnoloogiad. Nende sarnasus polegi niivõrd huvitav.

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

See näitab vaid, et nad loodi kätte sobima.

The differences are what interest me,

Mind huvitavad hoopis erisused,

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

sest seda vasakpoolset valmistati üsna muutumatul kujul

for about a million years --

umber miljon aastat -

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

ajavahemikus poolteist miljonit aastat tagasi kuni pool miljonit aastat tagasi.

Homo erectus made the same tool

Homo erectus tegi sama tööriista

for 30,000 generations.

30 000 inimpõlve.

Of course there were a few changes,

Loomulikult olid ka mõned muutused,

but tools changed slower than skeletons in those days.

kuid tööriistad muutusid neil aegadel aeglasemalt kui luustikud.

There was no progress, no innovation.

Ei olnud ei progressi, ei innovatsiooni.

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

See on erakordne nähtus, kuid see on tõsi.

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

Parempoolne ese on see-eest viie aasta pärast unustatud.

And there's another difference too,

On veel ka teine erinevus:

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

vasakpoolne ese on tehtud ühes materjalist.

The object on the right is made from

Parempoolne ese on tehtud

a confection of different substances,

väga erinevatest materjalidest:

from silicon and metal and plastic and so on.

silikoonist, metallist, plastikust jne.

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

Lisaks erinevatele materjalidele on see ka erinevate ideede kogum:

the idea of plastic, the idea of a laser,

plastiku idee, laseri idee,

the idea of transistors.

transistorite idee.

They've all been combined together in this technology.

Selles tehnoloogias on nad kõik ühendatud.

And it's this combination,

Just see ühendatus,

this cumulative technology, that intrigues me,

see põnev kumulatiivne tehnoloogia

because I think it's the secret to understanding

on võtmeks arusaamisele sellest,

what's happening in the world.

mis maailmas toimub.

My body's an accumulation of ideas too:

Minu keha on ka ideede kogum:

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

naharakkude idee, ajurakkude idee, maksarakkude idee.

They've come together.

Nad on kokku saanud.

How does evolution do cumulative, combinatorial things?

Kuidas evolutsioon loob ühinenud ja ühendatud asju?

Well, it uses sexual reproduction.

Soolist paljunemist kasutades!

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

Kui vegetatiivsel paljunemisel on erinevatel olenditel kaks erinevat mutatsiooni,

a green one and a red one,

roheline ja punane,

then one has to be better than the other.

siis üks neist peab teisest parem olema.

One goes extinct for the other to survive.

Üks sureb välja, et teine saaks elada.

But if you have a sexual species,

Kuid sugulisel teel paljunemise puhul

then it's possible for an individual

võib üksikolend

to inherit both mutations

pärida mõlemad mutatsioonid

from different lineages.

erinevatelt eellastelt.

So what sex does is it enables the individual

Seks võimaldab üksikolendil

to draw upon

saada osa

the genetic innovations of the whole species.

terve liigi geneetilistest uuendustest.

It's not confined to its own lineage.

See ei piirdu ainult tema oma eellastega.

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

Millisel protsessil on sama mõju

in cultural evolution

kultuurilises evolutsioonis

as sex is having in biological evolution?

nagu seksil on bioloogilises evolutsioonis?

And I think the answer is exchange,

Minu arvates on vastuseks vahetus,

the habit of exchanging one thing for another.

komme vahetada üht asja teise vastu.

It's a unique human feature.

See on ainuomane inimestele.

No other animal does it.

Ükski loomaliik seda ei tee.

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

Laboris võib neid küll natuke vahetama õpetada -

and indeed there's reciprocity in other animals --

vastastikust käitumist on teistel loomadel ka -

But the exchange of one object for another never happens.

kui ühe eseme teise vastu vahetamist ei esine mitte kunagi.

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

Adam Smith ütles: "Keegi pole kunagi näinud

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

koera teise koeraga õiglaselt konti vahetamas."

(Laughter)

(Naer)

You can have culture without exchange.

Kultuur ilma vahetuseta võib eksisteerida.

You can have, as it were, asexual culture.

Seda võib nimetada vegetatiivseks kultuuriks.

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

Šimpansidel, mõõkvaaladel ja sarnastel olenditel on kultuur olemas.

They teach each other traditions

Nad õpetavad üksteisele traditsioone,

which are handed down from parent to offspring.

mida antakse edasi vanemalt järglasele.

In this case, chimpanzees teaching each other

Siin õpetavad šimpansid üksteisele,

how to crack nuts with rocks.

kuidas kiviga pähklikoort purustada.

But the difference is

Kuid erinevus on selles,

that these cultures never expand, never grow,

et need kultuurid kunagi ei laiene, ei kasva,

never accumulate, never become combinatorial,

ei koondu, ei ühendu.

and the reason is because

Põhjuseks on see,

there is no sex, as it were,

et seal ei ole seksi kui sellist,

there is no exchange of ideas.

ei ole ideede vahetust.

Chimpanzee troops have different cultures in different troops.

Šimpansidel on erinevates karjades erinev kultuur.

There's no exchange of ideas between them.

Nende vahel ei toimu ideede vahetust.

And why does exchange raise living standards?

Miks tõstab vahetus elukvaliteeti?

Well, the answer came from David Ricardo in 1817.

Vastuse sellele küsimusele andis David Ricardo 1817.aastal.

And here is a Stone Age version of his story,

Siin on tema loo kiviaja versioon,

although he told it in terms of trade between countries.

kuigi tema rääkis selle riikidevahelise kaubanduse näitel.

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

Adamil läheb neli tundi oda tegemiseks ja kolm tundi kirve tegemiseks.

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

Ozil kulub üks tund oda ja kaks tundi kirve tegemiseks.

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

Seega on Oz Adamist parem nii odade kui kirveste osas.

He doesn't need Adam.

Tal pole Adamit vaja.

He can make his own spears and axes.

Ta saab oma odad ja kirved ise tehtud.

Well no, because if you think about it,

Tegelikult mitte, sest kui järele mõelda,

if Oz makes two spears and Adam make two axes,

kui Oz teeb kaks oda ja Adam kaks kirvest,

and then they trade,

saavad nad vahetuskaupa teha,

then they will each have saved an hour of work.

ja niimoodi mõlemad tunni tööaega kokku hoida.

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

Ja mida rohkem nad seda teevad, seda õigem see on,

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

sest mida rohkem nad seda teevad, seda paremini oskab Adam kirveid teha

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

ja Oz odasid teha.

So the gains from trade are only going to grow.

Seega vahetuskaubast saadav kasu aina kasvab.

And this is one of the beauties of exchange,

See ongi üks vahetamise võlu,

is it actually creates the momentum

et ta tegelikult kiirendab

for more specialization,

spetsialiseerumist,

which creates the momentum for more exchange and so on.

mis omakorda kiirendab vahetust, ja nii edasi.

Adam and Oz both saved an hour of time.

Adam ja Oz hoidsid mõlemad kokku tund aega.

That is prosperity, the saving of time

See on jõukus, aja kokkuhoid

in satisfying your needs.

oma vajaduste rahuldamisel.

Ask yourself how long you would have to work

Küsige endalt, kui kaua te peate töötama,

to provide for yourself

et tagada endale

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

tund aega valgust raamatu lugemiseks täna õhtul?

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

Kui peate nullist alustama, oletame, et lähete maale.

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

Leiate lamba. Tapate selle ära. Võtate rasva välja.

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

Sulatate üles. Teete sellest küünla, jne jne.

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

Kui palju aega selleks kulub? Üsna palju.

How long do you actually have to work

Kui kaua te tegelikult peate töötama,

to earn an hour of reading light

et välja teenida tund aega valgust lugemiseks

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

keskmise Briti palgaga?

And the answer is about half a second.

Vastus on - umbes pool sekundit.

Back in 1950,

1950. aastal

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

oleks teil keskmise palgaga tulnud töötada kaheksa sekundit,

to acquire that much light.

et nii palju valgust saada.

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

Nii olete saanud endale seitse ja pool sekundit jõukust

since 1950, as it were,

1950. aastaga võrreldes,

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

sest selle seitsme ja poole sekundiga saate teha midagi muud,

or you can acquire another good or service.

või osta muud kaupa või teenust.

And back in 1880,

1880. aastal

it would have been 15 minutes

oleks läinud 15 minutit,

to earn that amount of light on the average wage.

et seda hulka valgust teenida keskmise palgaga.

Back in 1800,

1800. aastal

you'd have had to work six hours

oleksite pidanud töötama kuus tundi,

to earn a candle that could burn for an hour.

et osta küünal, mis põleks tund aega.

In other words, the average person on the average wage

Ühesõnaga, keskmine inimene keskmise palgaga

could not afford a candle in 1800.

ei saanud 1800. aastal endale küünalt lubada.

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

Läheme tagasi kivikirve ja arvutihiire juurde

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

ja küsime endalt: "Kes need tegi ja kelle jaoks?"

The stone axe was made by someone for himself.

Kivikirve tegi keegi enda jaoks.

It was self-sufficiency.

See oli toimetulekuks.

We call that poverty these days.

Praegu nimetame seda vaesuseks.

But the object on the right

Aga ese paremal

was made for me by other people.

tehti minu jaoks teiste inimeste poolt.

How many other people?

Kui mitme teise inimese?

Tens? Hundreds? Thousands?

Kümne? Saja? Tuhande?

You know, I think it's probably millions.

Teate, ma arvan, et miljonite.

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

Sest nende hulka peab arvama ka mehe, kes kasvatas kohvi,

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

mida keedeti mehe jaoks naftapuurtornil,

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

kes puuris naftat, millest tehti plastik, jne.

They were all working for me,

Nad kõik töötasid minu heaks,

to make a mouse for me.

tehes mulle arvutihiirt.

And that's the way society works.

Nii just ühiskond töötabki.

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

Just selle oleme liigina saavutanud.

In the old days, if you were rich,

Vanasti olid rikastel

you literally had people working for you.

inimesed, kes nende eest töötasid.

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

Nii saadigi rikkaks, teisi palgates.

Louis XIV had a lot of people working for him.

Louis XIV heaks töötas palju inimesi.

They made his silly outfits, like this,

Nad tegid talle totakaid kostüüme nagu see.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

and they did his silly hairstyles, or whatever.

Nad tegid talle totakaid soenguid, või mis iganes.

He had 498 people

Tal oli 498 inimest,

to prepare his dinner every night.

kes talle igal õhtul õhtusööki tegid.

But a modern tourist going around the palace of Versailles

Kuid ka turistile, kes praegu Versailles ringi käib

and looking at Louis XIV's pictures,

ja Louis XIV pilte vaatab,

he has 498 people doing his dinner tonight too.

teevad 498 inimest täna õhtusööki.

They're in bistros and cafes and restaurants

Nad on bistroodes, kohvikutes, restoranides

and shops all over Paris,

ja poodides üle kogu Pariisi,

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

kõik valmis serveerima hõrgu eine ühe tunni jooksul -

that's probably got higher quality

ilmselt parema kvaliteediga,

than Louis XIV even had.

kui Louis XIV eales sõi.

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

Oleme selleni jõudnud, sest töötame üksteise heaks.

We're able to draw upon specialization and exchange

Me lõikame kasu spetsialiseerumisest ja vahetusest,

to raise each other's living standards.

et tõsta üksteise elatustaset,

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

Ka loomi võib üksteise heaks tööle saada.

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

Sipelgad on klassikaline näide: töölised töötavad emasipelga heaks ja vastupidi.

But there's a big difference,

Kuid erinevus on siiski suur,

which is that it only happens within the colony.

sest see juhtub ainult ühe sipelgate koloonia piires.

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

Kolooniate-vaheliselt nad üksteise heaks ei tööta.

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

Selle põhjuseks on tööjaotus soo jätkamise eesmärgil.

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

Teisisõnu - spetsialiseerumine aitab paljuneda.

The queen does it all.

Emasipelgas teeb kogu paljunemise.

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

Meie liigi puhul see ei sobi.

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

Paljunemises tahame me kindlasti ise osaleda.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

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

Isegi Inglismaal ei jäta me paljunemist kuninganna hooleks.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

So when did this habit start?

Millal see tava siis algas?

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

Kaua see on kestnud? Mida see tähendab?

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

Tõenäoliselt oli kõige vanem variant

is probably the sexual division of labor.

töö jaotumine sugude järgi.

But I've got no evidence for that.

Kuid selle kohta pole tõendeid.

It just looks like the first thing we did

Tundub, et päris alguses töötas

was work male for female and female for male.

isane emase heaks, ja vastupidi.

In all hunter-gatherer societies today,

Nüüdisaegsetes küttide ja korilaste kogukondades

there's a foraging division of labor

on toiduhankimisel tööjaotus

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

küttivate meeste ja korilastest naiste vahel.

It isn't always quite that simple,

Alati see nii lihtsustatud pole,

but there's a distinction between

kuid rollid eristuvad

specialized roles for males and females.

meeste ja naiste vahel.

And the beauty of this system

Selle süsteemi ilu on selles,

is that it benefits both sides.

et see toob kasu mõlemale poolele.

The woman knows

Naine teab,

that, in the Hadzas' case here --

et tema kaevatud juurikad

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

jagatakse meestega liha vastu -

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

ta teab, et proteiini saamiseks

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

peab ta rohkem juurikaid kaevama ja need liha vastu vahetama.

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

Ta ei pea selleks väsitavale jahile minema

and try and kill a warthog.

ega metssiga tapma.

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

Mees teab, et ta ei pea kaevama,

to get roots.

et juurikaid saada.

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

Tema peab vaatama, et jahil tapetud metssiga

it's big enough to share some.

on jagamiseks piisavalt suur.

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

Nii tõstavad mõlemad pooled üksteise elatustaset

through the sexual division of labor.

töö jatotamisega sugude järgi.

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

Millal see juhtus? On tõenäoline,

that Neanderthals didn't do this.

et neandertaallased seda ei teinud.

They were a highly cooperative species.

Nad tegid palju koostööd.

They were a highly intelligent species.

Nad olid väga intelligentne liik.

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

Nende aju oli keskmiselt suurem kui minu või teie oma,

in this room today.

kes me siin ruumis täna oleme.

They were imaginative. They buried their dead.

Neil oli kujutlusvõime. Nad matsid oma surnuid.

They had language, probably,

Tõenäoliselt oli neil oma keel,

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

sest neil oli FOXP2 geen nagu meilgi,

which was discovered here in Oxford.

mis avastati siin Oxfordis.

And so it looks like they probably had linguistic skills.

Niiet ilmselt olid neil keelelised oskused.

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

Nad olid fantastilised. Ma ei halvusta neandertaallasi.

But there's no evidence

Kuid töö jaotusest sugude järgi

of a sexual division of labor.

pole tõendeid.

There's no evidence of gathering behavior by females.

Pole tõendeid, et naised tegelesid korilusega.

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

Paistab, et naised käisid meestega koos jahil.

And the other thing there's no evidence for

Ja tunnistust pole ka selle kohta,

is exchange between groups,

et rühmade vahel oleks vahetust tehtud.

because the objects that you find in Neanderthal remains,

Kõik neandertaali säilmete juurest leitud esemed,

the tools they made,

kõik tööriistad

are always made from local materials.

on alati tehtud kohalikust materjalist.

For example, in the Caucasus

Näiteks Kaukasuses

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

on neandertaali tööriistade leiukoht.

They're always made from local chert.

Nad on alati tehtud kohalikust ränikivist.

In the same valley there are modern human remains

Samas orus on kaasaegse inimese säilmed

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

umbes samast perioodist, 30 000 aastat tagasi,

and some of those are from local chert,

ja mõned neist on kohalikust ränikivist,

but more -- but many of them are made

kuid paljud neist on tehtud

from obsidian from a long way away.

kaugel eemal leiduvast vulkaanilisest klaasist.

And when human beings began

Ja kui inimesed hakkasid

moving objects around like this,

esemeid niimoodi ringi liigutama,

it was evidence that they were exchanging between groups.

vahetasid nad neid kindlasti rühmade vahel.

Trade is 10 times as old as farming.

Kaubandus on 10 korda nii vana kui põllumajandus.

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

Inimesed unustavad selle ära. Nad arvavad, et kaubandus on tänapäevane asi.

Exchange between groups has been going on

Vahetus rühmade vahel on toimunud

for a hundred thousand years.

sada tuhat aastat.

And the earliest evidence for it crops up

Varaseim tõendus sellest

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

on 80 kuni 120 000 aastat tagasi Aafrikast,

when you see obsidian and jasper and other things

kus laavaklaasist ja jaspisest esemed

moving long distances in Ethiopia.

rändasid pikki vahemaid Etioopiasse.

You also see seashells --

Leitud on ka merekarpe -

as discovered by a team here in Oxford --

üks Oxfordi meeskond avastas selle -

moving 125 miles inland

200 kilomeetrit sisemaal

from the Mediterranean in Algeria.

Vahemerest eemal Alžeerias.

And that's evidence that people

See tõendab, et inimesed

have started exchanging between groups.

olid alustanud vahetuskaubandust.

And that will have led to specialization.

See omakorda viis spetsialiseerumiseni.

How do you know that long-distance movement

Kuidas me teame, et see pika vahemaa katmine

means trade rather than migration?

tähendab kaubandust, mitte rändamist?

Well, you look at modern hunter gatherers like aboriginals,

Vaatame seda tänapäeva aborigeenidest küttide-korilaste näitel,

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

kes kivikirveste materjali said Mount Isast,

which was a quarry owned by the Kalkadoon tribe.

Kalkadooni hõimu kaevandusest.

They traded them with their neighbors

Nad vahetasid kivikirveid oma naabritega

for things like stingray barbs,

astelrai ogade vastu,

and the consequence was that stone axes

mille tulemusena neid kivikirveid

ended up over a large part of Australia.

võib leida suures osas Austraaliast.

So long-distance movement of tools

Seega on tööriistade pikad ränded

is a sign of trade, not migration.

kaubanduse, mitte inimeste rände tunnusmärk.

What happens when you cut people off from exchange,

Mis juhtub siis, kui inimestelt esemete vahetamise

from the ability to exchange and specialize?

ja spetsialiseerumise võimalus ära võtta?

And the answer is that

See mitte ainult

not only do you slow down technological progress,

ei aeglusta tehnoloogilist protsessi,

you can actually throw it into reverse.

vaid võib selle lausa tagurpidi käima panna.

An example is Tasmania.

Selle näiteks on Tasmaania.

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

Kui 10 000 aastat tagasi merevee tase tõusis ja Tasmaaniast sai saar,

the people on it not only experienced

kogesid inimesed seal mitte ainult

slower progress than people on the mainland,

aeglasemat arengut kui mandril,

they actually experienced regress.

vaid lausa tagasilangust.

They gave up the ability to make stone tools

Nad ei teinud enam kivist tööriistu,

and fishing equipment and clothing

kalastustarbeid ja riideid,

because the population of about 4,000 people

sest saare 4000 inimesega elanikkond

was simply not large enough

polnud piisavalt suur

to maintain the specialized skills

erioskuste säilitamiseks

necessary to keep the technology they had.

ja tehnoloogiate alleshoidmiseks.

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

See on sama, kui näiteks meie kõik selles ruumis sattume üksikule saarele.

How many of the things in our pockets

Kui mitut asja meie taskutes

could we continue to make after 10,000 years?

suudame me toota 10 000 aasta pärast?

It didn't happen in Tierra del Fuego --

See ei juhtunud aga Tierra del Fuegol -

similar island, similar people.

sarnane saar, sarnased inimesed.

The reason: because Tierra del Fuego

Põhjuseks see, et Tierra del Fuego

is separated from South America by a much narrower straight,

on Lõuna-Ameerika mandrist eraldatud palju kitsama väinaga

and there was trading contact across that straight

ja kaubavahetus üle selle väina

throughout 10,000 years.

kestis kogu 10 000 aasta jooksul.

The Tasmanians were isolated.

Tasmaanlased olid isolatsioonis.

Go back to this image again

Läheme jälle kujutise juurde tagasi

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

ja küsime endalt mitte ainult, kes ja kelle jaoks selle tegi,

but who knew how to make it.

vaid - kes teadis, kuidas seda teha?

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

Kivikirve puhul teadis seda mees, kes selle tegi.

But who knows how to make a computer mouse?

Aga kes teab, kuidas teha arvutihiirt?

Nobody, literally nobody.

Mitte keegi, sõna otseses mõttes.

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

Mitte keegi maailmas ei tea, kuidas teha arvutihiirt.

I mean this quite seriously.

Ma mõtlen seda tõsiselt.

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

Arvutihiirte firma omanik ei tea seda.

He just knows how to run a company.

Tema teab, kuidas firmat juhtida.

The person on the assembly line doesn't know

Liinitööline ei tea seda,

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

sest tema ei tea, kuidas naftat puurida,

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

et saada plastikut, ja nii edasi.

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

Me teame üksikuid osi, kuid keegi ei tea tervikut.

I am of course quoting from a famous essay

Selle näite ma võtsin muidugi

by Leonard Read, the economist in the 1950s,

1950-ndate kuulsa majandusteadlase Leonard Readi

called "I, Pencil"

esseest "Mina, pliiats",

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

kus ta kirjutas, kuidas pliiatsit tehakse

and how nobody knows even how to make a pencil,

ja kuidas keegi ei tea, kuidas pliiatsit teha,

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

sest liinitöölised ei tea, kuidas kaevandada grafiiti,

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

nad ei tea, kuidas langetada puid, ja nii edasi.

And what we've done in human society,

Mida me inimkonnana teinud oleme

through exchange and specialization,

vahetust ja spetsialiseerumist kasutades,

is we've created

on võime teha asju,

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

millest me isegi aru ei saa,

It's not the same with language.

Keelega ei ole sama teema.

With language we have to transfer ideas

Keele abil anname me edasi ideid,

that we understand with each other.

et üksteist mõista.

But with technology,

Kuid tehnoloogia abil

we can actually do things that are beyond our capabilities.

saame me teha asju, mis on meie võimetest suuremad.

We've gone beyond the capacity of the human mind

Me oleme erakordselt suurel määral läinud

to an extraordinary degree.

inimmõistuse piiridest väljaspoole.

And by the way,

See on muide ka põhjus

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

miks mind ei huvita

in the debate about I.Q.,

vaidlus IQ üle,

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

kas mõned rühmal on IQ suurem või väiksem.

It's completely irrelevant.

See on täiesti ebaoluline.

What's relevant to a society

Ühiskonnale on oluline,

is how well people are communicating their ideas,

kui hästi inimesed oma ideid väljendavad

and how well they're cooperating,

ja kui hästi nad koostööd teevad,

not how clever the individuals are.

mitte kui targad üksikisikud on.

So we've created something called the collective brain.

Me oleme loonud niinimetatud kollektiivse aju.

We're just the nodes in the network.

Me oleme ainult võrgustiku sõlmpunktid.

We're the neurons in this brain.

Me oleme selle aju neuronid.

It's the interchange of ideas,

See on ideede vastastikune vahetamine,

the meeting and mating of ideas between them,

ideede kohtumine ja ühteheitmine,

that is causing technological progress,

mis panustab tehnoloogilisse progressi

incrementally, bit by bit.

tükk tüki haaval.

However, bad things happen.

Juhtub ka halbu asju.

And in the future, as we go forward,

Edasi tulevikku minnes

we will, of course, experience terrible things.

elame me üle ka hirmsaid asju.

There will be wars; there will be depressions;

On sõdu, on majanduslangusi,

there will be natural disasters.

on looduskatastroofe.

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

Ka sellel sajandil juhtub koledaid asju, kindel see.

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

Kuid ma olen ka kindel, et inimeste ühendatuse tõttu

and the ability of ideas

ja ideede võime tõttu

to meet and to mate

kohtuda ja ühte heita

as never before,

nagu ei kunagi varem,

I'm also sure

olen ma kindel,

that technology will advance,

et tehnoloogia areneb

and therefore living standards will advance.

ja selle läbi tõuseb ka elatustase.

Because through the cloud,

Sest läbi pilve

through crowd sourcing,

ja pilvetehnoloogiate,

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

läbi meie loodud peapeale pööratud maailma,

where not just the elites but everybody

kus mitte ainult eliit vaid igaüks

is able to have their ideas

saab avaldada oma ideid

and make them meet and mate,

ja panna neid kohtuma ja ühte heitma,

we are surely accelerating the rate of innovation.

kiirendame me kindlasti innovatsiooni toimumist.

Thank you.

Tänan teid.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)