Why societies collapse | Jared Diamond

Prevoditelj: Senzos Osijek Recezent: Katarina Smetko

I think all of us have been interested, at one time or another,

Mislim da smo svi u jednom trenutku bili zainteresirani

in the romantic mysteries of all those societies that collapsed,

za romantične misterije svih onih društava koja su propala,

such as the classic Maya in the Yucatan, the Easter Islanders,

poput klasičnih Maya s Yucatána, stanovnika Uskršnjih otoka,

the Anasazi, Fertile Crescent society, Angor Wat, Great Zimbabwe

Anasazija, civilizacija Plodnog polumjeseca, Angkor Wata

and so on. And within the last decade or two,

Velikog Zimbabvea, itd. Tijekom posljednjih 10-20 godina,

archaeologists have shown us that there were environmental problems

arheolozi su nam pokazali da su prirodni čimbenici

underlying many of these past collapses.

uzrokovali mnoge od tih kolapsa u prošlosti.

But there were also plenty of places in the world

No, bilo je isto tako mnogo mjesta u svijetu

where societies have been developing for thousands of years

gdje se društva razvijaju tisućama godina

without any sign of a major collapse,

bez ikakvih naznaka većeg kolapsa,

such as Japan, Java, Tonga and Tikopea. So evidently, societies

kao što su Japan, Java, Tonga i Tikopia. Društva su, dakle,

in some areas are more fragile than in other areas.

u nekim područjima osjetljivija nego u drugima.

How can we understand what makes some societies more fragile

Kako možemo razumjeti što neka društva čini osjetljivijima

than other societies? The problem is obviously relevant

od drugih? Taj je problem očito važan

to our situation today, because today as well, there are

za našu današnju situaciju jer i danas postoje

some societies that have already collapsed, such as Somalia

društva koja su već propala, kao što su

and Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. There are also

Somalija i Ruanda te nekadašnja Jugoslavija.

societies today that may be close to collapse, such as Nepal, Indonesia and Columbia.

Danas postoje i društva koja su možda blizu kolapsa, npr. Nepal, Indonezija i Kolumbija.

What about ourselves?

A što je s nama (SAD)?

What is there that we can learn from the past that would help us avoid

Što možemo naučiti iz prošlosti kako bismo izbjegli

declining or collapsing in the way that so many past societies have?

opadanje ili propast na način na koji su to iskusila mnoga društva u prošlosti?

Obviously the answer to this question is not going

Odgovor na ovo pitanje očito neće biti

to be a single factor. If anyone tells you that there is a single-factor

samo jedan čimbenik. Ako vam netko kaže da samo jedan čimbenik

explanation for societal collapses, you know right away

objašnjava društvene kolapse, odmah znate

that they're an idiot. This is a complex subject.

da je budala. To je složena tema.

But how can we make sense out of the complexities of this subject?

No, kako da razjasnimo složenosti ove teme?

In analyzing societal collapses, I've arrived at a

Analizom propadanja društava, naišao sam na

five-point framework -- a checklist of things that I go through

shemu s pet točaka -- lista stvari kroz koje prođem

to try and understand collapses. And I'll illustrate that five-point

kako bih razumio kolapse. Pokazat ću vam tu shemu s pet točaka

framework by the extinction of the Greenland Norse society.

na primjeru izumrlog grenlandskog nordijskog društva.

This is a European society with literate records,

To je evidentirano pismeno europsko društvo,

so we know a good deal about the people and their motivation.

tako da znamo dosta o njima i njihovoj motivaciji.

In AD 984 Vikings went out to Greenland, settled Greenland,

984. godine Vikinzi su otišli na Grenland i ondje se nastanili,

and around 1450 they died out -- the society collapsed,

a oko 1450. su izumrli – društvo je propalo

and every one of them ended up dead.

te su svi pomrli.

Why did they all end up dead? Well, in my five-point framework,

Zašto su umrli? Prema mojoj shemi od pet točaka,

the first item on the framework is to look for human impacts

prva točka je ljudski utjecaj

on the environment: people inadvertently destroying the resource

na okoliš: ljudi nesvjesno uništavaju prirodne izvore

base on which they depend. And in the case of the Viking Norse,

o kojima ovise. A u slučaju vikinških Nordijaca,

the Vikings inadvertently caused soil erosion and deforestation,

Vikinzi su nenamjerno uzrokovali eroziju tla i deforestaciju,

which was a particular problem for them because

što je za njih predstavljalo značajan problem jer im je

they required forests to make charcoal, to make iron.

šuma bila nužna za pravljenje drvenog ugljena i željeza.

So they ended up an Iron Age European society, virtually

Tako su priveli kraju društvo europskog željeznog doba, praktički

unable to make their own iron. A second item on my checklist is

bez mogućnosti da proizvode željezo. Druga stvar na mojoj listi

climate change. Climate can get warmer or colder or dryer or wetter.

jest promjena klime. Ona može postati toplija ili hladnija, suša ili vlažnija.

In the case of the Vikings -- in Greenland, the climate got colder

U slučaju Vikinga, na Grenlandu je klima postala hladnija

in the late 1300s, and especially in the 1400s. But a cold climate

krajem 14., a pogotovo u 15. stoljeću. No, hladna klima

isn't necessarily fatal, because the Inuit -- the Eskimos inhabiting

nije nužno smrtonosna; Inuiti – Eskimi koji su živjeli

Greenland at the same time -- did better, rather than worse,

na Grenlandu u isto vrijeme – bili su uspješniji

with cold climates. So why didn't the Greenland Norse as well?

u hladnim klimama. Zašto onda nisu i grenlandski Nordijci?

The third thing on my checklist is relations with neighboring

Treća stvar na mojoj listi odnosi su sa susjedima,

friendly societies that may prop up a society. And if that

prijateljskim narodima koji mogu podržati društvo. A ako se ta

friendly support is pulled away, that may make a society

prijateljska podrška povuče, društvo je

more likely to collapse. In the case of the Greenland Norse,

sklonije kolapsu. Grenlandski Nordijci

they had trade with the mother country -- Norway --

trgovali su s matičnom zemljom, Norveškom,

and that trade dwindled: partly because Norway got weaker,

što je propalo dijelom zbog toga što je Norveška oslabila,

partly because of sea ice between Greenland and Norway.

a dijelom zbog morskog leda između Grenlanda i Norveške.

The fourth item on my checklist is relations with hostile societies.

Četvrta točka na mojoj listi odnosi su s neprijateljskim društvima.

In the case of Norse Greenland, the hostiles were the Inuit --

Neprijatelji grenlandskih Nordijaca bili su Inuiti,

the Eskimos sharing Greenland -- with whom the Norse

Eskimi koji su također živjeli na Grenlandu i s kojima su Nordijci

got off to bad relationships. And we know that the Inuit

imali loše odnose. Znamo da su Inuiti

killed the Norse and, probably of greater importance,

ubijali Nordijce i da su vjerojatno, što je još važnije,

may have blocked access to the outer fjords, on which

blokirali im pristup vanjskim fjordovima, u kojima

the Norse depended for seals at a critical time of the year.

su Nordijci lovili tuljane u kritičnim razdobljima godine.

And then finally, the fifth item on my checklist is the political,

I napokon, peta točka na mojoj listi jesu politički,

economic, social and cultural factors in the society that make it

ekonomski, socijalni i kulturološki čimbenici društva koji mu

more or less likely that the society will perceive and solve its

u manjoj ili većoj mjeri omogućavaju da shvati i riješi

environmental problems. In the case of the Greenland Norse,

probleme u okolišu. Kulturološki faktori koji su

cultural factors that made it difficult for them

grenlandskim Nordijcima otežali

to solve their problems were: their commitments to a

rješavanje problema bili su njihova predanost

Christian society investing heavily in cathedrals; their being

kršćanskom društvu koje je mnogo ulagalo u izgradnju katedrala.

a competitive-ranked chiefly society; and their scorn for the Inuit,

To je društvo bilo poglavarsko, kompetitivno rangirano, puno prezira prema Inuitima

from whom they refused to learn. So that's how the five-part

od kojih su odbijali išta naučiti. Dakle, tako shema

framework is relevant to the collapse and eventual extinction of the Greenland Norse.

od pet točaka prikazuje kolaps i konačno izumiranje grenlandskih Nordijaca.

What about a society today?

A što je s današnjim društvom?

For the past five years, I've been taking my wife and kids to

Posljednih pet godina vodim suprugu i djecu

Southwestern Montana, where I worked as a teenager

u jugozapadnu Montanu gdje sam kao mladić radio

on the hay harvest. And Montana, at first sight, seems

na žetvi. Montana na prvi pogled izgleda

like the most pristine environment in the United States.

kao najčišća, netaknuta sredina u SAD-u.

But scratch the surface, and Montana suffers from serious problems.

No, ispod površine, Montana ima ozbiljnih problema.

Going through the same checklist: human environmental impacts?

Ako krenemo mojom listom: ljudski utjecaj na okoliš?

Yes, acute in Montana. Toxic problems from mine waste

Da, on je jak u Montani. Problemi toksičnosti iz rudarskog otpada

have caused damage of billions of dollars.

izazvali su štetu vrijednu milijarde dolara.

Problems from weeds, weed control, cost Montana nearly

Problemi s korovom i njegovim uništavanjem koštaju Montanu

200 million dollars a year. Montana has lost agricultural areas

gotovo 200 milijuna dolara godišnje. Montana je izgubila poljoprivredna područja

from salinization, problems of forest management,

zbog salinizacije, problema upravljanja šumama,

problems of forest fires. Second item on my checklist:

i šumskih požara. Druga stvar na mojoj listi –

climate change. Yes -- the climate in Montana is getting warmer

promjena klime. Da, klima u Montani postaje toplija

and drier, but Montana agriculture depends especially on irrigation

i suša, ali poljoprivreda u Montani posebno ovisi o navodnjavanju

from the snow pack, and as the snow is melting -- for example,

iz snježnog pokrivača, a kako se snijeg topi, primjerice,

as the glaciers in Glacier National Park are disappearing --

kako glečeri u Nacionalnom parku Glacier (SAD) nestaju.

that's bad news for Montana irrigation agriculture.

to je loše za navodnjavanje polja u Montani.

Third thing on my checklist: relations with friendlies

Treća stvar na mojoj listi: odnosi s prijateljima

that can sustain the society. In Montana today, more than half of

koji mogu održati društvo. Danas se više od polovine prihoda

the income of Montana is not earned within Montana,

Montane ne zarađuje u samoj državi,

but is derived from out of state: transfer payments from

već dolazi izvana: prijenos uplata iz socijalnog,

social security, investments and so on --

iz raznih ulaganja i slično,

which makes Montana vulnerable to the rest of the United States.

zbog čega je Montana osjetljiva u odnosu na ostatak SAD-a.

Fourth: relations with hostiles. Montanans have the same problems

Četvrto: odnosi s neprijateljima. Stanovnici Montane imaju iste probleme

as do all Americans, in being sensitive to problems

kao i svi Amerikanci, a to je da su osjetljivi na probleme

created by hostiles overseas affecting our oil supplies,

koje uzrokuju neprijatelji iz drugih zemalja, što utječe na naše zalihe nafte,

and terrorist attacks. And finally, last item on my checklist:

kao i na terorističke napade. I konačno, posljednja stavka na listi:

question of how political, economic, social, cultural attitudes

utjecaj političkih, ekonomskih, društvenih i kulturoloških stavova.

play into this. Montanans have long-held values, which today

Stanovnici Montane imaju tradicionalne vrijednosti, koje im danas

seem to be getting in the way of their solving their own problems.

čini se, stoje na putu rješavanju problema.

Long-held devotion to logging and to mines and to agriculture,

Dugogodišnja vjernost šumarstvu, rudarstvu i poljoprivredi

and to no government regulation; values that worked well

bez ikakve državne regulacije; vrijednosti koje su dobro funkcionirale

in the past, but they don't seem to be working well today.

u prošlosti, ali danas baš i ne funkcioniraju.

So, I'm looking at these issues of collapses

Dakle, ja promatram razloge propasti

for a lot of past societies and for many present societies.

mnogih prošlih, ali i sadašnjih društava.

Are there any general conclusions that arise?

Javljaju li se neki općeniti zaključci?

In a way, just like Tolstoy's statement about every unhappy marriage

Na neki način, kao Tolstojeva tvrdnja da je svaki nesretan brak

being different, every collapsed or endangered society is different --

drugačiji, tako je i svako propalo ili ugroženo društvo drugačije –

they all have different details. But nevertheless, there are certain

svako ima drugačije detalje. Ipak, postoje određene

common threads that emerge from these comparisons

zajedničke stavke koje proizlaze iz ovih usporedbi

of past societies that did or did not collapse

prošlih društava koja jesu ili nisu propala

and threatened societies today. One interesting common thread

i današnjih ugroženih društava. Jedna zanimljiva zajednička stvar

has to do with, in many cases, the rapidity of collapse

ima veze s, u mnogim slučajevima, brzinom propasti

after a society reaches its peak. There are many societies

nakon što društvo dostigne vrhunac. Postoje mnoga društva

that don't wind down gradually, but they build up -- get richer

koja ne propadaju postupno, već se izgrađuju, obogaćuju,

and more powerful -- and then within a short time, within a few decades

postaju moćnija, a onda za kratko vrijeme - nekoliko desetljeća

after their peak, they collapse. For example,

nakon vrhunca – kolabiraju. Na primjer,

the classic lowland Maya of the Yucatan began to collapse in the

klasični nizinski Maye s Yucatána počeli su propadati

early 800s -- literally a few decades after the Maya were building

početkom 9. st., doslovno nekoliko desetljeća nakon što su izgradili

their biggest monuments, and Maya population was greatest.

svoje najveće spomenike i kad im je populacija bila najveća.

Or again, the collapse of the Soviet Union took place

Ili pak, kolaps Sovjetskog Saveza dogodio se

within a couple of decades, maybe within a decade, of the time

samo nekoliko desetljeća, možda samo jedno desetljeće, nakon vremena

when the Soviet Union was at its greatest power.

kad je Sovjetski Savez bio na vrhuncu svoje snage.

An analogue would be the growth of bacteria in a petri dish.

Analogija tome bilo bi uzgajanje bakterija u Petrijevoj zdjelici.

These rapid collapses are especially likely where there's

Ove brze propasti posebno su vjerojatne ondje gdje postoji

a mismatch between available resources and resource consumption,

neusklađenost između dostupnih resursa i njihove potrošnje,

or a mismatch between economic outlays and economic potential.

ili neusklađenost između ekonomskih planova i ekonomskog potencijala.

In a petri dish, bacteria grow. Say they double every generation,

Bakterije rastu u Petrijevoj zdjelici. Udvostručuju se u svakoj generaciji

and five generations before the end the petri dish is 15/16ths empty,

i pet generacija prije kraja 15/16 Petrijeve zdjelice je prazno,

and then the next generation's 3/4ths empty, and the next generation

a onda je u sljedećoj generaciji ¾ prazno, a u sljedećoj

half empty. Within one generation after the petri dish still

je poluprazna. Potrebna je jedna generacija da zdjelica

being half empty, it is full. There's no more food and the bacteria have collapsed.

nakon što je poluprazna bude puna. Nema više hrane i bakterije propadaju.

So, this is a frequent theme:

Dakle, to je učestala pojava –

societies collapse very soon after reaching their peak in power.

društva propadaju ubrzo nakon dostignuća vrhunca moći.

What it means to put it mathematically is that, if you're concerned

Ako to postavimo matematički, proizlazi da, ako ste zabrinuti

about a society today, you should be looking not at the value

za društvo danas, ne biste trebali gledati vrijednost

of the mathematical function -- the wealth itself -- but you should

matematičke funkcije, odnosno samo bogatstvo, već biste trebali

be looking at the first derivative and the second derivatives

gledati prve i druge derivacije

of the function. That's one general theme. A second general theme

te funkcije. To je opće pravilo. Drugo opće pravilo

is that there are many, often subtle environmental factors that make

jest da postoji mnogo suptilnih faktora u okolišu

some societies more fragile than others. Many of those factors

koji neka društva čine osjetljivijima od drugih, a mnoge od tih faktora

are not well understood. For example, why is it that in the Pacific,

ne razumijemo u potpunosti. Na primjer, zašto su na Pacifiku,

of those hundreds of Pacific islands, why did Easter Island end up as

od stotina otoka, baš Uskršnji otoci postali

the most devastating case of complete deforestation?

slučajem najgoreg i potpunog raskrčenja šume?

It turns out that there were about nine different environmental

Ispostavilo se da je postojalo devet različitih faktora

factors -- some, rather subtle ones -- that were working against

okoliša, nekih suptilnih, a nekih koji su radili protiv

the Easter Islanders, and they involve fallout of volcanic tephra,

stanovnika otoka, kao što su na primjer posljedice vulkanske prašine,

latitude, rainfall. Perhaps the most subtle of them

geografska širina, padaline. Možda je najsuptilnije među njima

is that it turns out that a major input of nutrients

to što se ispostavilo da najveći doprinos hranjivih tvari

which protects island environments in the Pacific is from

koje štite okoliš na otocima u Pacifiku potječe

the fallout of continental dust from central Asia.

iz slegnute kontinentalne prašine iz središnje Azije.

Easter, of all Pacific islands, has the least input of dust

Od svih pacifičkih otoka, Uskršnji ima najmanje slegnute

from Asia restoring the fertility of its soils. But that's

azijske prašine koja obnavlja plodnost zemljišta. No,

a factor that we didn't even appreciate until 1999.

to je faktor koji nismo ni poznavali do 1999. godine.

So, some societies, for subtle environmental reasons,

Dakle, neka su društva zbog suptilnih prirodnih faktora

are more fragile than others. And then finally,

osjetljivija od drugih. Konačno,

another generalization. I'm now teaching a course

još jedna generalizacija. Trenutno predajem predmet

at UCLA, to UCLA undergraduates, on these collapses

na Kalifornijskom sveučilištu u Los Angelesu, preddiplomcima,

of societies. What really bugs my UCLA undergraduate students is,

o propastima društava. Ono što moje studente stvarno muči jest

how on earth did these societies not see what they were doing?

kako to da ta društva nisu vidjela što rade?

How could the Easter Islanders have deforested their environment?

Kako su stanovnici Ukršnjih otoka mogli posjeći cijelu šumu?

What did they say when they were cutting down the last palm tree?

Što su rekli kad su sjekli posljednju palmu?

Didn't they see what they were doing? How could societies

Zar nisu vidjeli što rade? Kako to da društva nisu primjećivala

not perceive their impacts on the environments and stop in time?

svoj utjecaj na okoliš i zaustavila ga na vrijeme?

And I would expect that, if our human civilization carries on,

Pretpostavljam da, ako naša ljudska civilizacija nastavi postojati,

then maybe in the next century people will be asking,

onda će se možda u sljedećem stoljeću ljudi pitati

why on earth did these people today in the year 2003 not see

zašto zaboga ovi ljudi, 2003. godine, nisu vidjeli

the obvious things that they were doing and take corrective action?

očite stvari koje su radili i zašto nisu nešto poduzeli?

It seems incredible in the past. In the future, it'll seem

Izgleda nevjerojatno kad se radi o prošlosti. U budućnosti izgleda

incredible what we are doing today. And so I've been

nevjerojatno to što danas radimo. Pokušavam

trying to develop a hierarchical set of considerations

razviti hijerarhijski skup razloga

about why societies fail to solve their problems --

zbog kojih društva ne uspijevaju riješiti svoje probleme.

why they fail to perceive the problems or, if they perceive them,

Zašto ne uspiju uvidjeti probleme, ili ako ih uvide,

why they fail to tackle them. Or, if they tackle them,

zašto se ne uspiju suočiti s njima? Ili, ako uspiju sa suočavanjem,

why do they fail to succeed in solving them?

zašto ih ne uspiju riješiti?

I'll just mention two generalizations in this area.

Spomenut ću dvije generalizacije u ovom području.

One blueprint for trouble, making collapse likely,

Jedna shema nevolje koja svakako predviđa kolaps

is where there is a conflict of interest between the short-term

jest sukob kratkotrajnih interesa one manjine

interest of the decision-making elites and the long-term

koja odlučuje i dugoročnih interesa

interest of the society as a whole, especially if the elites

društva kao cjeline, posebno ako je elita

are able to insulate themselves from the consequences

u mogućnosti izolirati se od posljedica

of their actions. Where what's good in the short run for the elite

svojih djela. Ono što je kratkoročno dobro za manjinu,

is bad for the society as a whole, there's a real risk of the elite

dugoročno je loše za društvo u cjelini. Postoji rizik da elita

doing things that would bring the society down in the long run.

radi ono što će dugoročno oštetiti društvo.

For example, among the Greenland Norse --

Na primjer, u kompetitivnom društvu

a competitive rank society -- what the chiefs really wanted

grenlandskih Nordijaca, ono što su poglavice stvarno htjeli

is more followers and more sheep and more resources

jest da imaju više sljedbenika, kao i više ovaca i resursa

to outcompete the neighboring chiefs. And that led the chiefs

da bi prestigli susjedne poglavice. To je navelo poglavice

to do what's called flogging the land: overstocking the land,

da rade ono što nazivamo šibanjem zemlje: njeno preopterećenje

forcing tenant farmers into dependency. And that made

koje je primoralo zemljoradnike na ovisnost. To je

the chiefs powerful in the short run,

poglavice kratkoročno učinilo moćnima,

but led to the society's collapse in the long run.

ali je dovelo do dugoročnog društvenog kolapsa.

Those same issues of conflicts of interest are acute

Isti ti sukobi interesa snažni su

in the United States today. Especially because

u SAD-u danas. Posebno zato

the decision makers in the United States are frequently

što su oni koji u SAD-u donose odluke često

able to insulate themselves from consequences

u mogućnosti izolirati se od posljedica

by living in gated compounds, by drinking bottled water

jer žive u dobro zaštićenim kućama i piju vodu iz boce, itd.

and so on. And within the last couple of years,

U posljednih nekoliko godina,

it's been obvious that the elite in the business world

očito je da elita poslovnog svijeta

correctly perceive that they can advance

ispravno shvaća da može poboljšati

their short-term interest by doing things that are

svoje kratkoročne interese čineći stvari koje su

good for them but bad for society as a whole,

dobre za njih, ali loše za društvo kao cjelinu,

such as draining a few billion dollars out of Enron

kao što su, na primjer, iscrpili nekoliko milijardi dolara iz Enrona

and other businesses. They are quite correct

i ostalih tvrtki. Oni su u pravu

that these things are good for them in the short term,

da su te stvari kratkoročno dobre za njih,

although bad for society in the long term.

iako su dugoročno loše za društvo.

So, that's one general conclusion about why societies

Dakle, to je jedan općenit zaključak o tome zašto društva

make bad decisions: conflicts of interest.

donose loše odluke: zbog sukoba interesa.

And the other generalization that I want to mention

Druga generalizacija koju želim spomenuti

is that it's particularly hard for a society to make

jest da je za društvo posebno teško donositi,

quote-unquote good decisions when there is a conflict involving

citiram, dobre odluke kad postoji sukob između

strongly held values that are good in many circumstances

ustaljenih vrijednosti koje su u mnogim okolnostima dobre,

but are poor in other circumstances. For example,

ali su u drugima ipak loše. Na primjer,

the Greenland Norse, in this difficult environment,

grenlandski su Nordijci u tom surovom okolišu

were held together for four-and-a-half centuries

izdržali zajedno četiri i pol stoljeća,

by their shared commitment to religion,

a držala ih je zajednička posvećenost religiji

and by their strong social cohesion. But those two things --

i snažna društvena povezanst. No, te dvije stvari –

commitment to religion and strong social cohesion --

posvećenost religiji i jaka društvena povezanost –

also made it difficult for them to change at the end

također su im otežale da se na kraju promijene

and to learn from the Inuit. Or today -- Australia.

i da nešto nauče od Inuita. Ili danas, u Australiji.

One of the things that enabled Australia to survive

Jedna od stvari koja je Australiji omogućila da preživi

in this remote outpost of European civilization

250 godina u predziđu europske civilizacije

for 250 years has been their British identity.

bio je britanski identitet.

But today, their commitment to a British identity

Ali danas, njihova odanost britanskom identitetu

is serving Australians poorly in their need to adapt

Australcima slabo koristi kad se trebaju prilagoditi

to their situation in Asia. So it's particularly difficult

situaciji u Aziji. Dakle, posebno je teško

to change course when the things that get you in trouble

promijeniti put kad su stvari zbog kojih ste u problemima

are the things that are also the source of your strength.

istovremeno i izvor vaše snage.

What's going to be the outcome today?

Kakav će danas biti ishod?

Well, all of us know the dozen sorts of ticking time bombs

Svima nam je poznato da u suvremenom svijetu

going on in the modern world, time bombs that have fuses

postoje deseci tempiranih bombi. One imaju fitilj dug

of a few decades to -- all of them, not more than 50 years,

nekoliko desetljeća, ne više od 50 godina,

and any one of which can do us in; the time bombs of water,

i svaka nas može uništiti. Tempirane vodene bombe,

of soil, of climate change, invasive species,

zemljane, klimatske, bombe agresivnih vrsta,

the photosynthetic ceiling, population problems, toxics, etc., etc. --

fotosintetskih maksimuma, problema populacije, toksičnosti itd. itd.,

listing about 12 of them. And while these time bombs --

ima ih oko 12. I dok ove tempirane bombe –

none of them has a fuse beyond 50 years, and most of them

nijedna nema fitilj duži od 50 godina, a većina ima

have fuses of a few decades -- some of them, in some places,

fitilj dug nekoliko desetljeća – neke od njih na nekim mjestima

have much shorter fuses. At the rate at which we're going now,

imaju mnogo kraće fitilje. Ako nastavimo ovim tempom,

the Philippines will lose all its accessible loggable forest

Filipini će izgubiti svu šumu pogodnu za sječu

within five years. And the Solomon Islands are only

za pet godina. Solomonski otoci

one year away from losing their loggable forest,

za godinu će dana izgubiti svoje šume,

which is their major export. And that's going to be spectacular

koje predstavlju njihov najveći izvoz. To će biti strahovito

for the economy of the Solomons. People often ask me,

za gospodarstvo Solomonskih otoka. Ljudi me često pitaju:

Jared, what's the most important thing that we need to do

„Jarede, koja je najvažnija stvar koju moramo poduzeti

about the world's environmental problems?

u vezi sa svjetskim problemima okoliša?"

And my answer is, the most important thing we need to do

Moj je odgovor da je najvažnija stvar koju moramo poduzeti

is to forget about there being any single thing that is

to da zaboravimo da postoji bilo koja jedinstvena stvar koja je

the most important thing we need to do.

najvažnija i koju moramo napraviti.

Instead, there are a dozen things, any one of which could do us in.

Umjesto toga, postoje deseci stvari, od kojih bi nas svaka mogla uništiti.

And we've got to get them all right, because if we solve 11,

Moramo ih sve riješiti kako treba – jer ako ih riješimo 11,

we fail to solve the 12th -- we're in trouble. For example,

a ne uspijemo riješiti dvanaestu, u problemima smo. Na primjer,

if we solve our problems of water and soil and population,

ako riješimo probleme vode, zemljišta i populacije,

but don't solve our problems of toxics, then we are in trouble.

ali ne riješimo probleme toksičnosti – u problemima smo.

The fact is that our present course is a non-sustainable course,

Činjenica jest da je naš trenutni put neodrživ,

which means, by definition, that it cannot be maintained.

što po definiciji znači da ne može biti zadržan.

And the outcome is going to get resolved within a few decades.

A ishod će biti riješen za nekoliko desetljeća.

That means that those of us in this room who are less than

To znači da će oni ovdje prisutni koji imaju manje od

50 or 60 years old will see how these paradoxes are resolved,

50 ili 60 godina vidjeti kako će se ovi paradoksi razriješiti,

and those of us who are over the age of 60 may not see

a oni stariji od 60 godina možda neće vidjeti

the resolution, but our children and grandchildren certainly will.

ishod, ali naša djeca i unuci sigurno hoće.

The resolution is going to achieve either of two forms:

Ishod će dostići jedan od dva oblika:

either we will resolve these non-sustainable time-fuses

ili ćemo riješiti neodržive vremenske fitilje

in pleasant ways of our own choice by taking remedial action,

na ugodne načine po vlastitom izboru i korektivnim mjerama,

or else these conflicts are going to get settled

ili će se sukobi riješiti

in unpleasant ways not of our choice -- namely, by war,

na neugodne načine koji neće biti po našem izboru – na primjer ratom,

disease or starvation. But what's for sure is that our

bolestima ili gladovanjem. No, ono što je sigurno jest da će naš

non-sustainable course will get resolved in one way or another

neodrživi put biti riješen na ovaj ili onaj način

in a few decades. In other words, since the theme of this session

za nekoliko desetljeća. Drugim riječima, kako je tema ovog bloka

is choices, we have a choice. Does that mean that we should

izbor – mi imamo izbora. Znači li to da trebamo biti

get pessimistic and overwhelmed? I draw the reverse conclusion.

pesimisti i uznemiravati se? Ja sam došao do suprotnog zaključka.

The big problems facing the world today are not at all

Veliki problemi s kojima smo danas suočeni nisu uopće

things beyond our control. Our biggest threat is not an asteroid

van naše kontrole. Naša najveća prijetnja nije asteroid

about to crash into us, something we can do nothing about.

koji će se zabiti u nas – nešto oko čega ne možemo ništa poduzeti.

Instead, all the major threats facing us today are problems

Umjesto toga, sve današnje velike prijetnje problemi su

entirely of our own making. And since we made the problems,

koje smo potpuno sami stvorili. A kako smo ih mi stvorili,

we can also solve the problems. That then means that it's

sami ih možemo i riješiti. To onda znači da je

entirely in our power to deal with these problems.

rješavanje tih problema u potpunosti u našim rukama.

In particular, what can all of us do? For those of you

Konkretno, što svi mi možemo učiniti? Za one od vas

who are interested in these choices, there are lots of things

koji su zainteresirani za ove izbore – ima mnogo stvari

you can do. There's a lot that we don't understand,

koje možete napraviti. Ima dosta toga što ne razumijemo

and that we need to understand. And there's a lot that

a što moramo razumjeti. A ima i dosta toga što

we already do understand, but aren't doing, and that

već razumijemo, ali ne činimo, a što bismo,

we need to be doing. Thank you.

zapravo, trebali činiti. Hvala vam.

(Applause)

(Pljesak)