By Hans and Ola Rosling
4,099,294 views • 19:05• Subtitles in 33 languages
About speaker Hans and Ola Rosling
Hans Rosling · Global health expert; data visionary
In Hans Rosling’s hands, data sings. Global trends in health and economics come to vivid life. And the big picture of global development—with some surprisingly good news—snaps into sharp focus.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_ignorant_about_the_world/transcript
00:00
Hans Rosling: I'm going to ask you three multiple choice questions. Use this device. Use this device to answer. The first question is, how did the number of deaths per yearfrom natural disaster, how did that change during the last century? Did it more than double, did it remain about the same in the world as a whole, or did it decrease to less than half? Please answer A, B or C. I see lots of answers. This is much faster than I do it at universities. They are so slow. They keep thinking, thinking, thinking. Oh, very, very good.
00:34
And we go to the next question. So how long did women 30 years old in the world go to school: seven years, five years or three years? A, B or C? Please answer.
00:50
And we go to the next question. In the last 20 years, how did the percentage of people in the world who live in extreme poverty change? Extreme poverty — not having enough food for the day. Did it almost double, did it remain more or less the same, or did it halve? A, B or C?
01:11
Now, answers. You see, deaths from natural disasters in the world, you can see it from this graph here, from 1900 to 2000. In 1900, there was about half a million people who died every year from natural disasters: floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruption, whatever, droughts. And then, how did that change?
01:35
Gapminder asked the public in Sweden. This is how they answered. The Swedish public answered like this: Fifty percent thought it had doubled, 38 percent said it's more or less the same, 12 said it had halved. This is the best data from the disaster researchers, and it goes up and down, and it goes to the Second World War, and after that it starts to fall and it keeps falling and it's down to much less than half. The world has been much, much more capable as the decades go by to protect people from this, you know. So only 12 percent of the Swedes know this.
02:11
So I went to the zoo and I asked the chimps. (Laughter) (Applause) The chimps don't watch the evening news, so the chimps, they choose by random, so the Swedes answer worse than random. Now how did you do? That's you. You were beaten by the chimps. (Laughter) But it was close. You were three times better than the Swedes, but that's not enough. You shouldn't compare yourself to Swedes. You must have higher ambitions in the world.
03:00
Let's look at the next answer here: women in school. Here, you can see men went eight years. How long did women go to school? Well, we asked the Swedes like this, and that gives you a hint, doesn't it? The right answer is probably the one the fewest Swedes picked, isn't it?(Laughter) Let's see, let's see. Here we come. Yes, yes, yes, women have almost caught up. This is the U.S. public. And this is you. Here you come. Ooh. Well, congratulations, you're twice as good as the Swedes, but you don't need me —
03:41
So how come? I think it's like this, that everyone is aware that there are countries and there are areas where girls have great difficulties. They are stopped when they go to school, and it's disgusting. But in the majority of the world,where most people in the world live, most countries, girls today go to school as long as boys, more or less. That doesn't mean that gender equity is achieved, not at all.They still are confined to terrible, terrible limitations, but schooling is there in the world today. Now, we miss the majority. When you answer, you answer according to the worst places, and there you are right, but you miss the majority.
04:26
What about poverty? Well, it's very clear that poverty herewas almost halved, and in U.S., when we asked the public,only five percent got it right. And you? Ah, you almost made it to the chimps. (Laughter) (Applause) That little, just a few of you! There must be preconceived ideas, you know. And many in the rich countries, they think that oh, we can never end extreme poverty. Of course they think so, because they don't even know what has happened.The first thing to think about the future is to know about the present.
05:11
These questions were a few of the first ones in the pilot phase of the Ignorance Project in Gapminder Foundation that we run, and it was started, this project, last year by my boss, and also my son, Ola Rosling. (Laughter) He's cofounder and director, and he wanted, Ola told me we have to be more systematic when we fight devastating ignorance. So already the pilots reveal this, that so many in the public score worse than random, so we have to think about preconceived ideas, and one of the main preconceived ideas is about world income distribution.
05:46
Look here. This is how it was in 1975. It's the number of people on each income, from one dollar a day —(Applause) See, there was one hump here, around one dollar a day, and then there was one hump heresomewhere between 10 and 100 dollars. The world was two groups. It was a camel world, like a camel with two humps, the poor ones and the rich ones, and there were fewer in between.
06:15
But look how this has changed: As I go forward, what has changed, the world population has grown, and the humps start to merge. The lower humps merged with the upper hump, and the camel dies and we have a dromedary worldwith one hump only. The percent in poverty has decreased. Still it's appalling that so many remain in extreme poverty. We still have this group, almost a billion, over there, but that can be ended now.
06:45
The challenge we have now is to get away from that, understand where the majority is, and that is very clearly shown in this question. We asked, what is the percentage of the world's one-year-old children who have got thosebasic vaccines against measles and other things that we have had for many years: 20, 50 or 80 percent? Now, this is what the U.S. public and the Swedish answered. Look at the Swedish result: you know what the right answer is.(Laughter) Who the heck is a professor of global health in that country? Well, it's me. It's me. (Laughter) It's very difficult, this. It's very difficult. (Applause)
07:26
However, Ola's approach to really measure what we know made headlines, and CNN published these results on their web and they had the questions there, millions answered,and I think there were about 2,000 comments, and this was one of the comments. "I bet no member of the media passed the test," he said.
07:48
So Ola told me, "Take these devices. You are invited to media conferences. Give it to them and measure what the media know." And ladies and gentlemen, for the first time, the informal results from a conference with U.S. media.And then, lately, from the European Union media.(Laughter) You see, the problem is not that people don't read and listen to the media. The problem is that the media doesn't know themselves.
08:17
What shall we do about this, Ola? Do we have any ideas?(Applause)
08:32
Ola Rosling: Yes, I have an idea, but first, I'm so sorry that you were beaten by the chimps. Fortunately, I will be able to comfort you by showing why it was not your fault, actually. Then, I will equip you with some tricks for beating the chimps in the future. That's basically what I will do.
08:53
But first, let's look at why are we so ignorant, and it all starts in this place. It's Hudiksvall. It's a city in northern Sweden. It's a neighborhood where I grew up, and it's a neighborhood with a large problem. Actually, it has exactly the same problem which existed in all the neighborhoodswhere you grew up as well. It was not representative. Okay? It gave me a very biased view of how life is on this planet. So this is the first piece of the ignorance puzzle.We have a personal bias.
09:26
We have all different experiences from communities and people we meet, and on top of this, we start school, and we add the next problem. Well, I like schools, but teachers tend to teach outdated worldviews, because they learned something when they went to school, and now they describe this world to the students without any bad intentions, and those books, of course, that are printed are outdated in a world that changes. And there is really no practice to keep the teaching material up to date. So that's what we are focusing on. So we have these outdated factsadded on top of our personal bias.
10:05
What happens next is news, okay? An excellent journalist knows how to pick the story that will make headlines, and people will read it because it's sensational. Unusual events are more interesting, no? And they are exaggerated, and especially things we're afraid of. A shark attack on a Swedish person will get headlines for weeks in Sweden.
10:30
So these three skewed sources of information were really hard to get away from. They kind of bombard us and equip our mind with a lot of strange ideas, and on top of it we put the very thing that makes us humans, our human intuition. It was good in evolution. It helped us generalizeand jump to conclusions very, very fast. It helped us exaggerate what we were afraid of, and we seek causality where there is none, and we then get an illusion of confidence where we believe that we are the best car drivers, above the average. Everybody answered that question, "Yeah, I drive cars better."
11:15
Okay, this was good evolutionarily, but now when it comes to the worldview, it is the exact reason why it's upside down. The trends that are increasing are instead falling,and the other way around, and in this case, the chimps use our intuition against us, and it becomes our weakness instead of our strength. It was supposed to be our strength, wasn't it?
11:37
So how do we solve such problems? First, we need to measure it, and then we need to cure it. So by measuring it we can understand what is the pattern of ignorance. We started the pilot last year, and now we're pretty sure that we will encounter a lot of ignorance across the whole world, and the idea is really to scale it up to all domains or dimensions of global development, such as climate, endangered species, human rights, gender equality, energy, finance. All different sectors have facts, and there are organizations trying to spread awareness about these facts. So I've started actually contacting some of them,like WWF and Amnesty International and UNICEF, and asking them, what are your favorite facts which you think the public doesn't know?
12:28
Okay, I gather those facts. Imagine a long list with, say, 250 facts. And then we poll the public and see where they score worst. So we get a shorter list with the terrible results, like some few examples from Hans, and we have no problem finding these kinds of terrible results. Okay, this little shortlist, what are we going to do with it? Well, we turn it into a knowledge certificate, a global knowledge certificate, which you can use, if you're a large organization, a school, a university, or maybe a news agency, to certify yourself as globally knowledgeable.Basically meaning, we don't hire people who score like chimpanzees. Of course you shouldn't. So maybe 10 years from now, if this project succeeds, you will be sitting in an interview having to fill out this crazy global knowledge.
13:22
So now we come to the practical tricks. How are you going to succeed? There is, of course, one way, which is to sit down late nights and learn all the facts by heart by reading all these reports. That will never happen, actually. Not even Hans thinks that's going to happen. People don't have that time. People like shortcuts, and here are the shortcuts. We need to turn our intuition into strength again. We need to be able to generalize. So now I'm going to show you some tricks where the misconceptions are turned around into rules of thumb.
13:58
Let's start with the first misconception. This is very widespread. Everything is getting worse. You heard it. You thought it yourself. The other way to think is, most things improve. So you're sitting with a question in front of youand you're unsure. You should guess "improve." Okay? Don't go for the worse. That will help you score better on our tests. (Applause) That was the first one.
14:26
There are rich and poor and the gap is increasing. It's a terrible inequality. Yeah, it's an unequal world, but when you look at the data, it's one hump. Okay? If you feel unsure, go for "the most people are in the middle." That's going to help you get the answer right.
14:42
Now, the next preconceived idea is first countries and people need to be very, very rich to get the social development like girls in school and be ready for natural disasters. No, no, no. That's wrong. Look: that huge hump in the middle already have girls in school. So if you are unsure, go for the "the majority already have this," like electricity and girls in school, these kinds of things. They're only rules of thumb, so of course they don't apply to everything, but this is how you can generalize.
15:14
Let's look at the last one. If something, yes, this is a good one, sharks are dangerous. No — well, yes, but they are not so important in the global statistics, that is what I'm saying. I actually, I'm very afraid of sharks. So as soon as I see a question about things I'm afraid of, which might be earthquakes, other religions, maybe I'm afraid of terrorists or sharks, anything that makes me feel, assume you're going to exaggerate the problem. That's a rule of thumb.Of course there are dangerous things that are also great.Sharks kill very, very few. That's how you should think.
15:52
With these four rules of thumb, you could probably answer better than the chimps, because the chimps cannot do this. They cannot generalize these kinds of rules. And hopefully we can turn your world around and we're going to beat the chimps. Okay? (Applause) That's a systematic approach.
16:21
Now the question, is this important? Yeah, it's important to understand poverty, extreme poverty and how to fight it,and how to bring girls in school. When we realize that actually it's succeeding, we can understand it. But is it important for everyone else who cares about the rich end of this scale? I would say yes, extremely important, for the same reason. If you have a fact-based worldview of today,you might have a chance to understand what's coming next in the future.
16:50
We're going back to these two humps in 1975. That's when I was born, and I selected the West. That's the current EU countries and North America. Let's now see how the rest and the West compares in terms of how rich you are. These are the people who can afford to fly abroad with an airplane for a vacation. In 1975, only 30 percent of them lived outside EU and North America. But this has changed, okay? So first, let's look at the change up till today, 2014. Today it's 50/50. The Western domination is over, as of today. That's nice. So what's going to happen next? Do you see the big hump? Did you see how it moved? I did a little experiment. I went to the IMF, International Monetary Fund, website. They have a forecast for the next five years of GDP per capita. So I can use that to go five years into the future, assuming the income inequality of each country is the same. I did that, but I went even further. I used those five years for the next 20 years with the same speed, just as an experiment what might actually happen. Let's move into the future. In 2020, it's 57 percent in the rest. In 2025, 63 percent. 2030, 68. And in 2035, the West is outnumbered in the rich consumer market. These are just projections of GDP per capita into the future. Seventy-three percent of the rich consumers are going to live outside North America and Europe. So yes, I think it's a good idea for a company to use this certificate to make sure to make fact- based decisions in the future.
18:39
Thank you very much. (Applause)
18:48
Bruno Giussani: Hans and Ola Rosling!
00:00
汉斯•罗斯林:我会给你们做 三道多项选择题 用这个装置来回答 第一个问题是 在过去一个世纪里 每年因自然灾害 死亡的人数 发生了怎样的变化 是翻倍了 还是在全世界范围内总体不变 还是下降了一半呢 请选择A B 或C 我已经看到很多人回答了 这比我在大学里做的时候快得多 他们动作很慢 他们一直想啊 想啊 好 很好
00:34
下一个问题 在全世界范围内 30岁的女性的 受教育的年限是 七年 五年还是三年 A B 还是C 请回答
00:50
我们看下一个问题 过去20年里 占世界人口多少百分比的人 生活在极端贫困中? 极端贫困指的是每天填不饱肚子 是几乎翻倍了 还是基本维持不变 还是减半了? A B 或 C
01:11
现在 公布答案 如你所见 全球因自然灾害死亡的人数 你可以从这幅图里看到 从1900年到2000年 1900年 每年有接近50万人 死于自然灾害 洪水 地震 火山喷发 其他 干旱 然后 发生了怎样的变化呢
01:35
Gapminder对瑞典公众进行了调查 他们是这样回答的 瑞典公众的回答是这样的 50%的人认为翻倍了 38%的人认为没太大变化 12%的人认为减半了 对于灾害研究人员来说 这是最理想的数字 然后上下有所浮动 然后到了二战 之后就开始一路下滑 下降至远低于一半 这个世界 相比数十年前而言 在保护人们免受自然灾害方面 的能力已经强了太多 只有12%的瑞典人知道这一点
02:11
所以我去了趟动物园 问了黑猩猩同样的问题 (笑声)(掌声) 黑猩猩才不看晚间新闻 所以它们 是随机选择的 所以瑞典人的正确率还不如随机 现在来看看你们做的怎样? 这是你们的答案 你们被黑猩猩打败了 (笑声) 但很接近了 你们的正确率比瑞典人高了三倍 但这还不够 你们不应该拿自己跟瑞典人比 你们对于世界的野心肯定不止于此
03:00
来看下一个答案 女性所受的学校教育 这里 你可以看到男性是八年 女性所受的学校教育年限是? 瑞典人是这么回答的 你从这里能总结出规律了 是吧 正确的答案很可能是 最少瑞典人选择的那个 对吧 (笑声) 咱们来看看 开始 没错 没错 女性几乎赶上了 这是美国公众的选择 然后这里是你们的选择 请看 噢 祝贺大家 你们的正确率比瑞典人高一倍 但是你们不需要我来
03:41
怎么会这样? 我想这是因为 大家都知道在有些国家 有些地区 女孩子们依然处于巨大的困境之中 她们不被允许去学校 这是令人无法接受的 但是在世界上的大部分地方 在大部分人生活的地区 绝大多数国家 女孩子们上学的时间 和男孩子们一样长 或多或少 这并不意味着男女平等已经实现了 完全不是 她们依然受到许多严重的束缚 但学校教育已经成为了主流 现在 我们忽略了大多数情形 当你回答问题时 你以最差的情形为依据 这并不意味着你错了 但是你把大多数情形给忽略了
04:26
关于贫困呢? 非常明显 贫困率几乎减半 然而在美国 但我们向公众提问时 只有5%的人回答正确 那你们呢? 差一点就跟黑猩猩一样了 (笑声)(掌声) 一点点 就差你们中的一小部分人! 先入为主的观念是一定存在的 很多富裕国家都认为 我们永远无法消除极端贫困 他们当然是这么认为的 因为他们根本不知道发生了些什么 想要预知未来 必须先了解现在
05:11
以上这些问题是由我们负责的Gapminder基金会 在"无知项目"的试运行阶段 所提出的问题中的一部分 这个项目是在去年 由我的老板 同时也是我的儿子 奥拉•罗斯林启动的 (笑声) 他是联合创始人兼总监 并且他想要 奥拉告诉我 我们在对抗惊人的无知的战斗中 需要更具有系统性 试运行结果已经表明 有许多公众的得分比随机选择还要低 所以我们不得不对那些先入为主的观点进行思考 其中一个主要的观点是 关于世界上的收入分配
05:46
看这个 这是1975年的数据 是人均收入的数值 从每天一美元 (掌声) 看 这里有一个高峰 在每天一美元左右 然后这里还有一个高峰 大约在10到100美元之间 世界上有两大群体 像骆驼一样 有两个驼峰 穷人和富人 介于两者之间的人较少
06:15
但是我们来看看数字是如何变化的 随着时间推移 发生了什么样的变化 随着世界人口的增长 两个驼峰开始合并 低的驼峰向高的驼峰融合 骆驼死了 然后我们得到了一头新的单峰骆驼 只有一个驼峰 贫困人口的比例减少了 但是依然很惊人 有这么多人仍然生活在极端贫困中 大概还有接近10亿人 但这是可以被终结的
06:45
我们现在所面临的挑战是 如何摆脱这些观念 去了解大多数人的处境 这一点在以下问题中得到了充分的体现 问 世界上有多少比例的一岁儿童 接种了那些我们已经使用了多年的 对抗麻疹以及其他疾病的 疫苗 百分之20 50 还是80? 这是美国和瑞典公众的回答 看看瑞典的结果 你就该知道正确的答案是什么了 (笑声) 该国有个搞全球健康研究的教授 是谁 好吧 是我 (笑声) 这非常难 非常困难 (掌声)
07:26
然而 奥拉用于 测量我们所知多少的方法 上了头条 CNN在网站上公布了调查结果 有几百万人回答了这些问题 然后我记得大概有两千多条评论 其中一条是这么说的 "我打赌新闻界没人能通过这个测试" 他说
07:48
然后奥拉跟我说"带上这些设备 你被邀请参加的是媒体圈的会议 分给他们 然后测一测新闻界知道多少" 女士们 先生们 首先 是来自一场美国媒体会议上的 非正式结果 之后 是来自欧盟媒体的 (笑声) 大家看 问题并不在于 人们不读或者不听新闻 问题在于连媒体自己都不知道
08:17
我们对此该怎么办呢 奥拉? 有什么主意吗? (掌声)
08:32
奥拉•罗斯林:是的 我有个主意 但首先 对于你们被黑猩猩打败 我表示很抱歉 幸运的是 我有办法安慰你们 因为其实这不是你们的错 然后 我会给你们提供一些窍门 以便你们以后能够打败黑猩猩 我接下去会做的基本就是这些
08:53
首先 来看看为什么我们会如此的无知 一切都始于这个地方 这是胡迪克斯瓦尔 瑞典北部的一座城市 我在这个地方长大 这个地方有着一个很大的问题 实际上 这个地方 跟你们从小所居住的那些地方 存在着一模一样的问题 那就是不具备典型性 他让我对于“其他人是如何生活的” 的看法是带有很强烈的偏见的 所以这是“无知拼图”的第一块 我们有个人偏见
09:26
我们在各自的社区 和我们所遇见的人身上 所获得经验都是不同的 在此之上 我们还会上学 这就带来了下一个问题 当然 我喜欢学校 但老师们倾向于教授过时的世界观 因为这些东西是他们上学的时候学到的 现在 尽管不带有任何的恶意 他们又将这些知识教给了学生 还有书 在这个瞬息万变的世界里 那些印刷出来的书 当然也是过时的 并且没有一个有效的措施 能使教材与时俱进 所以这就是我们的关注点 我们知道的是过时的情况 加上我们的个人偏见
10:05
接下去就是新闻了 对吧? 一个杰出的记者很清楚 要如何选题才能上头条 人们之所以会看是因为它耸人听闻 不寻常的事件才更有意思 不是吗? 然后他们会夸大其词 尤其是那些令我们害怕的事情 一名瑞典人遭到鲨鱼的攻击 这类新闻会在瑞典媒体上保持头条几星期
10:30
我们很难摆脱 这三类歪曲的消息来源 它们对我们狂轰滥炸 并且用许多奇怪的观点武装来我们的思维 在此基础上 再加上一项人类独特的功能 我们的直觉 直觉对进化是有利的 它帮助我们很快的进行 归纳和总结 帮助我们夸大我们所惧之事 当所惧之事没有发生时 我们就会寻找其中的因果关系 然后我们会获得莫名的自信 比如我们都自信自己是最好的司机 高于平均水平 每个人都会回答: 没错 我的车开的更好
11:15
好吧 这对进化来说是件好事 但是 当涉及到世界观时 这恰恰是导致结论颠倒的原因 有些趋势在上升而不是下降 有些则相反 在这个例子中 黑猩猩利用我们的直觉打败了我们 并且这逐渐成为了我们的弱点 而不是优势 这应该是我们的优势所在的 不是吗?
11:37
那么我们该如何解决这类问题呢? 首先 我们要进行衡量 然后我们再来纠正 这里指的衡量 是我们能够明白 造成无知的规律是什么 试运行是去年启动的 现在我们很肯定的是 在全球范围内 我们对许多东西是无知的 我们的想法是 将此扩展到关系到全球发展的所有领域 或者维度 比如气候 濒危物种 人权 性别平等 能源 金融 每个行业都会有一些真相 并有一些组织正在努力扩大 大众对于这些真相的认知度 所以我联系了其中的一些 像世界自然基金会 国际特赦组织 和联合国儿童基金会 我问他们 “有哪些你们所熟知的事 你认为公众是不知道的?”
12:28
好了 我收集到了如下事实 想像一下 一张很长的清单 大概列举了250项 然后我们对公众进行调查 由此知道哪些项目得分是最低的 然后我们获得了一个短一点的清单 其结果令人震惊 比如之前汉斯给出的一些例子 我们可以轻而易举的给出 这类令人震惊的结果 好了 对于这张短一点的清单 我们可以做些什么? 我们把它变成了一张“知识证书” 一张全球知识证书 可供你使用的 如果你是一个大型组织 一所学校 大学 或者新闻通讯社 用来验证你自己具有全球化的知识体系 本质上来说 我们不会聘用 那些得分和黑猩猩一样高的人 当然 你也不应该 所以也许10年之后 如果这个项目获得成功 你将不得不在面试中 写出这些全球知识
13:22
现在我们来谈谈实用的技巧 要如何才能做到? 当然 有一种方法 就是你通宵达旦的 阅读各种报告 并把所有的知识点都记在心里 实际上 这是不可能发生的 连汉斯都不会相信这种事情会发生 人们没那么多时间 人们喜欢捷径 现在 捷径来了 我们要再次把我们的直觉变成一种优势 我们要有能力去概括 现在我会给向家展示一些技巧 以此将误解转变成为 指导意见
13:58
我们从第一个误解开始 这是一个广泛流传的误解 所有的事都在朝更坏的方向发展 你听说过 你自己也是这么想的 从另一个角度想一想 其实大多数事情都在变好 所以当你面前出现了一个问题 而你不太确定答案时 你应该猜“进步” 好吗? 别选坏的那个 这会帮助你在我们的测试中获得更高的分数 (掌声) 这是第一点
14:26
穷人和富人之间的 贫富差距正在拉大 非常的不平等 是的 这是个不平等的世界 但是当你对照数据时 会发现只有一个驼峰 对吗? 所以如果你觉得不确定 就选“大部分人在中间” 这会帮助你正确的回答问题
14:42
现在 下一个先入为主的观点是 发达国家和人民需要在非常富裕的情况下 社会才能得以发展 例如让女孩子上学 或者抵御自然灾害 不不不 这是错误的 看 处于中间的那一大块驼峰 已经解决了女孩上学的问题 所以如果你不确定 就选 ”大部分已经实现了“ 例如电力 女性教育 这一类的问题 这些只是指导意见 所以并不适用于所有情况 但这能帮你进行总结概括
15:14
我们来看看最后一个 如果有什么 没错 这张照片很赞 鲨鱼很危险 其实不是 话虽不错 但是没那么严重 从全球的数据来看 这是我想说的 其实 我本人非常害怕鲨鱼 当我看到那些关于我所害怕的东西的提问时 比如地震 其他宗教 比如我害怕恐怖分子和鲨鱼 任何让我感到害怕的东西 你很有可能会夸大问题的严重性 这是指导意见之一 当然 有些危险的事物确实会造成严重的后果 因鲨鱼致死的人非常少 这才是你应有的思维方式
15:52
有了以上四条技巧 你很有可能会取得比黑猩猩更好的成绩 因为黑猩猩无法做到这些 他们无法总结概括这些技巧 希望我们能够改变你的世界 然后我们一起来打败黑猩猩 好吗 (掌声) 这是一个系统的方法
16:21
那么现在问题来了 这很重要吗 是的 这对理解贫穷 极端贫穷 以及如何与之斗争很重要 以及如何让女孩子们上学 当意识到这些问题实际正在改善时 我们才能理解这些问题本身 但是 会有人在意处于富裕一端的人吗 这很重要吗 我想说是的 非常非常重要 同样的理由 如果你对当今世界的认知是基于事实的 那么你才可能会有机会去预测 将来会发生什么
16:50
我们回过头来看1975年的这两个峰值 也就是我刚出生的时候 我选择了西方国家 也就是现在的欧盟和北美国家 我们来看看其他地区和西方国家的比较 关于富裕程度 这些是能够负担得起 坐飞机出国度假的人 1975年的时候 只有30%的人 是住在欧盟和北美以外的地区 但是情况已经变了 首先 我们来看看当今的情况 2014年 现在是一半一半 西方国家的统治在当今已经不复存在了 很好 那么接下去会发生什么呢? 你看到那个高峰了吗? 你看到它是如何变化的吗? 我做了一个小试验 我查看了国际货币基金组织的网站 他们对今后五年的GDP做了一个预测 所以我可以借此来推测未来5年的变化 假设各国的贫富差距保持不变 除此以外 我还做了进一步的预测 我用未来5年的数据对未来20年做了预测 同样的变化速度 就像一个实际很可能会发生的试验一样 让我们移步未来 2020年 57%来自非西方国家 2025年 63% 2030年 68% 到了2035年 西方国家在富裕消费者市场中的比例被赶超 这些仅仅是针对未来的GDP所作出的推测 73%的富裕消费者 将居住在北美和欧洲以外的地区 所以没错 我认为公司应该用“知识证书” 来确保未来能作出基于事实的决策
18:39
非常感谢 (掌声)
I agree with your general sentiment Alexander. If anyone is interested in wealth inequality in Canada here is a great video, it's not quite what is being represented by the IMF either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkBiv5ZD7s
Thank you for your comment and the great video link, Jessica!
I guess it looks similar all over the world. I was wondering and found this great video of a global view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
According to Oxfam (based on a report by Credit Suisse) the concentration has grown since the video was made: the 85 richest people on earth own as much as 3.5 billion people (half of the world's population) now:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world
About the wealth distribution, did you use gapminder for that or your source is only that video? since the data of the video is fixed i guess is low accurate.
The part of the plane tickets its ambiguous since we dont know how he did measure that. ¿Does he actually have data indicating more tikcets bought by population or does he stablished that a certain Income Per Person the families begin to travel to vacation in planes?
Hi Nomenclatura,
I have used the graph the Rosling's are using in their talk and merely changed the scale of the x-axis.
If you want to look into the sources of the videos I linked to, you can find their links here:
http://youtu.be/BhZ7cUFGDGc?t=6m23s
... and here:
http://therules.org/inequality-video-fact-sheet/
The source of the Guardian article can be found here:
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-summ-en.pdf
But Oxfam published an update to their study just recently. There it states that within this year the 1% of the richest people will come to own more wealth than the other 99% of humanity, see here:
http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/wealth-having-it-all-and-wanting-more-338125
I keep myself skeptic since with my current knowledge im unable to determine the real meanings of Income per Person increasing and Wealth distribution increasing too. Im just unable to interpret that
Of course that's a very complex topic and a good one for a long and diverse discussion. My own interpretation is that the increase of income in the segment the Roslings are concentrating on in their talk is marginal, because the meaningful differences aren't between the low income and the moderate income (the two humps in their diagram), but between the mass of the people (literally 99%) when compared to the 1% of the richest people.
A current study done by Oxfam, based on numbers by Credit Suisse, forecasts that by the end of this year that 1% of people will own more of the wealth in the world than the rest of humanity. Or to put it differently: the wealth (the goods, infrastructure etc.) that we as a whole (including our ancestors) have produced, will be – in half – in the hands of 1% of us.
Since we cannot imagine such high concentration, Oxfam uses a different comparison: as of now the eighty richest people – in numbers: 80 persons – own more than the 3,500,000,000 people (half the world's population) on the other end of the scale.
One year ago these figures were 85 people vs. 3,500,000,000 people. So the tendency is clear.
In my opinion the mechanics of our current political (i.e. taxation) and economic (i.e. the financial market) systems both result in the concentration of power and money in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
well, i woulnt blame system at all. roughly lets assume that there is not enough production for everyone, in other words, scarcity does exist (because world food production per capity is not enough ). So, in order for you to have certain produced resource, somebody else have to lack it. So, every smartphone represents austerity for someone else; every cheap food or vegetable represent fewer pay to the producer.
Then, the system itself its unable to do anything for scarcity since it depends on technology, only when technology improves a Post-scarcity system will be possible.
Now, this sounds perfect in my mind except for the money issue... for example if that 1% would spread all its money, everybody would have more money but that wont necessarily increase the production and people will have money but there will be no enough products to buy.., but that conclusion sound too reckless to me... damn, I understand so few about this