[MUSIC PLAYING]
AVRAHAM ARBIB: Thank
you, [INAUDIBLE],,
and thank you to Google for
the invitation to appear here.
And as a matter of fact, when
I walked from the bus station
to here on this
beautiful November day
and to this very nice venue
where Google is located
in Tel Aviv, I thought maybe
it's not the right atmosphere
or the right audience to
talk about existential crisis
or problems in the future.
But then I remembered
immediately
what happened here in
Israel about a week ago
with the missile attack in
the southern part of Israel,
which also involves Tel Aviv.
But it was a reminder to all of
us how fragile our reality is
and that there are threats
to the present condition.
And after all, it is very
appropriate at this point
in time to give this
lecture, in particular
in front of a audience of
mainly young people, as I see,
and bright people that maybe can
do something about this reality
and maybe succeed
in places and fields
where our generation failed.
As [INAUDIBLE] has
told you, I have a PhD
in aeronautical engineering.
My background is in aerospace
and mainly in the combustion
and propulsion field in
airplane and rocket engines.
But I actually never
worked in that area.
I moved very quickly
to the energy field.
And the combustion
is suitable also,
of course, for
energy generation.
And I worked initially for
research in an academy,
or a private institute
organization in the United
States.
And then, I came back to Israel.
And very quickly, I
moved to the government.
My last task was
Deputy Chief Scientist
at the Ministry of Energy.
And my office was
the main address
in Israel for renewable energy
research and applications.
And so I started being involved
in all kinds of energy,
both conventional and
unconventional energy-- solar,
wind, and biomass, and so on.
So combustion is
the area in which
I used to know a lot
in a very narrow field.
Since I became a technocrat
in the government,
I know very little but
in a wide range of areas.
And this allows me to have some
insights and some synthesis
on the present condition of the
energy and environmental area.
And I prepared this talk
because I'm worried.
I'm concerned.
And I'm not the only
one who is concerned.
A lot of people in the
world are concerned.
There are so many threats
and so many problems
that sometimes it's easy to
get desperate about that.
But I'm not here to
increase your anxieties.
I'm here maybe to focus
them and allow each of you
to maybe find one
niche in which you also
can make a contribution,
because I think
you are among the few in
the world that can make
a contribution to these areas.
And how few?
I think one out of 25 people
in the world of your age
have the possibilities
that you have.
And I come to that at
the end of my lecture.
So this is the title
of my presentation,
of my talk, Sustainability and
the Global Economic Downturn.
So since 2008, we know that
we are in an economic crisis.
And a lot of--
millions of worlds have
been spent on the subject.
They accused Wall Street,
the subprime loans,
and those kind of things.
And this is all true.
But these are only triggers.
They are not the
roots of the problem.
The root problem in my opinion--
and it's not only my opinion.
As I told you, I am
a generalist today.
I synthesize.
I've read a lot of material.
I needed to read
a lot of material.
And my views are shared by a
number of people in the world.
And the roots of the problem
are in the sustainability area.
And what is sustainability?
So it's a common term today.
Almost everybody
thinks they know it.
But I use the formal
definition that
was established in 1987 by
Brundtland Commission that
was chaired by the former
prime minister of Norway.
And this is the definition.
It is development that meets
the needs of the present
without compromising the
ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.
So it is out of concern for
you, your children, my children,
my grandchildren.
And this is a new thing.
It seems trivial.
But we have been using resources
without thinking about what is
going to happen in the future.
And people think it
is a new concept,
but it's not new at all.
I found a document.
It was first used about
300 years ago in Germany.
And it was connected with
the forest management.
By the way, forest management is
very important for ecologists.
A lot of ecologists have drawn a
lot of insights and conclusions
at looking about the ecology
of forests and the way forests
behave.
And there are two requirements
for sustainability.
The first one is to use
the interest and not
the capital of our resources.
This seems trivial.
But of course, if
we have a forest
and we cut out all
the trees, we might
be rich for one year and two.
But then, what happens
the years after?
If we have a lake and
we fish everything
that there is inside, we
might be rich for one year.
And what will happen next year?
We should live on the
interest and not the capital.
But there is another
requirement to sustainability,
that every process that
we do causes waste.
And we have to return to nature
the products and the waste
in an environmentally
acceptable way.
And this is something
that's given
less frequent than
the first requirement.
We do that even worse
in the world than
in the first requirement.
And one thing I would
like to point out
that I hear sometimes the
term "sustainable items,"
"sustainable things"--
there are not
sustainable things.
Only processes can be
organized in a sustainable way.
And this is something
that we should point out.
So my thesis is-- as I told
you, it's not only my thesis--
that the global
crisis is the result
of the will of
developed countries
to live beyond their means.
Israel is a developed country.
There are not many of them.
As I told you, I
see about one out
of seven people in the world
living in a developed country.
And we misuse and
overuse these resources.
And one of the
resources that we misuse
is labor and other
resources that often
come from developing countries.
Laborers, sometimes we employ
them in their own countries
at the condition
and the wages which
we would find
unacceptable, or they come
to our countries to work here.
And they also live in conditions
that you will do things that we
ourselves do not like to do.
And although apparently
the crisis of 2008
took economists by surprise,
but many thinkers in the past,
even a few hundred years
ago, actually anticipated
the crisis.
And they were not economists.
Economists are very
good to justify things
after they happen.
The people that anticipated
crises where anthropologists,
ecologists, historians,
archeologists.
And I'll try to show
you some of their work.
And I have to cut corners
here because otherwise, it
would be a very long talk.
But you will find on my
slides all the reference
that you need.
Before I go on, so
that I don't have
to interrupt my
talk afterward, I
need to give you a
couple of definitions.
The first definition I
would like to give you
is what is a complex
adaptive system, or CAS.
A complex adaptive
system is a system
in which we might
understand that it's
made of many components.
And we might understand
how each component works.
But when they are
put together, they
behave in a complex way
which we are not always
able to understand.
They are complex because
they have dynamic networks
of interaction.
And the behavior of
the ensemble is not
predicted by behavior
of each component.
And they are adaptive.
That means the individual
and collective behavior
mutate and self-organize
according to perturbations.
Examples of this--
what characterizes CAS
is far from
equilibrium conditions.
The interactions are non-linear.
I hope you know what
a non-linear system.
Otherwise, I'll ask you
the question afterwards.
And they need a
constant flow of energy
to maintain their organizations.
So some examples of this
complex adaptive system
is our weather system, our
climate system, cities,
traffic, the market,
cyberspace, the internet.
We know how
individual part works.
But when they are put together,
sometimes they look chaotic.
We try to predict.
And you all know how the weather
prediction can't be relied on.
Even last week, every few hours,
they changed the prediction.
And the same way with
traffic, with the weather--
we know how evaporation
goes, winds.
But the proverbial butterfly
effect, sometimes you
get some perturbance somewhere.
And it causes effects
in an unpredictable way.
So this is a complex definition
of a complex adaptive system.
I use that afterward.
Another definition I need
you to do is resilience.
We all have an intuitive
feeling of what resilience is.
But scientifically, it is
the ability of the systems
to withstand
external disturbances
without qualitatively
changing their behavior.
If something provokes the
system to leave equilibrium,
it's able to return to
its initial condition,
more or less, at
least qualitatively.
And this is called resilience.
Now, I'll talk now about four
thinkers in the last 20 years.
I've written extensively
about this matter.
Of course, they are
backed by tens, maybe
hundreds of scientific papers.
But I choose to quote
them because you can
find all the references there.
And three out of four
books that I quote
were actually
international bestsellers.
A lot of people have read it.
I don't know how much
influence they've had.
But the first one is Jared
Diamond in the book "Collapse"
of 2005.
And this is only one
of his insights--
that in developed countries
in which, in 2005,
about only 1 billion people
live, the average rates
at which people consume
resources and produce waste
is about 32 times higher
than in developing countries.
We are in 2019.
Maybe about more
than 1 billion people
live in countries that are
richer, especially in China.
And so maybe it's not 1 in 32.
Maybe it's 1 in 30.
But the situation
has not changed.
As an average,
this is still true.
Developed countries are
wasting much more than others.
And if the whole developing
world would suddenly
catch up to all the world, at
the present consumption rate,
it would be as if the
world population ballooned
to 72 billion people.
And if only China and
India were to catch up--
and they are catching
up, especially China--
water consumption
rate would triple.
And by mid-century, by
2050, the world population
will grow to more
than 9 billion people.
And there is no way the world
could support this consumption
rate.
These consumption
rates are catastrophic.
This is one of the things
that we have to know.
This graph shows a correlation
between global population,
gross-domestic product,
GDP, precipitous emission,
and atmospheric CO2.
And on the axis,
there are the years.
You see what happened between
1900 and the year 2000?
An exponential increase
in all of them.
And this is something
that's often in quotes,
but graphically, it's much,
much easier to understand.
The other three
works I want to quote
is by Joseph Tainter, 1988,
Thomas Homer-Dixon who
quoted the works of Buzz
Holling and Fritjof Capra.
Two of them were
international bestsellers.
And I distillate
their conclusion.
And I'm not going to
go through all of them.
You'll see I only tell
you the main conclusion.
They see the world's
socio-ecological system--
the whole world's
socio-ecological system--
as one immense complex adaptive
system, as I described before.
And now, Buzz Holling,
who as I told you before
got most of his insight
from looking at forests,
recognized four stages
in the forest behavior.
And he thinks it applies
also to our world system.
The forests go through a
phase of growth, collapse,
regeneration, and regrowth--
growth again.
And he and other thinkers saw
the same pattern in societies,
in civilizations in the past.
The concept of civilization
growth and decline is not new.
We have different examples.
Sometimes, it happen faster.
Sometimes, it happens slower.
The most quoted one is the Roman
Empire that took tens of years
to happen.
But you have the
Maya civilization
even before Spain arrived here,
and even some small examples,
like the Easter Island.
Because of ecological problems,
a civilization disappeared.
But they all go through
a phase of growth
and decline, collapse,
regeneration, and growth again.
But now, our economy puts
growth very high on their aims.
And Holling thinks--
he has a theory that's
called panarchy theory.
Panarchy is the
Greek god of nature.
And he says we have
reached the top
of the period of our planet.
But we are forcing growth to
go on, overusing our resources.
We should have reached,
locally at least,
a phase of decline and collapse.
But we are not
letting that happen.
Now, for forest, I mean,
a forest initially,
in the growth phase, generates a
lot of biomass and specializes.
And it becomes thicker,
so the connection
between different parts of
the forest become stronger.
And if a wildfire happens, it
will burn some of the forest.
And since it is thicker,
it will propagate faster.
But it will regenerate.
But in our present society,
we are forcing growth
to go on and on.
And since we are forcing
growth to go on and on,
the fall will be much,
much more dangerous.
And it might be even
fatal for our society.
And as I told you, now,
in the process of growth,
our societies have become
steadily more connected
and more complex,
losing resilience.
Why?
We have become much
more efficient.
Efficiency apparently
is very good.
But efficiency means
also losing redundancy.
There is a saying
in Hebrew using
both a belt and suspenders
to keep your pants on--
using only one of them is more
efficient than using only one
of them.
Using no belt at all
is even more efficient,
but it makes your danger of
losing your pants higher.
So this is only one
way of looking at it.
Just try to think
about them intuitively.
And it is more connected.
Connection is also a good thing.
But both the efficiency
and connectivity
makes it less resilient.
Why connection makes
us less resilient?
Think about it.
First of all,
everybody in the world
sees what happens everywhere.
So we see the crises, and
the wars, and the famine.
And they also see our
condition of life.
They want to either achieve
the same standard of living,
or even join us, and even worse.
So everybody knows everything.
This is one of the things that
makes our world less resilient.
Or another way of
seeing why connectivity
make us more fragile--
if 100 years ago I
traveled through Africa,
I would get the
sickness in Africa
and maybe die on the
ship taking me back home
and maybe be buried at sea.
Today, when you fly home, it
infects a few hundred people
even before the airplane landed.
And everybody changes.
By the way, a
number of sicknesses
have been propagated this way.
So as I told you, it can
be proven mathematically.
but try to understand that,
intuitively, both efficiency
and connectivity make
us less resilient.
Now, we can manage complexity.
And we are doing that.
But there are growing costs.
And these costs are in
the currency of energy.
And our society needs
higher and larger and larger
inputs of high-quality energy.
Now, apparently we
have this energy.
But most people have missed
something very important
that's happened in the energy
area in the last years.
Although the electricity
looks the same
when you switch on the
lights or the gas at the pump
look like the same gas,
but it's not the same.
We have moved a
transitional phase
from high EROI energy sources
to low EROI energy sources.
I think, everybody
should know what ROI is--
return on investment, financial.
But EROI is energy return
on energy investment.
To make a unit of energy,
you need to invest.
And so in the past,
100 years ago,
you needed to invest one unit--
what they found
always in Pennsylvania
or afterwards in Saudi Arabia--
you had to invest
one unit of energy
to get 100 units of energy.
In 1970, in the States,
we were already 40 to 1.
Today, we are less than 20 to 1.
And if we go to new
sources, for instance
the hydroelectric wind, solar
energy is about 10 to 1 today.
We hope really to increase.
And if we go to fuel that some
people try to put forward,
like biodiesel and
gasoil, they are actually
more or less a scam because
they are not viable at all.
They're done only for
different purposes.
And of course, if
you have EROI of 1,
you can just take the oil out
of the wells and look at it.
But people have found that
you need at least 3 to 1
to make a source viable.
So you know that the
United States now
claims to be independent
from foreign oil,
but they make oil and
gas from oil shales,
and at economic costs
that are very high
and environmental costs
that are still hidden.
Some of them we don't
know because they
are under the ground.
They'll find out
only in the future.
Europe has forbidden
this kind of generation.
So we are living in
a different world
as far as energy
sources are concerned.
And we are paying this cost.
We don't see that.
Sometimes we see
that in our wallet.
But mainly, the economy is
paying these higher costs.
And there are some countries,
developing countries
in Africa and Asia, that are
not able to pay this cost.
And some people
analyzed that, actually,
some of the crises of
population migration
that are happening
today are caused
by the loss of capability
of their society
to pay this energy
cost to maintain
the complexity and the problem
that this new situation causes.
Without access to enough
cheap, high-quality energy,
societies are increasingly
susceptible to overload
and can't cope
with sudden shocks.
And since we are, as I
told you, very connected,
these shocks can
be global in scope.
If a problem happens
in Africa and Asia,
it would be almost necessarily
exported to all over the world.
And we see what
happens with migration
in Europe and the United States,
with the local wars almost
everywhere in Asia and
Africa and in our area, too.
Now, there are a
number of stresses--
we all know them,
I listed them--
that we can add
your stresses to.
Each of them can
cause perturbations.
We have population stress.
We are now more than 7.7
billion people in the world.
According to scientists,
we are able to maintain
only about half of them in a
sustainable way in the world.
We have a problem of resources,
especially water and energy.
So many people
involved in the world
have no access to
water and sanitation.
So we have environmental,
both local and global,
climate problems.
They are not the
same by the way.
They are not the same.
You have seen a couple of weeks
ago what happened in New Delhi,
and the people could
not even breathe.
We have economic problems,
mainly inequality problems,
which is a very big problem
in the economy of the world.
And we have a recently new
problem, which is mega terror.
Some people have written
books in the recent past,
in the past few years, and say
that we should be optimists
because there are less
wars now than in the past
and that we are able
to feed more people.
But we have always had
problems in the past--
war, and famine, and so on.
But today, we have
many more problems
than in the past
at the same time.
And the pace at which they
unfold seem to be increasing.
We didn't have in the
past nuclear weapons,
especially in the hands
of rogue countries.
We didn't have climate problems.
We didn't have mega terror--
maybe local terror-- and so on.
So these are threats.
Each of them can
cause perturbations
that might propagate.
And by the way, as Mr.
Holling says in his book,
there are nested
cycles of problems.
If in a forest you get a
wildfire in the wet season,
it might propagate a
bit and then die out.
If you have a wildfire
in a dry season,
the fire will propagate widely.
If also at the same time all
your firefighters are sick
or the fire engines are broken,
this fire could go on forever.
And maybe it may cause the
collapse of the forest.
So if the problem
happens at the same time
and seems to have
the same phase,
the effects will be compounded.
So what do they
mean by a collapse?
Collapse may be two things.
It might be the
end of the world,
like obliteration, especially
if there is a nuclear war or so
on.
And it may also be
something simpler but still
very difficult for us
to accept, to revert
to a less complex society.
Our so-called advanced
society, we really
can't do what it was about
two or three generations ago.
And using simple
technology may be
a different, less centralized
sociopolitical form.
So even if it is not
the end of the world,
this is not something we would
like in life to experience.
Now, these theories are
not new, as I told you.
It might be even older.
But an Arab philosopher
Ibn Khaldun,
in the 13th century or so,
talked about the decline
of civilization.
And there is Giambattista
Vico in Italy
in the 18th century, the
historian Will Durant, early
20th century, and of
course the Club of Rome.
I hope you heard
about the books--
"The Limits of Growth" in 1972.
It was a bestseller.
It sold about 30 million copies.
And "The Club of
Rome" still exists,
though it operates
today from Switzerland.
And they also set in
1972 very clear limits.
They say that our world
cannot grow all the time.
And continuous growth
is unsustainable.
And today the risk of
a non-linear collapse
is increasing.
And the consumption rates
in the developed world
must be reduced.
And the present
global crisis should
be seen as the beginning
of a correction.
It is not something
that will go away.
It's not something
that will be solved
in conventional economical ways.
Let me say in open
parentheses what is growth.
Growth economically is
defined as the increase
in gross domestic
product every year.
And the growth
divided by the number
of people in the countries
is the growth per capita.
And growth is widely
used by finance ministers
and central banks all over the
world to define our well-being.
But it is a very bad
parameter for that.
GDP is the total payments
that we do as individuals
and governments in one year.
Now, if we have an oil spill in
[INAUDIBLE] or at sea somewhere
and we need to pay to
recover the damages,
we pay a lot of money--
let's say, x.
To make the right regulations
to avoid that spill
and to enforce it could've cost
maybe 1% of that, maybe less.
But if the spill occurs,
the GDP increases much more
than avoiding it.
So are we better
off with the spill?
According to the GDP, yes.
In fact, we are not.
Another way to see this--
if we have a lot of crime,
and a lot of people
are assassinated,
and you get the expenses for
police, for the legal system,
for prisons, or
compensation damages,
and so on, the GDP increases.
If you pay much less than that
to have better police forces,
it might cost maybe 1%
of that, maybe even less.
GDP increases much less.
And you feel better.
But the growth is higher
when you have higher crime.
But in spite of this,
we all recognize
that there are faults.
But the growth is still
used widely by economists.
So does this mean we are
headed for disaster if we
decrease our GDP per capita?
Not necessarily,
because living standards
are not tightly coupled
to the consumption rate.
You can look in your
favorite search engine
for what is the
Easterlin paradox.
And a lot of philosophers
tried to tell us
that in the last thousands of
years that after someone gets
enough to meet his own needs,
you can triple or multiply it
by 10, his income, his happiness
that does not increase as much.
And as I told you,
GDP has a potential
for being pretty bogus.
And the imperative today
is to do more for less.
So look out for these trends.
These trends have been on for a
number of years, some of them.
Some of them are becoming
more apparent today.
We should fundamentally
rethink the economic theories
of growth.
People are talking
about degrowth
in overdeveloped countries.
And by the way,
the Swedish Academy
has been very busy in the last
years handing out Nobel prizes
to people that don't agree
with the conventional economic
theory and trying
exactly to do that.
We look out for increased
limitation on global trade.
People foresaw that a
number of years ago.
But we are seeing it
today much, much stronger.
Look out for
increasing taxation,
because we need to
do more, especially
to protect our environment.
And those who can do more
are developed countries.
We cannot expect developing
country to do more than that.
We need to protect
our environment.
I think it is too
late to mitigate.
We have to adapt to
the future problem.
And look out for these
trends that are not apparent,
but they are happening
somewhere in different places--
to cultivate basic skills,
such as food production,
construction repair, basic
medicine, and basic sanitation.
Because people all over the
world are starting to realize
that if the crisis happens,
we cannot rely on the central
government to solve
all our problems.
And this is kind of a
trend in frustration
that's happening
all over the world.
So I put here the challenges.
It's not going to be easy.
It's not going to be easy.
And I think we only can
slow down climate change.
It's not going to be
easy because it's not
a technological problem.
There are some people
that say, well, technology
will solve our problems.
It will do that.
There are at least
four problems that
are seemingly
unsolvable so that we
can slow down climate change.
One is that we must
eliminate poverty.
Second, we must change our
unsustainable lifestyles
of so many of us, especially
in the developed world.
We must abolish corruption.
And we must think about our
growing human population today.
So in 30 years from
now, we are going
to be about 9.7 billion people.
And if you think about
solving these problems,
sometimes I get
very discouraged.
But still, we cannot do nothing.
And this is a very
important insight.
We cannot expect people in
survival mode in the world
to cooperate in
environmental struggles.
There are many people who
can barely meet their ends
at the end of the month--
and all over the world.
I'm not talking
about this country.
And to expect them
to cooperate to be
very much concerned about
our climate is unrealistic.
In spite of that, when you go
to these climate conferences,
you can see people from
overdeveloped countries that
expect developing countries
make the same kind of sacrifices
that we should do.
This is absolutely unrealistic.
And another challenge
is this one.
And this is important
for you, too.
About 60 years ago, CP Snow--
he was a physicist.
He wrote a book that
was also a bestseller.
He was a physicist.
He started asking his colleagues
in the academy and humanity
fields, do you know what's the
second law of thermodynamics?
And most of them,
maybe all of them,
did not know what the second
level of thermodynamics was.
And he was appalled.
He said that for
people in humanities
not knowing the second
law of thermodynamics
is like for a scientist not
knowing who Shakespeare is--
never having seen
a Shakespeare play.
And most scientists have
seen a Shakespeare play,
and these people don't know the
second law of thermodynamics.
And he wrote a book
that was a huge success.
And although in the '60s--
some things have
changed, but the problem
is not being removed.
The lack of dialogue
between people involved
in humanities and in
science is still large,
and it is particularly
important in cyberspace.
And people involved
in, for instance,
in freedom in cyberspace
or, for instance,
in artificial
intelligence to talk--
this dialogue between scientists
and people in the humanities
is essential.
So these are conclusions.
The population growth
problem must be addressed.
This is a very delicate
issue in this country
and in many
developing countries.
Although we are a
developed country,
in this particular
issue we behave
like developing countries.
Income inequality is a
local and global threat.
We need a complete
change in paradigm
on energy production
and waste management.
And a country should
ensure local production
of essential food needs.
Sometimes, some
countries, even this one,
rely too much on import.
I think every county should
raise self-sufficiency,
at least in the food
production area.
And I want to leave
you with two quotes--
one of these by a
philosopher and an economist.
"Anyone who believes exponential
growth can go on forever
in a finite world is either
a madman or an economist."
This is a quote I had in
my office on the wall.
And the second one
is from [INAUDIBLE]..
There is something wrong here.
Ecclesiastes.
"Better a poor but wise youth
than an old but foolish king
who no longer knows
how to heed a warning."
I am encouraged by the fact that
young people all over the world
are demonstrating both about
environmental problems, climate
issues, but not only
that-- about freedom,
and liberties, other
kinds of things.
And this is very important.
That makes me feel a bit
better about the future,
although I am still a pessimist.
And the last thing I wanted
to say, I look at you,
and I see people about the
age between my children
and my grandchildren.
And I hope that you realize
that you are privileged--
how privileged.
I am also privileged.
I'm not as privileged
as you at your age.
I've done by some calculations--
I mean, I think one out
of six people in the world
enjoys the kind of
personal freedom,
civil and political rights, free
speech, health care, education,
and job that you have here.
For each of you at each age--
if one of you is 30 year old--
for each of you, there are
about 100 million people
in the world at your age.
There is a different
distribution.
There are more younger
people than older people.
For each of you, there is 100
million people in the world.
About one of six live in
countries or an environment
that you would like to live.
And I assume that among them--
I assume, I hope I am right--
that you are in the
upper 25% of the income.
So if you multiply 1/6 by
1/4, you get one out of 24.
So you are one out of
24 people in the world
that can do something
about their future.
The other 23, or something,
cannot even meet their basic
needs.
Some of them don't have water.
Some of them don't
have electricity.
Some of them are desperate.
Some of them are refugees.
And some of them are
very angry and desperate,
and a few of them are armed.
A few of them are heavily armed.
They have very advanced weapons.
How come they have
advanced weapons?
Because we are
selling them to them--
not only this country.
It's all over the
civilized world.
Why we are selling them to them?
So that we can maintain
our own standard of living.
What does this say about us?
It says that maybe the
Homo sapiens is dumb, not
exactly intelligent.
But I'll tell you
that to tell you
that I think you are among the
few people in the world that
can make a change.
I hope each one from time to
time thinks about the 23 other
people that cannot do
anything to change our world,
to change even
their own situation.
And maybe some of
you will find a niche
to act in some of the
areas I've described today.
And I'll end here.
And thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]
