Granice wzrostu. Upadek cywilizacji? – prof. Dennis Meadows

[Applause] so professor Rademacher Dr Weber he’s been Heenan’s there downbar yeah for Dianna I’m light tone on JP see how Sir Dunbar does Samir the Freitag knock photographer happened it gave mom while later here strict English so if you know it’s so now you are many of you going to become researchers and professors I give you a warning when you make a prediction for 50 years into the future normally you expect you will be dead before anyone is able to see if you were right but in my case I have only three more years until it will be 50 years so tonight I’m trying to get ready for that time and I created a speech which is called 47 years after limits to growth I’m going to think back on this period and try to decide what lessons can be learned to do that requires all of us to look at the situation in a slightly different way so I’m going to give you practice cross your arms you too so look down and see which wrist is on top and remember okay drop your arms great now cross your arms and see which wrist is on top so we’re all scientists let’s do some scientific research now everyone here who had the same wrist up both times raise your hand almost everybody so it must be some optimum technique let’s see everyone who had the left wrist up raise your arm everyone who had the right wrist up raise your arm so this is interesting it’s about 50/50 but you would expect that crossing your arms is a habit a habit is something you do automatically so that your brain can focus on a different issue it would be a big problem if every time you want to do something that doesn’t need your arms you had to spend 2 or 3 minutes trying to decide what to do with your arm so you have a habit you cross your arms and then you can start the job and we have many habits very many habits they help us to get through life but sometimes the circumstances the conditions change and the old habits don’t work anymore and then we need to hate new habits so I give you practice cross your arms the other way so there’s free lessons in this little exercise which we need to remember tonight first it is possible to take a different habit but two you have to think about it it’s not easy and three when you are trying to develop a new habit initially you might make mistakes it’s natural now we need to develop new habits about our use of energy travel the economy and

so forth we can do it but it’s going to require that we think about it and we shouldn’t expect that we don’t make mistakes so when your leaders stand up give them the possibility that at first they may make some mistakes before they know how to do it differently so here we are in all assists mine airs tomorrow here here’s the small here been several here in homes design and tonight I’m going to address five questions so what did we actually do 47 years ago professor Rademacher mentioned that 30 million copies of the book were sold many millions of people thought we were right many millions of people thought we were wrong most of them actually didn’t read the book so I’ll tell you what we did do 47 years ago and what did we forecast what were the main conclusions at that time 1972 was a very different time from today we didn’t think about such things like climate change and so forth the ocean seemed to be so large it would be impossible to have any impact on the ocean and so forth how accurate were those scenarios still a little early to tell but after 50 years we began to get some ideas I remember I stood up the first time in 1972 to present our results from out to the year 2100 and almost immediately after the speech someone from the newspaper came up and said well professor meadows were you right or wrong I said you know we’re going to take some decades before we start to have an understanding another question number four what would we do today different given that I hope I learned something in 50 years if I were doing again this project how would it be different and finally looking ahead now what do we see many of you will have your professional life over the next 50 years it’s quite interesting to imagine what you or four others your children will be living in over the next decades of course impossible to say precisely but we can see some broad aspects so first question what did we do forty-seven years ago so at that time I was a young professor in the lair stool of Jay Forrester at MIT Forester invited the Club of Rome to come to the United States to study our computer modeling techniques and he developed a very simple theoretical model we could use as a basis for teaching let me say incidentally I’m going to give all of these slides to Professor Rademacher so you shouldn’t spend any time writing down the slides at the end you will be either happy that you didn’t waste your time writing him down or happy that you were able to focus on the important issues so Forrester developed as a theoretical model we used it for teaching and then the Club of Rome decided that they would like to use this method for their research so I put together a team of 17 scientists analysts including two from Germany they are now retired professors I guess Peter milling Eric Thawne were students at that time they came and worked with me I told Isaiah who’s in professor rata markers Institute I had also one Iranian scientist working with me at that time and we spent about a year and a half gathering data and trying to understand

the important theories about population food production Natural Resources pollution and industry in those days gathering data was much more difficult to Jordan just type into Google you know historical data on the population of the globe you had to send somebody down to Washington DC would look through the books and try to find the numbers so it was much more difficult job in those days and then we took all of this data and these theories we put them together into a computer model of the globe and we did many scenarios many simulations because of course it’s impossible to make a prediction precisely about the future but if you make many different simulations with different assumptions you can begin to see some central tendencies and we took those and put them into three reports three books the first you heard about the limits to growth the Grantham’s as fox to himself deutsch and then two more which you never heard about and you never will hear about them we didn’t make predictions a prediction you can make let’s say in astronomy and where you can predict the eclipse of the moon or something but in social systems there is impossibility we don’t have enough knowledge and there’s a random component so it’s impossible to make predictions but we did generate scenarios scenarios are internally consistent images of the future and we ran these from 1900 out to 2100 the first 70 years gave us some comparison with history because we know those data and then 130 years into the future then because you don’t know things precisely even now and for sure not in the future we made some big changes in our assumptions we for example doubled how much natural resources would be available we change the amount of arable land we made many changes in technology for controlling births and so forth and generated 11 different a scenarios focusing on these five main variables notice we looked at the globe we didn’t look at poor people rich people north people South people I think even today the knowledge which we have doesn’t give us meaningful forecasts if you make a stupid assumption and then replicate it 50 times to represent 50 different countries it’s still a stupid assumption so it’s no point to do it this is an example of scenarios from population so we were here in 1972 you see the history is known and then depending on assumptions you see different results some of them quite favorable so called sustainable development and some of them pretty catastrophic population growing very high and then falling down so how was it well in that time we came up with some main insights the first mistake that most people made was to imagine we said if growth had to stop or would stop immediately actually not you can see we expected that growth would continue for another 40 50 60 years but we saw that the conditions which produced growth up until 1970 if they weren’t changed would cause very serious consequences later it’s like the guy who falls off a high building and he’s coming down and at the tents struck somebody looks out the window and says how are you he says well so far so good the most common behavior we call overshoot and decline going past boundaries and back down at that time

economists didn’t think there were limits but if they would admit to a limit they somehow imagined that the market would bring us into a very gradual even orderly adjustment to that and we said no because of the delays because of the erode Abul stocks in the system the tendency is to overshoot and decline we were at MIT my first degree is in chemistry I have been a professor of engineering for probably thirty years of my life so we do understand about technology and we put into the model many different technological assumptions what we found was technology doesn’t eliminate limits to growth it shifts the burden from one limit to another and may push back a little bit the period until things start to go down but of course technology itself doesn’t change the problem technology is a tool it’s used by people and institutions and you can’t understand the future unless you understand the goals of those institutions in order to get attractive results we had to go outside of technology and look at social and even economic changes and we came to understand that the problems we talked about today climate change pollution of the oceans and in some they are not problems they are symptoms they’re symptoms that the globe is starting to mount pressure to stop growth in one way or another population and material and energy growth have to stop on a finite planet and so it comes the question what are the pressures which will stop that growth if they come from us they will be fairly attractive like birth control if they come from the planet they will be fairly unattractive like famine or war or disease but one way or the other these problems are going to come and when we talk now about solving the problem of climate it’s and we aren’t actually addressing the problem the problem is growth in a finite world so how accurate were our scenarios it’s surprisingly difficult to answer that question in a scientific way because the data are still quite poor and they are manipulated for political reasons by countries I mean we even don’t know how much oil is being still left in the ground because different countries have different political motivations to lie about that nonetheless you can make some I guess population is probably one of the variables where we have the most accurate data this shows the history from 1972 up until the present and these were the so you can see where the history is more or less in the middle of what we projected but notice not on the sustainable development path we are in the midst of our overshoot scenarios this is food production per person here again actually here the we weren’t very accurate we the history shows that food production has been much lower than we expected and of course it’s under severe pressure now from climate change there have been other studies recently in Australia the CSIRO the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation undertook a study this is a photocopy of their results they took a standard overshoot run and a standard sustainable development run so they took two of our 11 scenarios in each case this is for population for industrial output for non-renewable resources for pollution and then they plotted historical data just to see and what they find is in most cases the historical data is right on the standard run but of course note we didn’t get to the peak yet so of course we don’t know for sure what will happen next but so

far at least they say that our scenarios are quite accurate and that the world is behaving in the overshoot mode I’m could speak at great lengths to try and convince you that there are limits and that there will be overshoot and so forth I’m I don’t waste your time um you wouldn’t come to this meeting if you were sceptical about that by and large only people come to my lectures who already believe these things so let’s skip and go to the more interesting questions well what to do today how would we make differently today a global model from the one we made 50 years ago in many sectors I actually wouldn’t make many changes because we still don’t have good theories and good data for all of the research which has been done and all the numbers which are available the underlying wisdom that we have about humanity hasn’t improved very much but there are some areas in the first model energy resources oil call natural gas are included in the overall category of resources and I would take them allit because all other resources I think can be substituted quite well copper for aluminum for copper copper for aluminum and so forth but you can’t substitute something for the energy resources so it’s useful to pull them out of course if you pull them out then you can start to take track of co2 emissions and they are in our model in the so called persistent pollution category but because of climate change they have a special role I would pull them out and a big difference between our model and reality is how much money we spend on military hardware and the military generally in our model that doesn’t show up so our model is extremely optimistic and if we took out that money it would reduce the possibilities which exist in the other sectors I still wouldn’t separate the model in two different countries actually as we have seen since we built the model some countries have changed like the Soviet Union quite a bit and I’m quite sure between now and 2100 many other countries will change so that the countries are not a fixed unit of analysis and we anyway aren’t able to make wise statements about what governs the flow of people energy information so forth between countries so I wouldn’t separate the countries we were criticised because we didn’t have prices but I wouldn’t put prices into the model finally over a period of decades or centuries the prices are simply a mechanism for allocating and if you don’t have something it doesn’t matter what its price is you won’t allocate it I think by looking at the underlying physical scarcity you have a much better understanding so I would not put in prices and I wouldn’t make technology a separate independent actor autonomous you hear always a question a statement well technology will solve our problems that’s a that’s a really a stupid statement in a way you know suppose I have a hammer and I hold it up it’s a very useful piece of technology but now you ask me what will it do well it depends who is holding the hammer if the hammer is held by an artist or a fine cabinet maker the hammer is a technology which makes beautiful things if that same hammer is held by a killer for example or some stupid person who doesn’t know what it is it does nothing the benefit is not in the technology it’s in the goals of the person who has the technology most of the money in the world today to develop new technology is going for military technology certainly in my country and if you spend money to develop weapons for enforcing power and killing people you don’t get a technology which is going to solve

hunger climate and so forth so we have technology in our model but the technology is driven by Meads by the goals by the perceptions of the people who are in the model and there are long delays it can take 15-20 years between the discovery of some fundamental new idea and its widespread impact on society even if it’s positive so it’s important to put in technology but you need to be very clever and realistic about how you represent what causes it and what it causes and the key thing to know these technology these changes don’t change the fundamental limits to growth the planet has a certain amount of space land we can alter a little bit you can take salt out of water this gives you a little bit more fresh water and a little bit less salt water but these are minor minor changes and the other reason we wouldn’t change is that actually the globe already has overshot we are far above the capacity of the planet to provide food and materials and energy even for seven and a half billion people if we had 1 billion or maybe 2 billion and a wise government we could afford for everybody to have a living standard like we have but with 7 and 1/2 billion it’s absolutely out of the question this is a graph from Matsuzaka nagua he’s a swiss scientist now working in the States he’s called he developed his concept of the global ecological footprint which is very complicated and probably wrong in certain ways but it’s the best I’ve seen of our ability to get some sense about the carrying capacity of the planet notice that quite by accident our report was written back here when we still had more or less the possibility to support everybody not now we don’t and there are many other ways to think about limits this is a scheme developed up in Stockholm where they took in ten different planetary limits it’s an early stage of research this is somehow the idea of the safe boundary if in the case of ocean acidification they say well we’re not quite up to the boundary but in areas like the loss of biodiversity for example the adding nitrogen into the some we’re way way past our carrying capacity anyway wherever you look there’s evidence that we’re beyond the limits actually the climate is everyday a reminder about ten so what do we forecast for the future well I try to think about Germany and the south of Germany which will be relatively favored in these coming decades sea level rise is not such a big problem here as it is in Bangladesh for example and you have quite a bit of money and many of these problems the rich can buy out a solution if others are starving you can buy food if others don’t have energy you can buy energy you can’t buy a better climate you can’t buy protection from nuclear proliferation there are some things you can’t buy out but but generally speaking you will be slightly better off there is going to be significant may more climate change we know that from the physics of the system even if today everyone in the world stopped emitting co2 the fluorocarbons and the other important greenhouse gases even if we bought them today to zero the climate will continue to change for at least a century maybe longer and of course we aren’t stopping or every year increasing our co2 emissions what does it mean well we don’t know for sure because the tipping points are not fully understood these self-reinforcing cycles that start you know if you melt all the

ice off of the Arctic then more sunlight is absorbed which makes things warmer which melts war eyes etc it’s a positive feedback loop which when it starts means finding the climate doesn’t care what we do about co2 it has its own dynamic it’s always useful to remember we care about the climate but the climate doesn’t care about us this is one forecast from j├Ârgen Wanderers who was one of my colleagues in the first book and we are now here about point seven degrees of global average temperature change under very optimistic assumptions we might be able to stabilize four times higher I can’t personally imagine what kind of climate disruption comes with a four times greater amount of temperature but it the key point is it will be very different from today so what does that mean for Germany well you can make a list as accurate as mine but I just to remind you of some of the things we were speaking about here more frequent heat waves I stayed in a very lovely hotel in Munich but out in the garden were air-conditioning pipes because their air-conditioning system is no longer big enough to keep the rooms cool in the summer they have to put in more and they’re reacting to the past they don’t think about the future so a more frequent heat waves rising sea level which actually of course doesn’t bother you very much directly but it’s going to force many more immigrants into Europe I mean who knows but I was speaking last night my guess is you know the the amount of pressure which you have now is five or ten percent of what you will see in 30 years because of sea level rise the weather is driven by heat the heat and content of the atmosphere is going up so we will see more extreme whether droughts floods winds so forth that has some impact on food production in many ways one interesting trend is that as the co2 increases in the atmosphere the food quality of the plants goes down the nutrition level goes down so even if you’re producing the same tons of mais it isn’t so nutritious as before the biosphere will be simplified more pests and energy is going to be more expensive because for example let’s take Switzerland an interesting problem what will happen to Switzerland their electricity comes mainly from dams the dam water comes from the glaciers and the glaciers are going to disappear so what happens to the electricity I don’t know it’s interesting but it’s not going to make it cheaper talking about energy we have quite a different issue for reasons I’ll show you in a moment I expect that energy is going to become more expensive because of we are depleting using up the cheap supply of course Germany has been very very successful in developing renewable energy you’re you know everyone is excited and respecting of the example of Germany except maybe the Germans aren’t but everybody else thinks it’s fantastic here nonetheless it’s still quite a small percent 14% not even half of what you’re getting from oil or natural gas and it’s those which are going to become more difficult every year since 1984 every single year since 1984 the world has used more oil than it discovered so in the early days thirty forties fifties we discovered these huge oil fields the so called elephants and we are still pumping them down but when it comes time to find new discoveries we’re not even replacing what we use so they’re slowly the amount of oil under the ground available to us is coming down it was predicted that oil

production would peak out in 2016 a very interesting German think tank called the energy watch group just outside of Berlin did a detailed study and figured that by 2030 oil production globally would be half of current levels then the United States discovered shale oil and now we have this little bubble and of course the Americans are so proud and think well this really changes everything it’s a minor and fairly short thing I think even already by 2020 the shale oil will be going down and and we will be back on this curve Germany has been very successful in reducing its energy use I mean it’s a it’s amazing what you have accomplished despite very rapid economic growth from 1990 up to the present it’s your total primary energy consumption so primary energy means for example how much you put into the electrical generating facility not just what comes down it’s the important number and it shows again renewables mineral oil going down a little bit but still very high so what is this going to do for Germany a very interesting one will be the shifting power relations between those who export energy and those who import it you import Russia exports and as you know of key issue is the extent to which Germany comes involved with Russia and relationships that permit a lot of mainly gas to come over here I it’s not my field of expertise and you’re not interested in my opinion anyway and actually I’m not interested in my opinion so I don’t give it but if we can say that this is one of the key factors which is going to unfold over the next decade the pressure on the energy system will not permit Germany to ignore this question you’re going to have to explicitly make some decisions about this because energy prices get higher the economic growth is going to slow down that has all sorts of political consequences you know we have Trump the United States partly because so many people in the United States see that the economy isn’t doing anything for them quite the contrary so in desperation they start to vote for people like that when you eat food every calorie of food on your plate typically has about ten calories of energy behind it to produce ship manufacturer cool cook and so forth so you can imagine if the energy price starts to go up the price of food is going to go up and this these things always relate to political change I received my award this morning in the health care of the residents in Munich and I observed that that church was started by a king it was destroyed under a dictator and restored under a Chancellor three different governmental forms each of those people certainly thought they were last forever and they were swept away so it’s an interesting question what comes next I don’t know what’s going to come next but I know that we’re in a period of stability certainly in my country the political system isn’t even working for the current circumstances it certainly doesn’t work for the future circumstances and changing structure of labor force one statistic which is I always found interesting in a society which gets its energy principally from renewable resources past your forests crops in such a society 80% of the labor force has to be in primary production that leaves you 20% for your military your priests your government’s your artists but 80% are out there actually generating energy now the amount of people who generate energy in our societies is down in a few percent but as the cheap energy sources go away the labor force is going to have to shift

back into more connection with energy production these are not new ideas long before the computer was being used there was an interesting book actually I recommend it to you I don’t know if it’s in German probably it is called the challenge of man’s future it was written in 1954 and in that book Harrison Brown who was a professor he was at one time chairman of our Scientific Council in the United States had this to say I leave you to read it I don’t bother to say it’s an interesting idea and we see it with renewable energy for example you can’t produce solar panels or windmills by cutting down trees and using cows on pastures you need fossil fuels and if we somehow don’t manage to get on to the next phase before we finish with this phase we lose that possibility and so it’s a very interesting act which most people I think and the government’s don’t understand okay now when you look at my curves there’s always a tendency to imagine that the greatest problems will be after the peak when things start to go down that’s what you think oh that would be pretty terrible time actually not this assumption is not correct in order for that peak to happen the pressures against growth have to be big enough to equal the pressures in favour of growth I mean that’s simple dynamics those pressures against growth are what we call problems so the biggest pressures have to occur at the end of the growth phase that’s where we are now in the next 30 40 50 years we are in this period where the pro-growth and the anti growth pressures are coming into equilibrium in order to stop the growth we’re just in the early period there I I gave a speech in vienna’s I was 19 2010 maybe something and I said then the change is what they will see in Austria in the next 20 or 30 years will be greater than the changes that they saw in the last century changes an economy in governance in environment living standards and so forth and I said that with the full understanding of the enormous changes that there have been in Austria I mean 100 years ago it was a great Empire now not etc well we’re moving in that direction and I would say again the same thing we don’t know exactly what’s happening to happen but I know for sure when you or your children are looking back let’s say from 2050 on this period you will see huge changes which we don’t now of course anticipate you know I mean if I had said to you 10 or 15 years ago the Euro will disappear as a common currency for the European Union or Great Britain will vote to leave the European Union and you would have said that it’s just a crazy idea but now these things are happening we are seeing weather in the United States which is setting historical records we’ve we’ve never in our recorded history seen such floods and such temperatures and so forth it’s and it becomes the most common time your quit paying attention to it almost so what to do well that’s always of course the bottom line what to do this came out in 1972 and I think it’s still true until we stopped physical growth on this planet there are going to be more and more problems everyone says well yes obviously but then you say to them well we don’t have enough labor force what’s the antrum we have to increase our population bring in young people to work in the factories or we have poor people what’s the answer we have to make the economy bigger so that we have more money for the poor people etc or people don’t have enough to eat what’s the answer we have to produce more so the growth is the automatic habitual response to these problems nobody yet fully understands that we just have to stop you know it’s an interesting question for Germany you

solve you could solve many problems by bringing in more people if you do it in a wise way but then 20 or 30 years ago from now you again have these same problems except now you have a lot people with many different cultures so you know it’s some what I had in the United States we we’ve had to call it the Redwood problem the Redwood are these very special trees they get very large but if they take centuries to grow they’re very valuable wood and there was a whole industry based on harvesting the redwood trees to make them into different kinds of products and then the environmentalists said well we have to stop cutting these redwood trees they’ll disappear and the industry said well we lose jobs we can it’s impossible to join but the point is they’re going to have to stop cutting redwood trees at some point either now or when there aren’t anymore and the options you have are better if you stop now than if you wait until later this redwood problem it faces us with energy with population migration with many things we just have to switch over one of the most important books I’ve read recently it was written in Japan it’s called negative population growth economics what does it mean to have a society and an economy where the population is going down instead of up even in Japan they don’t have any interest in this book it’s not known and they are now starting because of the stable population to try and import special immigrants to provide workers I this morning cited the quote of jean-paul honker who said you know we know what to do but we don’t know how to get reelected if we do it it’s the main dilemma of our democratic system a democratic system has many benefits I’m personally happy that I live in us more or less democratic and society but it has the disadvantage that the people we elect pay attention to what’s going to happen between now in the next election they don’t necessarily work for the long-term benefit when you have problems with short term dynamics that’s fine but when you have problems which take a century or two centuries to solve one or two year electorial cycle just simply doesn’t work anymore and we need to start thinking about different ways to capture the benefits of electorial democracy but to bring a longer-term perspective into it to give our representatives the power that they could be reelected even if they do something which only has negative results over the next 10 or 15 years there are in the United States no energy policies which are good for the long term that don’t impose serious costs on the short term the best thing we could do in the United States now so raise the price of oil so that people would start to economize and find a substitute but no politician will vote for that because they know they would lose the next election quit giving so much respect to the market system I could get off into a long and discussion about that but it’s boring and probably also not relevant here there’s been this mystique some magical ideas about the economic system and they’re just it’s a swindle and a fantasy and soon we’re going to have to start understanding that the neoliberal notions of competition and so forth simply aren’t working for us and a key thing we have to start understanding two long delays I remember when my former president actually wasn’t my president but the president of the United States Bush said well you know when I see a climate problem I’ll do something about it the point is of course when you see a climate problem it’s too late because it’s like being on the Titanic and you put a guy on the front with a stick and he says when I feel an iceberg you know I’ll do something about it but of course at that point it’s impossible to do anything remember the delays of course the politicians always like to say that the solutions are on technology it makes it easier for them but actually the good results are going to come from

social and political change one of the most serious problems in the economic system is this notion of discounting trying to compare future costs with current costs there was a brief moment when the stern report came out on climate where there was some possibility of a significant change and then the Economist started to say oh forget about it the discount rate he’s using is too low and if you make a higher discount rate you see it’s economically irrational to do anything now about climate rather we should keep going as we are and then later we can use all the money which he accumulate in the short term to solve climate problems it’s it’s just a totally false way of trying to understand this this thing you know the precautionary principle disappears under discounting my mother had a very different approach she didn’t go past high school she never went to college but she was quite a wise woman and yeah she said many times if you can’t afford to lose don’t gamble that’s a more interesting way to think about how to compare current and future problem the government tends to hope or think that these problems are going to come one at a time and then we can deal with them one at a time but of course and this we showed already in 1972 they’re all interconnected to solve the climate problem we have to develop photovoltaic panels but to develop photo will take panels we have to use a lot of special minerals and in order to get those minerals we have to do use a lot of water and pollute a lot of water and in order to purify the water we have to use elect a lot of electricity and that gives us back more climate problem so everything is interconnected and if you want to solve these problems you shouldn’t imagine that you look at one problem figure out the solution look at another problem and so forth and also of course realize nobody exactly understands what’s going on we don’t we simply don’t know we don’t know what’s coming so rather than trying to design a solution to some future problem which we predict we have to design our system that it can deal with a whole wide range of problems and until we find out what’s coming it’s the shift towards resilience rather than sustainable development and of course I don’t have to tell you this you know everybody makes mistakes so many of our policies for example with nuclear power are based on the idea that we’re going to do something which will never make a mistake that’s a totally silly idea there will always be mistakes the government is now building a data system which is designed on the idea that nobody will ever make a mistake which lets that data out into bad hands it’s a totally strange idea there will be mistakes we have to build a system that can deal with it so my friend amery Lovins used to say don’t try to be failsafe try to fail safely build a system which can have mistakes and still gets on Fukushima was an example of a system designed to work perfectly as long as there were no mistakes and as soon as there was mistaken absolute unmitigated catastrophe and quit trying to go back to past conditions it’s that’s not one of our possibilities the you know the political they’d like they liked his period from about 1990 up to 2000 you know it was peaceful there was economic growth environmental problems weren’t very soona it’s a beautiful time and everybody’s saying oh how do we get back it’s gone where we’re moving in a different direction and we need just to be realistic about towns and here a practical suggestion for this campus focus much more on resilience how do you build systems that can accommodate shocks and chaos and continue to function this idea is elaborated in some physical systems but when we think about government or cities or your family or even the University probably this idea

of resilience is still not very well explored resilience is a science it has some standard principles and theories which can be mapped into different areas it’s extremely important for example in agriculture we know there are going to be enormous shots coming from temperature from drought from floods and so forth and we need new research to develop the seeds and techniques for doing it okay well I could go on but now it’s time to quit I’d just like to show you one more quick exercise which is actually the most important thing I conveyed in the whole evening in just a moment I’m going to ask all of you to clap your hands like that don’t do it yet and this is not a tricky way to get applause there’s actually if there’s a serious method here so in a moment I’m going to ask you all to clap your hands at the same time and if we’re successful then it will outside it would sound like it was a giant in here who clapped our hands and here’s how we do it I’m going to count to three slowly one two three then not don’t do it then I will say clap and precisely at that moment when I say clap we all except our hands okay I’m going to count to three and I’m going to say clap and then you don’t give one two three clap [Applause] this is a scientific audience right the point here is a very very important one actions our actions have much more influence than our words of course you understood my words it was totally clear but as soon as my actions were different you pay attention to my actions instead of my words it’s going to be like this with these problems the fact that we have new words to describe them means nothing if our behaviors don’t start to change thank you very much [Applause] [Applause]