When I was a student here in Oxford in the 1970s,
the future of the world was bleak.
The population explosion was unstoppable.
Global famine was inevitable.
A cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment
was going to shorten our lives.
The acid rain was falling on the forests.
The desert was advancing by a mile or two a year.
The oil was running out.
And a nuclear winter would finish us off.
None of those things happened.
(Laughter)
And astonishingly, if you look at what actually happened in my lifetime,
the average per-capita income
of the average person on the planet,
in real terms, adjusted for inflation,
has tripled.
Lifespan is up by 30 percent in my lifetime.
Child mortality is down by two-thirds.
Per-capita food production
is up by a third.
And all this at a time when the population has doubled.
How did we achieve that -- whether you think it's a good thing or not --
How did we achieve that?
How did we become
the only species
that becomes more prosperous
as it becomes more populous?
The size of the blob in this graph represents the size of the population.
And the level of the graph
represents GDP per capita.
I think to answer that question
you need to understand
how human beings bring together their brains
and enable their ideas to combine and recombine,
to meet and, indeed, to mate.
In other words, you need to understand
how ideas have sex.
I want you to imagine
how we got from making objects like this
to making objects like this.
These are both real objects.
One is an Acheulean hand axe from half a million years ago
of the kind made by Homo erectus.
The other is obviously a computer mouse.
They're both exactly the same size and shape to an uncanny degree.
I've tried to work out which is bigger,
and it's almost impossible.
And that's because they're both designed to fit the human hand.
They're both technologies. In the end, their similarity is not that interesting.
It just tells you they were both designed to fit the human hand.
The differences are what interest me.
Because the one on the left was made to a pretty unvarying design
for about a million years --
from one-and-a-half million years ago to half a million years ago.
Homo erectus made the same tool
for 30,000 generations.
Of course there were a few changes,
but tools changed slower than skeletons in those days.
There was no progress, no innovation.
It's an extraordinary phenomenon, but it's true.
Whereas the object on the right is obsolete after five years.
And there's another difference too,
which is the object on the left is made from one substance.
The object on the right is made from
a confection of different substances,
from silicon and metal and plastic and so on.
And more than that, it's a confection of different ideas,
the idea of plastic, the idea of a laser,
the idea of transistors.
They've all been combined together in this technology.
And it's this combination,
this cumulative technology, that intrigues me.
Because I think it's the secret to understanding
what's happening in the world.
My body's an accumulation of ideas too,
the idea of skin cells, the idea of brain cells, the idea of liver cells.
They've come together.
How does evolution do cumulative, combinatorial things?
Well, it uses sexual reproduction.
In an asexual species, if you get two different mutations in different creatures,
a green one and a red one,
then one has to be better than the other.
One goes extinct for the other to survive.
But if you have a sexual species,
then it's possible for an individual
to inherit both mutations
from different lineages.
So what sex does is it enables the individual
to draw upon
the genetic innovations of the whole species.
It's not confined to its own lineage.
What's the process that's having the same effect
in cultural evolution
as sex is having in biological evolution?
And I think the answer is exchange,
the habit of exchanging one thing for another.
It's a unique human feature.
No other animal does it.
You can teach them in the laboratory to do a little bit of exchange.
And indeed there's reciprocity in other animals.
But the exchange of one object for another never happens.
As Adam Smith said, "No made ever saw a dog
make a fair exchange of a bone with another dog."
(Laughter)
You can have culture without exchange.
You can have, as it were, asexual culture.
Chimpanzees, killer whales, these kinds of creatures, they have culture.
They teach each other traditions
which are handed down from parent to offspring.
In this case, chimpanzees teaching each other
how to crack nuts with rocks.
But the difference is
that these cultures never expand, never grow,
never accumulate, never become combinatorial.
And the reason is because
there is no sex, as it were,
there is no exchange of ideas.
Chimpanzee troops have different cultures in different troops.
There's no exchange of ideas between them.
And why does exchange raise living standards?
Well, the answer came from David Ricardo in 1817.
And here is a Stone Age version of his story,
although he told it in terms of trade between countries.
Adam takes four hours to make a spear and three hours to make an axe.
Oz takes one hour to make a spear and two hours to make an axe.
So Oz is better at both spears and axes than Adam.
He doesn't need Adam.
He can make his own spears and axes.
Well no, because if you think about it,
if Oz makes two spears and Adam make two axes,
and then they trade,
then they will each have saved an hour of work.
And the more they do this, the more true it's going to be.
Because the more they do this, the better Adam is going to get at making axes,
and the better Oz is going to get at making spears.
So the gains from trade are only going to grow.
And this is one of the beauties of exchange,
is it actually creates the momentum
for more specialization,
which creates the momentum for more exchange and so on.
Adam and Oz both saved an hour of time.
That is prosperity, the saving of time
in satisfying your needs.
Ask yourself how long you would have to work
to provide for yourself
an hour of reading light this evening to read a book by.
If you had to start from scratch, let's say you go out into the countryside.
You find a sheep. You kill it. You get the fat of of it.
You render it down. You make a candle, etc. etc.
How long is it going to take you? Quite a long time.
How long do you actually have to work
to earn an hour of reading light
if you're on the average wage in Britain today?
And the answer is about half a second.
Back in 1950,
you would have had to work for eight seconds on the average wage
to acquire that much light.
And that's seven and a half seconds of prosperity that you've gained.
Since 1950, as it were.
Because that's seven and a half seconds in which you can do something else.
Or you can acquire another good or service.
And back in 1880,
it would have been 15 minutes
to earn that amount of light from the average wage.
Back in 1800,
you'd have had to work six hours
to earn a candle that could burn for an hour.
In other words, the average person on the average wage
could not afford a candle in 1800.
Go back to this image of the axe and the mouse,
and ask yourself: "Who made them and for who?"
The stone axe was made by someone for himself.
It was self-sufficiency.
We call that poverty these days.
But the object on the right
was made for me by other people.
How many other people?
Tens? Hundreds? Thousands?
You know, I think it's probably millions.
Because you've to include the man who grew the coffee,
which was brewed for the man who was on the oil rig,
who was drilling for oil, which was going to be made into the plastic, etc.
They were all working for me,
to make a mouse for me.
And that's the way society works.
That's what we've achieved as a species.
In the old days, if you were rich,
you literally had people working for you.
That's how you got to be rich; you employed them.
Louis XIV had a lot of people working for him.
They made his silly outfits, like this.
(Laughter)
And they did his silly hairstyles, or whatever.
He had 498 people
to prepare his dinner every night.
But a modern tourist going around the palace of Versailles
and looking at Louis XIV's pictures,
he has 498 people doing his dinner tonight too.
They're in bistros and cafes and restaurants
and shops all over Paris.
And they're all ready to serve you at an hour's notice with an excellent meal
that's probably got higher quality
than Louis XIV even had.
And that's what we've done, because we're all working for each other.
We're able to draw upon specialization and exchange
to raise each other's living standards.
Now, you do get other animals working for each other too.
Ants are a classic example; workers work for queens and queens work for workers.
But there's a big difference,
which is that it only happens within the colony.
There's no working for each other across the colonies.
And the reason for that is because there's a reproductive division of labor.
That is to say, they specialize with respect to reproduction.
The queen does it all.
In our species, we don't like doing that.
It's the one thing we insist on doing for ourselves, is reproduction.
(Laughter)
Even in England, we don't leave reproduction to the Queen.
(Applause)
So when did this habit start?
And how long has it been going on? And what does it mean?
Well, I think, probably, the oldest version of this
is probably the sexual division of labor.
But I've got no evidence for that.
It just looks like the first thing we did
was work male for female and female for male.
In all hunter-gatherer societies today,
there's a foraging division of labor
between, on the whole, hunting males and gathering females.
It isn't always quite that simple.
But there's a distinction between
specialized roles between males and females.
And the beauty of this system
is that it benefits both sides.
The woman knows
that, in the Hadzas' case here --
digging roots to share with men in exchange for meat --
she knows that all she has to do to get access to protein
is to dig some extra roots and trade them for meat.
And she doesn't have to go on an exhausting hunt
and try and kill a warthog.
And the man knows that he doesn't have to do any digging
to get roots.
All he has to do is make sure that when he kills a warthog
it's big enough to share some.
And so both sides raise each other's standards of living
through the sexual division of labor.
When did this happen? We don't know, but it's possible
that neanderthals didn't do this.
They were a highly cooperative species.
They were a highly intelligent species.
Their brains on average, by the end, were bigger than yours and mine
in this room today.
They were imaginative. They buried their dead.
They had language probably,
because we know they had the FOXP2 gene of the same kind as us,
which was discovered here in Oxford.
And it looks like they probably had linguistic skills.
They were brilliant people. I'm not dissing the neanderthals.
But there's no evidence
of a sexual division of labor.
There's no evidence of gathering behavior by females.
It looks like the females were cooperative hunters with the men.
And the other thing there's no evidence for
is exchange between groups.
Because the objects that you find in neanderthal remains,
the tools they made,
are always made from local materials.
For example, in the Caucasus
there's a site where you find local neanderthal tools.
They're always made from local chert.
In the same valley there are modern human remains
from about the same date, 30,000 years ago.
And some of those are from local chert,
but more -- but many of them are made
from obsidian from a long way away.
And when human beings began
moving objects around like this,
it was evidence that they were exchanging between groups.
Trade is 10 times as old as farming.
People forget that. People think of trade as a modern thing.
Exchange between groups has been going on
for a hundred thousand years.
And the early evidence for it crops up
somewhere between 80 and 120,000 years ago in Africa,
when you see obsidian and jasper and other things
moving long distances in Ethiopia.
You also see seashells --
as discovered by a team here in Oxford --
moving 125 miles inland
from the Mediterranean in Algeria.
And that's evidence that people
have started exchanging between groups.
And that will have led to specialization.
How do you know that long-distance movement
means trade rather than migration?
Well, you look at modern hunter gatherers like aboriginals,
who quarried for stone axes at a place called Mt. Isa,
which was a quarry owned by the Kalkadoon tribe.
They traded them with their neighbors
for things like stingray barbs.
And the consequence was that stone axes
ended up over a large part of Australia.
So long-distance movement of tools
is a sign of trade, not migration.
What happens when you cut people off from exchange,
from the ability to exchange and specialize?
And the answer is that,
not only do you slow down technological progress,
you can actually throw it into reverse.
An example is Tasmania.
When the sea level rose, and Tasmania became an island 10,000 years ago,
the people on it, not only experienced
slower progress than people on the mainland,
they actually experienced regress.
They gave up the ability to make [bone] tools
and fishing equipment and clothing
because the population of about 4,000 people
was simply not large enough
to maintain the specialized skills
necessary to keep the technology they had.
It's as if the people in this room were plonked on a desert island.
How many of the things in our pockets
could we continue to make after 10,000 years?
It didn't happen in Tierra del Fuego --
similar island, similar people.
The reason, because Tierra del Fuego
is separated from South America by a much narrower straight.
And there was trading contact across that straight
throughout 10,000 years.
The Tasmanians were isolated.
Go back to this image again
and ask yourself, not only who made it and for who,
but who knew how to make it.
In the case of the stone axe, the man who made it knew how to make it.
But who knows how to make a computer mouse?
Nobody, literally nobody.
There is nobody on the planet who knows how to make a computer mouse.
I mean this quite seriously.
The president of the computer mouse company doesn't know.
He just knows how to run a company.
The person on the assembly line doesn't know
because he doesn't know how to drill an oil well
to get oil out to make plastic, and so on.
We all know little bits, but none of us knows the whole.
I am of course quoting from a famous essay
by Leonard Read, the economist in the 1950s,
called "I, Pencil"
in which he wrote about how a pencil came to be made,
and how nobody knows even how to make a pencil,
because the people who assemble it don't know how to mine graphite.
And they don't know how to fell trees and that kind of thing.
And what we've done in human society,
through exchange and specialization,
is we've created
the ability to do things that we don't even understand.
It's not the same with language.
With language we have to transfer ideas
that we understand with each other.
But with technology,
we can actually do things that are beyond our capabilities.
We've gone beyond the capacity of the human mind
to an extraordinary degree.
And by the way,
that's one of the reasons that I'm not interested
in the debate about I.Q.,
about whether some groups have higher I.Q.s that other groups.
It's completely irrelevant.
What's relevant to a society
is how well people are communicating their ideas,
and how well they're cooperating,
not how clever their individuals are.
So we've created something called the collective brain.
We're just the nodes in the network.
We're the neurons in this brain.
It's the interchange of ideas,
the meeting and mating of ideas between them,
that is causing technological progress,
incrementally, bit by bit.
However, bad things happen.
And in the future, as we go forward,
we will, of course experience terrible things.
There will be wars; there will be depressions;
there will be natural disasters.
Awful things will happen in this century, I'm absolutely sure.
But I'm also that, because of the connections people are making,
and the ability of ideas
to meet and to mate
as never before.
I'm also sure
that technology will advance,
and therefore living standards will advance.
Because through the cloud,
through crowd sourcing,
through the bottom-up world that we've created,
where not just the elites, but everybody
is able to have their ideas
and make them meet and mate,
we are surely accelerating the rate of innovation.
Thank you.
(Applause)
1970年代，当我在牛津大学上学时，
全世界的未来是暗淡无光的。
“人口爆炸”危机是无法阻止的。
全球饥荒也无法避免。
由化学物质引发的癌症蔓延下，
我们的寿命缩短了。
酸雨侵蚀森林。
每年沙漠以1到2英里的速度扩张。
我们也快用完了石油。
核冬天将终结我们人类。
不过上面所说的其实都没有发生。
（笑声）
令人惊奇的是，看看我有生之年到底发生了什么事，
目前地球上，每个人的
人均收入
以实质计算，经过通货膨胀的调整，
已经增加了3倍。
我的寿命延长了30%。
幼儿死亡率下降了三分之二。
人均食物生产
增加了三分之一。
所有这一切都发生在人口增加到两倍的时候。
我们是如何做到的呢？你可曾想过这是好事或者是坏事？
我们到底怎样做到的呢？
人类是如何变成
仅有的一个物种因人口众多
反而变得更加
繁荣昌盛？
这图表中有颜色线的粗细变化说明了人口的增长变化。
图标水平坐标
代表了人均国内生产总值。
要回答上面的问题，
各位得明白
人类是如何集思广益，
使他们的思想相融合，再融合，
彼此碰撞，甚至是相交配。
换句话说，各位必须明白
思想是怎样交配的。
大家来想象一下
我们是怎样从制作这个物体手斧
到制作了右边这个鼠标的东西。
它们都是实物。
一个是五十万年前直立人
制作的阿舍利手斧。
另一个明显是一个鼠标。
两者完全一样的大小，真是不可思议的构造。
我试着弄明白哪一个是比较大的，
这基本上没什么区别。
因为它们两者设计都是适用于人手。
两者都体现了科技。最后，他们的相似性不是很有趣。
这说明他们两者都适用于人手。
让我感兴趣的是差异性。
因为大约1百万年--
从150万年前到
50万年前，左边的手斧基本没有做任何改变的设计。
直立人为3万后代
制造了这样的工具。
当然会稍有改变，
但在那时工具变化速度比骨骼进化要慢。
所谓没有进步，没有创新。
这是个特别的现象，但这是事实。
相反右边的鼠标五年后就会过时。
还有另一个区别是，
左边手斧是从一种物质制作出来的。
右边的鼠标是从
不同物质，
从硅，金属到塑料等等制成的精美用品。
更重要的是，它是不同思想，
塑料的，激光的，
电晶体的碰撞想法后的创新。
所有思想相互结合的科技。
这种结合
和科技累积令我着迷。
我认为这其中的奥妙
可以了解这世界上要发生的事情。
我身体也是不同思想的聚焦，
皮肤细胞的，脑细胞的，肝细胞的想法聚焦。
它们协同作用。
进化是怎样累积和组合的呢？
通过有性生殖来进化的。
在无形物种，如果用不同物种的不同突变，
一个绿的和一个红的，
那么一个要比另一个更能适应。
1个会灭绝，另一个则生存下来。
但有性物种相交配，
那么一个个体可以
从不同干系物种
两种突变。
所以性交配使得个体
拥有
整个物种的遗传基因。
不仅仅限于自己的支系。
正如同性交配在生物进化上的作用一样，
那么文化演变上起相同作用，
这种作用的过程是什么？
我想答案是交换，
从一个物体交换另一个物体的习惯。
这是人类独一无二的特点。
其他的动物不这样。
我们可以教实验室的动物做一点点交换实验。
的确其他动物也有互惠关系。
但从一个物体到另一个物体的交换从没有发生过。
正如亚当-斯密说过：“从没见过一条狗
与另一条狗公平交换骨头。”
（笑声）
没有交换的文化也存在。
换言之，无性文化。
黑猩猩，逆戟鲸，像这些生物，它们都有自己的文化。
它们互相传授
从父母到其子女幼儿流传下来的传统。
在这种情况下，黑猩猩互相教
怎样用岩石砸碎坚果。
但有所区别的是
这些文化从来没有扩张，没有增强，
没有积累，也从来没有相结合过。
原因是因为
没有相交配文化，所谓，
没有交换的思想文化。
在不同的黑猩猩族群有不同的文化。
在它们之间没有交换思想。
那么为什么交换会提高生活水准？
正如1817年戴维-里卡多的答案。
尽管这是他的石器时代的版本故事，
但他用它来说明国家之间的贸易。
亚当做一只矛用四小时，一个斧头用三个小时。
奥兹做一只矛用一小时，一个斧头用两个小时。
所以奥兹比起亚当制造矛和斧头都要好。
他不需要亚当的帮忙。
奥兹可以自己制造更多的矛和斧头。
但不应该这样，假如你想想看，
如果奥兹制作2个矛，而亚当制作2个斧头，
然后他们交换做贸易，
他们每一个都节约了1小时工时。
他们做得越熟练，这交换就越来越有意思。
因为做得越熟练，熟练工亚当更擅长做斧头，
熟练工奥兹更擅长做矛。
这种贸易互惠变得更实质。
这是交换益处之一，
它实际上创造了
更加专业的契机，
也创造了更多交换等等类似的契机。
亚当和奥兹两者都节约了1小时工时。
节约时间
来满足人们的需要，这就是成功。
问问大家你们要工作多久，
在晚上
才能点亮阅读灯1小时来读书。
如果你要从头开始，你到郊外去进行。
你找到一只羊。你杀了它，得到羊脂肪。
然后把羊脂肪熬成油，你制成了蜡烛，等等。
你要花费多久才能制成光？相当长的时间。
如果按时下英国的平均工资计算，能有1小时的阅读灯光，
你到底要
工作多久呢？
答案是大约半秒钟。
追溯到1950年，
按平均工资算，你得工作8秒钟
得到1小时的光。
你得多付出7秒半的工作时间。
换言之，1950年以来，
7秒半钟的时间，你可以做别的一些事。
或者你可以换取别的产品或服务。
再追溯到1880年，
平均工资算，人们要工作15分钟
才能挣得1小时的光。
追溯到1800年，
你必须工作6小时，
你才会有1个蜡烛，它能燃烧1小时。
换言之，在1800年，人均平均工资
负担不起1个蜡烛。
回到这幅手斧和鼠标的图片，
大家曾问过自己：“谁制作了他们，为了谁制作的？”
某人为自己制作了石斧。
这是自备用的。
我们称那些日子还很贫穷。
但是右边的鼠标
是其他人为了我而生产的。
有多少人呢？
十个？一百个？一千个？
我知道大概有数百万个。
因为你得包括生产咖啡的人们，
他们给那些在石油钻台工作的人们提供咖啡，
石油钻台人们提取石油，使之生产出塑料等等。
这些人都为我工作，
才生产出这鼠标。
这是社会运转的方式。
也是我们人类进步的方式。
在过去的日子，假如你是个富人，
你的确拥有很多人来伺候你。
你变得如何富有；你就能雇佣很多人。
路易十四世拥有很多侍从。
他们制作路易十四愚蠢的服饰，就如这个。
（笑声）
他们也做路易十四愚蠢的发型，或者类似的事。
每晚，路易十四有498侍从
为他做宫廷御膳。
但现代旅客在凡尔赛宫参观，
看着路易十四的画，
他晚上也可以享受498人为他做的晚餐。
这些人遍布巴黎的酒馆，咖啡馆，餐馆
和商店。
这些人随时服务于你，只要你提前1小时预约一顿丰盛的美餐，
恐怕你享受的美餐要远远好于
路易斯十四的御膳。
因为我们相互协同工作，我们才能做好。
我们能够变得专业，并交换技能，
来提高每个人生活水准。
现在，其他动物也彼此协同工作。
蚂蚁就是个经典例子；工蚁为蚁后工作，反之亦然。
但是一个大区别是，
这种协同合作仅发生在一个蚁群里。
在这蚁群之外就没有彼此的协同合作。
缘由是生殖的劳动分工。
也可以说，它们分工取决于繁殖力。
蚁后全权负责繁殖。
在我们人类物种，我们不可以像那样做。
我们坚持一定要自己做的一件事就是繁殖。
（笑声）
甚至在英国，我们不会让女王带我们去生殖繁衍后代。
（掌声）
这个习惯何时形成的？
要多久能形成？这有什么意义？
我认为，这最古老的人类版本
可能是性别分工。
但我还没有例证加以说明。
这就好比我们起初的那样，
男人为女人而工作，女人为男人而劳作。
在当代所有狩猎采集社会，
整体上看，在狩猎男性和采集女性之间
是以觅食分工。
这种觅食分工也是很复杂的。
在男女之间的专业分工角色
是有区别的。
这分工体系的妙处
是它有利于男女两者。
在哈扎人(Hadzas坦桑尼亚原住民)的这个案例，
女人知道
挖根茎，并与男人交换肉类，
她知道要想得到脂肪
就要去挖更多的根茎，并与男人交换后得到肉。
女人不需要参与一次耗力的狩猎，
去尝试猎杀一头疣猪。
男人知道他用不着挖根茎
来得到想要的。
他要做的就是猎杀到一头
足够大的疣猪，并用来分享。
男女双方通过性别分工
相互提高生活水准。
这何时发生的呢？我们不得而知，但是
尼安德特人可能没有这样做。
他们是高度合作的物种。
他们是高智商的物种。
说到底，平均他们的大脑比今天
在座各位的和我的大脑要大得多。
他们富有想像力。他们掩埋他们中的死者。
他们可能用语言交流，
因为我们所知他们有和我们人类一样的FOXP2基因，
这是在牛津大学研究发现的。
尼安德特人可能有语言技能。
他们是很聪明的人。我不是说尼安德特人的不好。
但是没有证据显示
他们有性别分工。
没有女性的采集行为，
这就好比女性和男性一起协同狩猎。
另一件事是没有证据显示
在不同族群之间的交换。
因为你在尼安德特人遗址发现的那些物件，
他们制造的工具，
多数是当地材料制成的。
例如，在高加索遗址，
你可以发现当地尼安德特人制造的工具。
它们都是当地黑燧石制成的。
在这同样的山谷，大约在3万年前同一日期，
那有现代人类遗址。
现代人的一些燧石是当地制成的，
但更多，多数是
从很远的地方的黑曜石制成的。
当人们开始
移动像这个类似的东西时，
这就证明他们开始在不同族群交换东西。
交换贸易比农业有10倍多长远历史。
人们忘了这个。人们认为贸易是现代产物。
不同族群交换已经延伸
了十万年之久。
早期证明贸易开始于
8万年到12万年以前的非洲某地，
你看到黑曜石和碧玉和其他东西
是通过埃塞俄比亚的长距离交换贸易而来的。
你也看到海贝，
经牛津大学的团队证明，
这海贝沿地中海的阿尔及利亚
向内陆移动125英里。
这就是人们开始在
不同族群交换的证明。
这将导致专业分工。
为什么认为长距离移动是指贸易
而不是指移民？
你观察现代狩猎采集者像澳洲土著人，
他们在伊萨山区（位于澳洲东北）用石斧工作，
那是Kalkadoon卡卡度部落拥有一个开采区。
他们与他们的邻居
交换类似魟刺的东西。
结果是这配有魟刺的石斧在
澳大利亚的大部分地区都能见到。
所以长距离移动的工具
是贸易的标志，而不是移民。
当你切断人们之间交换，阻止人们交换和专业分工能力，
会发生什么呢？
结论是
你不仅仅延缓科技进步，
实际上使科技退步。
塔斯马尼亚岛就是个例子。
1万年前，当海平面上升，塔斯马尼亚岛变成个孤岛，
在那的人们比起澳大利亚的人们经历了
更慢的进步，
他们实际上在倒退。
他们放弃了生产骨制品，
钓鱼工具和制衣技能，
缘于四千人口
不是足够庞大
到需要专业分工技能，
才能维护他们拥有的科技。
这就好比今天在座的人们被空投到一个荒岛。
在1万年后，我们口袋中有多少物品
会继续使用生产？
在火地岛（智力和阿根廷分而治之的岛屿），同样的岛屿，同样的人们
身上却不会发生这种事。
因为火地岛与
南美洲大陆仅隔一个非常狭窄的海峡。（麦哲伦海峡）
整个一万年来，贯穿海峡有往来
贸易合同。
而塔斯马尼亚岛却是隔绝的。
再回到这幅图片
不仅仅试问，谁制造了它，为谁造的，
也要知道是谁怎样生产出来的。
石斧的例子，人们生产它出来就知道怎样制作的。
但是谁知道怎样生产出鼠标吗？
没人，没人完全知道。
地球上没人知道怎样生产出鼠标。
我真的很严肃。
鼠标公司的总裁不知道。
他仅知道怎样运作一个公司。
安装线上工人也不知道，
缘于他不知道怎样钻探油井，
通过提炼石油生产出塑料等等。
我们所有人只知道一点点，没有谁能全部知晓。
的确我要引用1950年代的经济学家，
伦纳德·里德Leonard Read的著名作品里的话，
“我，铅笔”（I, Pencil）。
他写道铅笔是怎样被制做的，
竟然没人知道铅笔怎样被制成的，
缘于人们生产铅笔，却不知道怎样开采石墨。
人们也不知道怎样砍伐树木等等类似的事情。
人类社会通过交换和专业分工，我们
做过的事
使我们有创新
能力去做我们完全不理解的事情。
这不等同于语言。
我们用语言来传达思想，
然后我们彼此理解。
但是用科技，
我们的确可以用科技做超出我们能力的事情。
我们已经超越了人类能力的范围到了
一个非凡的程度。
顺便说一下，
我对其中一个原因关于智商的辩论
不感兴趣，
这辩论是关于一族群的智商高于另一族群的智商。
它是完全不相干的。
与此社会相关的
是人们怎样交流他们彼此的思想，
怎样互动合作得更好，
而不是独立个体怎样聪明。
所以我们创造了协同合作的大脑（collective brain）。
我们只是这脑网络上的交点。
我们就好比这个脑里的神经元。
正是思想的交融，
人们之间思想碰撞和交配，
导致技术正逐步，一点一滴地
进步。
尽管如此，坏事情也会发生。
在未来，随着我们社会进步，
我们当然会遇到可怕的事情。
例如战争， 经济萧条，
自然灾难。
我的确肯定本世纪会有糟糕的事情发生。
但是我也确信由于人们彼此的联系结合，
思想能力
相碰撞和交配
都是前所未有的。
我也也确信
科技会进步，
从而改善人们生活水准。
因为通过云计算，
通过外包集成采购服务，
通过我们已经创建的自下而上世界，
在那里不仅仅是精英，而是每个人
都能有自己的想法，
让彼此想法碰撞和交配，
我们一定会加快创新速度。
谢谢大家。
（掌声）