(Music) (Applause) I'm Jon M. Chu.
And I'm not a dancer, I'm not a choreographer -- I'm actually a filmmaker, a storyteller.
I directed a movie two years ago called "Step Up 2: The Streets."
Anybody?
Anybody?
Yeah!
During that movie I got to meet a ton of hip-hop dancers -- amazing, the best in the world -- and they brought me into a society, the sort of underground street culture that blew my mind.
I mean, this is literally human beings with super-human strength and abilities.
They could fly in the air.
They could bend their elbow all the way back.
They could spin on their heads for 80 times in a row.
I'd never seen anything like that.
When I was growing up, my heroes were people like Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Michael Jackson.
I grew up in a musical family.
(Laughter) And those guys, those were like, ultimate heroes.
Being a shy, little, skinny Asian kid growing up in the Silicon Valley with low self-esteem, those guys made me believe in something bigger.
Those guys made me want to, like, "I'm going to do that moonwalk at that bar mitzvah tonight for that girl."
(Applause) And it seems like those dance heroes have disappeared, sort of relegated to the background of pop stars and music videos.
But after seeing what I've seen, the truth is, they have not gwhite@example.com.
They're here, getting better and better every day.
And dance has progressed.
It is insane what dance is right now.
Dance has never had a better friend than technology.
Online videos and social networking ...
dancers have created a whole global laboratory online for dance, where kids in Japan are taking moves from a YouTube video created in Detroit, building on it within days and releasing a new video, while teenagers in California are taking the Japanese video and remixing it with a Philly flair to create a whole new dance style in itself.
And this is happening every day.
And from these bedrooms and living rooms and garages, with cheap webcams, lies the world's great dancers of tomorrow.
Our Fred Astaires, our Gene Kellys our Michael Jacksons are right at our fingertips, and may not have that opportunity, except for us.
So, we created the LXD, sort of a -- the Legion of Extraordinary Dancers, a justice league of dancers that believe that dance can have a transformative effect on the world.
A living, breathing comic book series, but unlike Spiderman and Iron Man, these guys can actually do it.
And we're going to show you some today.
So, let me introduce to you, some of our heroes right now.
We got Madd Chadd, Lil' C, Kid David and J Smooth.
Please be excited, have fun, yell, scream.
Ladies and gentlemen: The LXD.
(Applause) (Video): Madd Chadd: When people first see me, I get a lot of different reactions actually.
Sometimes you would think that maybe kids would enjoy it, but sometimes they get a little freaked out.
And, I don't know, I kind of get a kick out of that a little bit.
(Music) (Applause) J Smooth: When I'm in the zone -- I'm dancing and free styling it -- I actually visually kind of picture lines, and moving them.
I think of like, Transformers, like how panels open and then they fold, they fold in, and then you close that panel.
And then another thing opens, you close that.
(Music) (Applause) Kid David: It's kind of like, honestly a lot of times I don't really know what's going on when I'm dancing.
Because at that point it's just really like, it's my body and the music.
It's not really a conscious decision, "I'm going to do this next, I'm going to do this."
It's kind of like this other level where you can't make choices anymore, and it's just your body reacting to certain sounds in the music.
I got my name just because I was so young.
I was young when I started.
I was younger than a lot of the people I was dancing with.
So, it was always like, they called me Kid David, because I was the kid.
(Music) (Applause) L'il C: I tell them to create a ball, and then you just use that ball of energy.
And instead of throwing it out, people would think that's a krump move, that's a krump move.
That's not a krump move.
You're going to throw it out, you throw it out, and you hold it.
And you let it go, and then right when you see the tail, you grab it by the tail, then you bring it back in.
And you just got this piece of energy and you just, you're manipulating it.
You know, you create power, then you tame it.
(Music) (Applause) (Music) (Applause)
Nicole Paris: TEDYouth, make some noise!
(Beatboxing) TEDYouth, make some -- (Beatboxing) (Beatboxing ends) Are you ready?
(Cheers and applause) Are you ready?
Ed Cage: Yeah, yeah, yeah!
(Beatboxing) (Laughter) EC: Y'all like that?
Let me show you how we used to do it -- NP: Get it pops, go ahead.
EC: ... when I was growing up in the '90s.
(Beatboxing) (Beatboxing ends) (Laughter) (Beatboxing) NP: Pops, pops, pops, pops, pops, pops, hold up, hold up, hold up, hold up!
Oh my God.
OK, he's trying to battle me.
Hold on, right now, hold on.
Do you remember when you used to beatbox me to sleep?
EC: Yeah, yeah, I remember.
That's when she was a little baby.
We would do something like this.
(Beatboxing) NP: I remember that.
(Beatboxing) NP: All right, pops, pops, pops, chill out, chill out.
Hold up, hold up, hold up.
EC: Y'all remember the video.
This is like a little payback or something for 50 million people calling me the loser.
NP: Hold up, hold up.
But a lot of people out there don't really know what beatboxing is, where it started from.
EC: Right, right.
NP: Where it came from.
So why don't you give them a little history -- just a tickle -- a bit of history of where it comes from.
EC: Beatbox started here in New York.
(Cheers) That's right, that's right.
New York, New York!
Everybody like, "Yeah!"
Well, we from St. Louis.
(Laughter) NP: Now you can put y'all hands down.
(Laughter) EC: But beatbox started here in New York.
What you would have is that, when we would go to parties, you would have the DJ and you would have the rapper.
But because I don't have electricity coming out of me, we had to emulate what the beats was doing.
So when you would see the beatboxer, you would see us over to the side.
Then you would see a rapper, and when the rapper began to rap, we would do a simple beat, because back then the beats were simple -- (Beatboxing) or -- (Beatboxing) Those were simple beats.
But now, you got folks that want to do all type of stuff with their beats now, and they want to humiliate their father, which is not right when you want to humiliate the person that take care of you, pay all your tuition, (Nicole laughs) especially when you have 50 million people that just go around and call you "the loser."
Well, I'm taking that to heart.
But now we do something different in our house, so we have these jam sessions, and our jam sessions consist of us jamming in church.
You know, in church, we'll look at each other like, (Beatboxing) (Laughter) and we'll text the beat to each other.
Or we'll be in the kitchen cooking, road trips, airports.
NP: Standing right there in the corner, "Aw, Dad -- listen to that."
(Beatboxing) Naw, I'm kidding.
But you know what?
We're talking all about this jam session and everything.
EC: Yeah.
NP: Why don't we give them a little peek, just a tiny bit of our jam session?
NP: Y'all want to hear some jam session?
EC: Y'all ready for a jam session?
(Cheers) NP: Sorry?
I can't hear you.
(Cheers) Yeah!
Kick it, pops!
(Beatboxing) (Applause) (Beatboxing) (Beatboxing ends) (Applause) NP: I'm getting ready to go!
EC: Y'all ready?
Everybody stand up!
Come on, everybody stand up!
Get on up!
Come on, stretch!
(Beatboxing) (Beatboxing ends) NP: That's it.
(Cheers and applause) Thank you!
Make some noise!
EG: Thank you, everybody!
NP: Make some noise!
Make some noise!
Thank you!
For 3 billion people around the world, seafood provides a significant source of protein and nutrition.
But recent studies show that 33% of wild fisheries are overfished, while another 60% are fished at their maximum capacity.
In fact, over half the seafood we eat– from finfish and shellfish to seaweed and algae– isn’t caught in the wild.
It’s grown through aquaculture, or aquatic farming.
Farmed seafood is one of the fastest-growing food industries, expanding in volume by 5.8% each year.
But different methods of aquaculture come with different advantages and issues– some of which echo the serious problems we’ve seen in industrial agriculture.
So how can we avoid repeating the mistakes we’ve made on land, at sea?
What aquaculture approaches are we currently using, and what does a sustainable way to farm the ocean really look like?
One of the most common aquaculture methods involves large pens made of nets, where fish are farmed offshore in floating cages roughly 1000 square meters in size.
Commonly employed off the coast of Chile and in the fjords of Norway, these fish, like many industrially farmed animals, occupy stressful, overcrowded pens.
They produce massive amounts of waste, polluting the surrounding areas and potentially spreading diseases to wild species.
Worse still, since the antibiotics employed to fight disease aren’t fully absorbed by the fish, they get excreted back into the environment.
Net pens are also susceptible to escapes, unleashing huge numbers of fish which compete for resources and weaken the local gene pool with genes adapted for captivity.
Escaped fish can even disrupt local ecosystems as invasive species.
Other techniques, such as man-made coastal ponds commonly used for shrimp farming in Southeast Asia, create additional environmental problems.
Just like net pens, these ponds are prone to spreading pollution and disease.
Their construction also frequently destroys important ecosystems like mangroves and marshes, which protect coastal areas from storms, provide habitats, and absorb tons of greenhouse gases.
One way to solve these problems is to farm fish on land in completely contained systems.
Tanks and raceways can recirculate and filter water to prevent pollution.
But even fully contained facilities still contend with another major hurdle: fishmeal.
About 10% of the seafood caught globally is used to feed animals, including carnivorous farmed fish.
Researchers are working on fish feed made of insects and plant-based proteins, but for now many inland fish farms are connected to overfishing.
All these obstacles can make sustainable aquaculture feel a long way off, but innovative farmers are finding new ways to responsibly farm the seas.
The most promising solution of all may be to look lower on the food chain.
Instead of cramming large, carnivorous fish into pens, we can work with natural ocean systems to produce huge amounts of shellfish and seaweeds.
These low-maintenance flora and fauna don’t need to be gwhite@example.com.
In fact, they naturally improve water quality, filtering it as they feed off of sunlight and nutrients in the seawater.
By absorbing carbon through photosynthesis, these farms help battle climate change, and reduce local ocean acidification while creating habitats for other species to thrive.
Shifting to restorative ocean farming could provide good jobs for coastal communities, and support healthy plant and shellfish-based diets that have an incredibly low carbon footprint.
In just 5 months, 4,000 square meters of ocean can produce 25 tons of seaweed and 250,000 of shellfish.
With the right distribution network, a series of small farms, collectively the size of Washington State could feed the planet.
Farms like these are already popping up around the globe, and a new generation of farmers is stepping up to pursue a more sustainable future.
Done properly, regenerative ocean farming could play a vital role in helping our oceans, our climate, and ourselves.
In the 1600s the Dutch East India Company employed hundreds of ships to trade gold, porcelain, spices, and silks around the globe.
But running this massive operation wasn’t cheap.
In order to fund their expensive voyages, the company turned to private citizens– individuals who could invest money to support the trip in exchange for a share of the ship’s profits.
This practice allowed the company to afford even grander voyages, increasing profits for both themselves and their savvy investors.
Selling these shares in coffee houses and shipping ports across the continent, the Dutch East India Company unknowingly invented the world’s first stock market.
Since then, companies have been collecting funds from willing investors to support all kinds of businesses.
And today, the stock market has schools, careers, and even whole television channels dedicated to understanding it.
But the modern stock market is significantly more complicated than its original incarnation.
So how do companies and investors use the market today?
Let’s imagine a new coffee company that decides to launch on the market.
First, the company will advertise itself to big investors.
If they think the company is a good idea, they get the first crack at investing, and then sponsor the company’s initial public offering, or IPO.
This launches the company onto the official public market, where any company or individual who believes the business could be profitable might buy a stock.
Buying stocks makes those investors partial owners in the business.
Their investment helps the company to grow, and as it becomes more successful, more buyers may see potential and start buying stocks.
As demand for those stocks increases, so does their price, increasing the cost for prospective buyers, and raising the value of the company's stocks people already own.
For the company, this increased interest helps fund new initiatives, and also boosts its overall market value by showing how many people are willing to invest in their idea.
However, if for some reason a company starts to seem less profitable the reverse can also happen.
If investors think their stock value is going to decline, they’ll sell their stocks with the hopes of making a profit before the company loses more value.
As stocks are sold and demand for the stock goes down, the stock price falls, and with it, the company’s market value.
This can leave investors with big losses– unless the company starts to look profitable again.
This see-saw of supply and demand is influenced by many factors.
Companies are under the unavoidable influence of market forces– such as the fluctuating price of materials, changes in production technology, and the shifting costs of labor.
Investors may be worried about changes in leadership, bad publicity, or larger factors like new laws and trade policies.
And of course, plenty of investors are simply ready to sell valuable stocks and pursue personal interests.
All these variables cause day-to-day noise in the market, which can make companies appear more or less successful.
And in the stock market, appearing to lose value often leads to losing investors, and in turn, losing actual value.
Human confidence in the market has the power to trigger everything from economic booms to financial crises.
And this difficult-to-track variable is why most professionals promote reliable long term investing over trying to make quick cash.
However, experts are constantly building tools in efforts to increase their chances of success in this highly unpredictable system.
But the stock market is not just for the rich and powerful.
With the dawn of the Internet, everyday investors can buy stocks in many of the exact same ways a large investor would.
And as more people educate themselves about this complex system they too can trade stocks, support the businesses they believe in, and pursue their financial goals.
The first step is getting invested.
As of 2018, there are around 2.5 billion smartphone users in the world.
If we broke open all their newest phones, which are just a fraction of the total that’ve been built, and split them into their component parts, that would produce around 85,000 kilograms of gold, 875,000 of silver, and 40 million kilograms of copper.
How did this precious cache get into our phones, and can we reclaim it?
Gold, silver, and copper are actually just a few of the 70 or so chemical elements that make up the average smartphone.
These can be divided into different groups, two of the most critical being rare earth elements and precious metals.
Rare earths are a selection of 17 elements that are actually common in Earth’s crust and are found in many areas across the world in low concentrations.
These elements have a huge range of magnetic, phosphorescent, and conductive properties that make them crucial to modern technologies.
In fact, of the 17 types of rare earth metals, phones and other electronics may contain up to 16.
In smartphones, these create the screen and color display, aid conductivity, and produce the signature vibrations, amongst other things.
And yet, crucial as they are, extracting these elements from the earth is linked to some disturbing environmental impacts.
Rare earth elements can often be found, but in many areas, it’s not economically feasible to extract them due to low concentrations.
Much of the time, extracting them requires a method called open pit mining that exposes vast areas of land.
This form of mining destroys huge swaths of natural habitats, and causes air and water pollution, threatening the health of nearby communities.
Another group of ingredients in smartphones comes with similar environmental risks: these are metals such as copper, silver, palladium, aluminum, platinum, tungsten, tin, lead, and gold.
We also mine magnesium, lithium, silica, and potassium to make phones, and all of it is associated with vast habitat destruction, as well as air and water pollution.
Mining comes with worrying social problems, too, like large-scale human and animal displacement to make way for industrial operations, and frequently, poor working conditions for laborers.
Lastly, phone production also requires petroleum, one of the main drivers of climate change.
That entwines our smartphones inextricably with this growing planetary conundrum.
And, what’s more, the ingredients we mine to make our phones aren’t infinite.
One day, they’ll simply run out, and we haven’t yet discovered effective replacements for some.
Despite this, the number of smartphones is on a steady increase; by 2019 it’s predicted that there’ll be close to 3 billion in use.
This means that reclaiming the bounty within our phones is swiftly becoming a necessity.
So, if you have an old phone, you might want to consider your options before throwing it away.
To minimize waste, you could donate it to a charity for reuse, take it to an e-waste recycling facility, or look for a company that refurbishes old models.
However, even recycling companies need our scrutiny.
Just as the production of smartphones comes with social and environmental problems, dismantling them does too.
E-waste is sometimes intentionally exported to countries where labor is cheap but working conditions are poor.
Vast workforces, often made up of women and children, may be underpaid, lack the training to safely disassemble phones, and be exposed to elements like lead and mercury, which can permanently damage their nervous systems.
Phone waste can also end up in huge dump sites, leaching toxic chemicals into the soil and water, mirroring the problems of the mines where the elements originated.
A phone is much more than it appears to be on the surface.
It’s an assemblage of elements from multiple countries, linked to impacts that are unfolding on a global scale.
So, until someone invents a completely sustainable smartphone, we’ll need to come to terms with how this technology affects widespread places and people.
So I want to talk today about money and happiness, which are two things a lot of us spend a lot of our time thinking about, either trying to earn them or trying to increase them.
And a lot of us resonate with this phrase, we see it in religions and self-help books: money can't buy happiness.
And I want to suggest today that, in fact, that's wrong.
(Laughter) I'm at a business school, so that's what we do.
So that's wrong, and in fact, if you think that, you're just not spending it right.
So instead of spending it the way you usually spend it, maybe if you spent it differently, that might work a little bit better.
Before I tell you the ways you can spend it that will make you happier, let's think about the ways we usually spend it that don't, in fact, make us happier.
We had a little natural experiment.
So CNN, a little while ago, wrote this interesting article on what happens to people when they win the lottery.
It turns out people think when they win the lottery their lives will be amazing.
This article's about how their lives get ruined.
What happens when people win the lottery is, one, they spend all the money and go into debt; and two, all of their friends and everyone they've ever met find them and bug them for money.
It ruins their social relationships, in fact.
So they have more debt and worse friendships than they had before they won the lottery.
What was interesting about the article was, people started commenting on the article, readers of the thing.
And instead of talking about how it made them realize that money doesn't lead to happiness, everyone started saying, "You know what I'd do if I won the lottery ...?"
and fantasizing about what they'd do.
Here's just two of the ones we saw that are interesting to think about.
One person wrote, "When I win, I'm going to buy my own little mountain and have a little house on top."
(Laughter) And another person wrote, "I would fill a big bathtub with money and get in the tub while smoking a big fat cigar and sipping a glass of champagne."
This is even worse: "... then I'd have a picture taken and dozens of glossies made.
Anyone begging for money or trying to extort from me would receive a copy of the picture and nothing else."
(Laughter) And so many of the comments were exactly of this type, where people got money and, in fact, it made them antisocial.
So I told you it ruins people's lives and their friends bug them.
Also, money often makes us feel very selfish and we do things only for ourselves.
We thought maybe the reason money doesn't make us happy is that we're spending it on the wrong things; in particular, we're always spending it on ourselves.
And we wondered what would happen if we made people spend more of their money on others.
So instead of being antisocial with your money, what if you were more pro-social with it?
We thought, let's make people do it and see what happens.
Let's have some people do what they usually do, spend money on themselves, and let's make some people give money away, and measure their happiness and see if, in fact, they get happier.
The first way we did this was, one Vancouver morning, we went out on the campus at University of British Columbia, approached people and said, "Do you want to be in an experiment?"
They said, "Yes."
We asked them how happy they were, and then gave them an envelope.
One of the envelopes had things in it that said, "By 5pm today, spend this money on yourself."
We gave some examples of what you could spend it on.
Other people got a slip of paper that said, "By 5pm today, spend this money on somebody else."
Also inside the envelope was money.
And we manipulated how much money we gave them; some people got this slip of paper and five dollars, some got this slip of paper and 20 dollars.
We let them go about their day and do whatever they wanted.
We found out they did spend it in the way we asked them to.
We called them up and asked them, "What did you spend it on?
How happy do you feel now?"
What did they spend it on?
These are college undergrads; a lot of what they spent it on for themselves were things like earrings and makeup.
One woman said she bought a stuffed animal for her niece.
People gave money to homeless people.
Huge effect here of Starbucks.
(Laughter) So if you give undergraduates five dollars, it looks like coffee to them, and they run over to Starbucks and spend it as fast as they can.
Some people bought coffee for themselves, the way they usually would, but others bought coffee for somebody else.
So the very same purchase, just targeted toward yourself or targeted toward somebody else.
What did we find when we called at the end of the day?
People who spent money on others got happier; people who spent it on themselves, nothing happened.
It didn't make them less happy, it just didn't do much for them.
The other thing we saw is the amount of money doesn't matter much.
People thought 20 dollars would be way better than five.
In fact, it doesn't matter how much money you spent.
What really matters is that you spent it on somebody else rather than on yourself.
We see this again and again when we give people money to spend on others instead of on themselves.
Of course, these are undergraduates in Canada -- not the world's most representative population.
They're also fairly wealthy and affluent and other sorts of things.
We wanted to see if this holds true everywhere in the world or just among wealthy countries.
So we went to Uganda and ran a very similar experiment.
Imagine, instead of just people in Canada, we say, "Name the last time you spent money on yourself or others.
Describe it.
How happy did it make you?"
Or in Uganda, "Name the last time you spent money on yourself or others and describe that."
Then we asked them how happy they are, again.
And what we see is sort of amazing, because there's human universals on what you do with your money, and real cultural differences on what you do as well.
So for example, one guy from Uganda says this: "I called a girl I wished to love."
They basically went out on a date, and he says at the end that he didn't "achieve" her up till now.
(Laughter) Here's a guy from Canada.
Very similar thing.
"I took my girlfriend out for dinner.
We went to a movie, we left early, and then went back to her room for ... cake," just cake.
(Laughter) Human universal: you spend money on others, you're being nice.
Maybe you have something in mind, maybe not.
But then we see extraordinary differences.
So look at these two.
This is a woman from Canada.
We say, "Name a time you spent money on somebody else."
She says, "I bought a present for my mom.
I drove to the mall, bought a present, gave it to my mom."
Perfectly nice thing to do.
It's good to get gifts for people you know.
Compare that to this woman from Uganda: "I was walking and met a longtime friend whose son was sick with malaria.
They had no money, they went to a clinic and I gave her this money."
This isn't $10,000, it's the local currency.
So it's a very small amount of money, in fact.
But enormously different motivations here.
This is a real medical need, literally a lifesaving donation.
Above, it's just kind of, I bought a gift for my mother.
What we see again, though, is that the specific way you spend on other people isn't nearly as important as the fact that you spend on other people in order to make yourself happy, which is really quite important.
So you don't have to do amazing things with your money to make yourself happy.
You can do small, trivial things and still get the benefits from doing this.
These are only two countries.
We wanted to look at every country in the world if we could, to see what the relationship is between money and happiness.
We got data from the Gallup Organization, which you know from all the political polls happening lately.
They asked people, "Did you donate money to charity recently?"
and, "How happy are you with life in general?"
We can see what the relationship is between those two things.
Are they positively correlated, giving money makes you happy?
Or are they negatively correlated?
On this map, green will mean they're positively correlated, red means they're negatively correlated.
And you can see, the world is crazily green.
So in almost every country in the world where we have this data, people who give money to charity are happier people than people who don't give money to charity.
I know you're looking at the red country in the middle.
I would be a jerk and not tell you what it is, but it's Central African Republic.
You can make up stories.
Maybe it's different there for some reason.
Just below that to the right is Rwanda, though, which is amazingly green.
So almost everywhere we look, we see that giving money away makes you happier than keeping it for yourself.
What about work, which is where we spend the rest of our time, when we're not with the people we know.
We decided to infiltrate some companies and do a very similar thing.
These are sales teams in Belgium.
They work in teams, go out and sell to doctors and try to get them to buy drugs.
We can look and see how well they sell things as a function of being a member of a team.
We give people on some teams some money "Spend it however you want on yourself," just like we did with the undergrads in Canada.
To other teams we say, "Here's 15 euro.
Spend it on one of your teammates.
Buy them something as a gift and give it to them.
Then we can see, we've got teams that spend on themselves and these pro-social teams who we give money to make the team better.
The reason I have a ridiculous pinata there is one team pooled their money and bought a pinata, they smashed the pinata, the candy fell out and things like that.
A silly, trivial thing to do, but think of the difference on a team that didn't do that at all, that got 15 euro, put it in their pocket, maybe bought themselves a coffee, or teams that had this pro-social experience where they bonded together to buy something and do a group activity.
What we see is that the teams that are pro-social sell more stuff than the teams that only got money for themselves.
One way to think of it is: for every 15 euro you give people for themselves, they put it in their pocket and don't do anything different than before.
You don't get money from that; you lose money, since it doesn't motivate them to perform better.
But when you give them 15 euro to spend on their teammates, they do so much better on their teams that you actually get a huge win on investing this kind of money.
You're probably thinking to yourselves, this is all fine, but there's a context that's incredibly important for public policy, and I can't imagine it would work there.
And if he doesn't show me that it works here, I don't believe anything he said.
I know what you're all thinking about are dodgeball teams.
(Laughter) This was a huge criticism that we got, that if you can't show it with dodgeball teams, this is all stupid.
So we went and found these dodgeball teams and infiltrated them, and did the exact same thing as before.
So we give people on some teams money to spend on themselves.
Other teams, we give them money to spend on their dodgeball teammates.
The teams that spend money on themselves have the same winning percentages as before.
The teams we give the money to spend on each other become different teams; they dominate the league by the time they're done.
Across all of these different contexts -- your personal life, you work life, even things like intramural sports -- we see spending on other people has a bigger return for you than spending on yourself.
So if you think money can't buy happiness, you're not spending it right.
The implication isn't you should buy this product instead of that product, and that's the way to make yourself happier.
It's that you should stop thinking about which product to buy for yourself, and try giving some of it to other people instead.
And we luckily have an opportunity for you.
DonorsChoose.org is a nonprofit for mainly public school teachers in low-income schools.
They post projects like, "I want to teach Huckleberry Finn and we don't have the books," or, "I want a microscope to teach my students science and we don't have a microscope."
You and I can go on and buy it for them.
The teacher and the kids write you thank-you notes, sometimes they send pictures of them using the microscope.
It's an extraordinary thing.
Go to the website and start yourself on the process of thinking less about "How can I spend money on myself?"
and more about "If I've got five dollars or 15 dollars, what can I do to benefit other people?"
Ultimately, when you do that, you'll find you benefit yourself much more.
Thank you.
(Applause)