Do you remember when you first realized that your computer was more than just a monitor and keyboard?
That between the mouse click and the video playing, there was something that captured your intention, understood it, and made it real?
What is that something?
Is it gremlins?
Let's imagine that we can shrink down to the size of an electron and inject ourselves into a click of a mouse.
If you took your mouse apart, you'd see that it's really a very simple machine.
It has a couple buttons and a system for detecting motion and distance.
You might have an optical mouse that makes these measurements with lights and sensors, but older ones did this with a hard rubber ball and some plastic wheels.
Same concept.
When you click the button on your mouse, it sends a message to the computer with information about its position.
When your mouse click is received, it's handled by the basic input/output subsystem.
This subsystem acts like the eyes and ears and mouth and hands of the computer.
Basically, it provides a way for the computer to interact with its environment.
But it also acts like a buffer to keep the CPU from being overwhelmed by distractions.
In this case, the I/O subsystem decides that your mouse click is pretty important so it generates an interrupt to the CPU.
"Hey, CPU!
Got a click here."
The CPU, or central processing unit, is the brains of the whole computer.
Just like your brain doesn't take up your whole body, the CPU doesn't take up the whole computer, but it runs the show all the same.
And the CPU's job, its whole job, is fetching instructions from memory and executing them.
So, while you're typing, typing, typing, maybe really fast, like 60 words a minute, the CPU is fetching and executing billions of instructions a second.
Yes, billions every second: instructions to move your mouse around on the screen, to run that clock widget on your desktop, play your internet radio, manage the files you're editing on the hard drive, and much, much more.
Your computer's CPU is one heck of a multitasker!
"But oh my gosh there's a very important mouse click coming through now!
Let's drop everything now and deal with that!"
There are programs for everything that the CPU does.
A special program for the mouse, for the clock widget, for the internet radio, and for dealing with letters sent by the keyboard.
Each program was initially written by a human in a human-readable programming language, like Java, C++, or Python.
But human programs take up a lot of space and contain a lot of unnecessary information to a computer, so they are compiled and made smaller and stored in bits of ones and zeros in memory.
The CPU realizes that it needs instructions for how to deal with this mouse click, so it looks up the address for the mouse program and sends a request to the memory subsystem for instructions stored there.
Each instruction in the mouse device driver is duly fetched and executed.
And that's not nearly the end of the story!
Because the CPU learns that the mouse was clicked when the cursor was over a picture of a button on the monitor screen, and so, the CPU asks memory for the monitor program to find out what that button is.
And then the CPU has to ask memory for the program for the button, which means that the CPU needs the monitor program again to show the video associated with the button, and so it goes.
And let's just say there are a lot of programs involved before you even see the button on the screen light up when you clicked it.
So, just the simple task of clicking your mouse means visiting all of the critical components of your computer's architecture: peripherals, the basic input-output system, the CPU, programs, and memory, and not one gremlin.
It’s another sweltering morning in Memphis, Egypt.
As the sunlight brightens the Nile, Peseshet checks her supplies.
Honey, garlic, cumin, acacia leaves, cedar oil.
She’s well stocked with the essentials she needs to treat her patients.
Peseshet is a swnw, or a doctor.
In order to become one, she had to train as a scribe and study the medical papyri stored at the Per Ankh, the House of Life.
Now, she teaches her own students there.
Before teaching, Peseshet has a patient to see.
One of the workers at the temple construction site has injured his arm.
When Peseshet arrives, the laborer’s arm is clearly broken, and worse, the fracture is a sed, with multiple bone fragments.
Peseshet binds and immobilizes the injury.
Her next stop is the House of Life.
On her way, a woman intercepts Peseshet in the street.
The woman’s son has been stung by a scorpion.
Peseshet has seen many similar stings and knows exactly what to do.
She must say an incantation to cast the poison out.
She begins to recite the spell, invoking Serqet, patron of physicians and goddess of venomous creatures.
Peseshet recites the spell as if she is Serqet.
This commanding approach has the greatest wilkersonjack@example.org.
After she utters the last line, she tries to cut the poison out with a knife for good measure.
Peseshet packs up to leave, but the woman has another question.
She wants to find out if she is pregnant.
Peseshet explains her fail-safe pregnancy test: plant two seeds: one barley, one emmer.
Then, urinate on the seeds every day.
If the plants grow, she’s pregnant.
A barley seedling predicts a baby boy, while emmer foretells a girl.
Peseshet also recommends a prayer to Hathor, goddess of fertility.
When Peseshet finally arrives at the House of Life, she runs into the doctor-priest Isesi.
She greets Isesi politely, but she thinks priests are very full of themselves.
She doesn’t envy Isesi’s role as neru pehut, which directly translates to herdsman of the anus to the royal family, or, guardian of the royal anus.
Inside, the House of Life is bustling as usual with scribes, priests, doctors, and students.
Papyri containing all kinds of records, not just medical information, are stored here.
Peseshet’s son Akhethetep is hard at work copying documents as part of his training to become a scribe.
He’s a particularly promising student, but he was admitted to study because Peseshet is a scribe, as was her father before her.
Without family in the profession, it’s very difficult for boys, and impossible for girls, to pursue this education.
Peseshet oversees all the female swnws and swnws-in-training in Memphis.
The men have their own overseer, as the male doctors won’t answer to a woman.
Today, Peseshet teaches anatomy.
She quizzes her students on the metu, the body’s vessels that transport blood, air, urine, and even bad spirits.
Peseshet is preparing to leave when a pale, thin woman accosts her at the door and begs to be examined.
The woman has a huge, sore lump under her arm.
Peseshet probes the growth and finds it cool to the touch and hard like an unripe hemat fruit.
She has read about ailments like this, but never seen one.
For this tumor there is no treatment, medicine or spell.
All the texts give the same advice: do nothing.
After delivering the bad news, Peseshet goes outside.
She lingers on the steps of the House of Life, admiring the wilkersonjack@example.org.
In spite of all her hard work, there will always be patients she can’t help, like the woman with the tumor.
They linger with her, but Peseshet has no time to dwell.
In a few short weeks, the Nile’s annual flooding will begin, bringing life to the soil for the next year’s harvest and a whole new crop of patients.
When you think about resilience and technology it's actually much easier.
You're going to see some other speakers today, I already know, who are going to talk about breaking-bones stuff, and, of course, with technology it never is.
So it's very easy, comparatively speaking, to be resilient.
I think that, if we look at what happened on the Internet, with such an incredible last half a dozen years, that it's hard to even get the right analogy for it.
A lot of how we decide, how we're supposed to react to things and what we're supposed to expect about the future depends on how we bucket things and how we categorize them.
And so I think the tempting analogy for the boom-bust that we just went through with the Internet is a gold rush.
It's easy to think of this analogy as very different from some of the other things you might pick.
For one thing, both were very real.
In 1849, in that Gold Rush, they took over $700 million worth of gold out of California.
It was very real.
The Internet was also very real.
This is a real way for humans to communicate with each other.
It's a big deal.
Huge boom.
Huge boom.
Huge bust.
Huge bust.
You keep going, and both things are lots of hype.
I don't have to remind you of all the hype that was involved with the Internet -- like GetRich.com.
But you had the same thing with the Gold Rush.
"Gold.
Gold.
Gold."
Sixty-eight rich men on the Steamer Portland.
Stacks of yellow metal.
Some have 5,000.
Many have more.
A few bring out 100,000 dollars each.
People would get very excited about this when they read these articles.
"The Eldorado of the United States of America: the discovery of inexhaustible gold mines in California."
And the parallels between the Gold Rush and the Internet Rush continue very strongly.
So many people left what they were doing.
And what would happen is -- and the Gold Rush went on for years.
People on the East Coast in 1849, when they first started to get the news, they thought, "Ah, this isn't real."
But they keep hearing about people getting rich, and then in 1850 they still hear that.
And they think it's not real.
By about 1852, they're thinking, "Am I the stupidest person on Earth by not rushing to California?"
And they start to decide they are.
These are community affairs, by the way.
Local communities on the East Coast would get together and whole teams of 10, 20 people would caravan across the United States, and they would form companies.
These were typically not solitary efforts.
But no matter what, if you were a lawyer or a banker, people dropped what they were doing, no matter what skill set they had, to go pan for gold.
This guy on the left, Dr. Richard Beverley Cole, he lived in Philadelphia and he took the Panama route.
They would take a ship down to Panama, across the isthmus, and then take another ship north.
This guy, Dr. Toland, went by covered wagon to California.
This has its parallels, too.
Doctors leaving their practices.
These are both very successful -- a physician in one case, a surgeon in the other.
Same thing happened on the Internet.
You get DrKoop.com.
(Laughter) In the Gold Rush, people literally jumped ship.
The San Francisco harbor was clogged with 600 ships at the peak because the ships would get there and the crews would abandon to go search for gold.
So there were literally 600 captains and 600 ships.
They turned the ships into hotels, because they couldn't sail them anywhere.
You had dotcom fever.
And you had gold fever.
And you saw some of the excesses that the dotcom fever created and the same thing happened.
The fort in San Francisco at the time had about 1,300 soldiers.
Half of them deserted to go look for gold.
And they wouldn't let the other half out to go look for the first half because they were afraid they wouldn't come back.
(Laughter) And one of the soldiers wrote home, and this is the sentence that he put: "The struggle between right and six dollars a month and wrong and 75 dollars a day is a rather severe one."
They had bad burn rate in the Gold Rush.
A very bad burn rate.
This is actually from the Klondike Gold Rush.
This is the White Pass Trail.
They loaded up their mules and their horses.
And they didn't plan right.
And they didn't know how far they would really have to go, and they overloaded the horses with hundreds and hundreds of pounds of stuff.
In fact it was so bad that most of the horses died before they could get where they were going.
It got renamed the "Dead Horse Trail."
And the Canadian Minister of the Interior wrote this at the time: "Thousands of pack horses lie dead along the way, sometimes in bunches under the cliffs, with pack saddles and packs where they've fallen from the rock above, sometimes in tangled masses, filling the mud holes and furnishing the only footing for our poor pack animals on the march, often, I regret to say, exhausted, but still alive, a fact we were unaware of, until after the miserable wretches turned beneath the hooves of our cavalcade.
The eyeless sockets of the pack animals everywhere account for the myriads of ravens along the road.
The inhumanity which this trail has been witness to, the heartbreak and suffering which so many have undergone, cannot be imagined.
They certainly cannot be described."
And you know, without the smell that would have accompanied that, we had the same thing on the Internet: very bad burn rate calculations.
I'll just play one of these and you'll remember it.
This is a commercial that was played on the Super Bowl in the year 2000.
(Video): Bride #1: You said you had a large selection of invitations.
Clerk: But we do.
Bride #2: Then why does she have my invitation?
Announcer: What may be a little thing to some ...
Bride #3: You are mine, little man.
Announcer: Could be a really big deal to you.
Husband #1: Is that your wife?
Husband #2: Not for another 15 minutes.
Announcer: After all, it's your special day.
OurBeginning.com.
Life's an event.
Announce it to the world.
Jeff Bezos: It's very difficult to figure out what that ad is for.
(Laughter) But they spent three and a half million dollars in the 2000 Super Bowl to air that ad, even though, at the time, they only had a million dollars in annual revenue.
Now, here's where our analogy with the Gold Rush starts to diverge, and I think rather severely.
And that is, in a gold rush, when it's over, it's over.
Here's this guy: "There are many men in Dawson at the present time who feel keenly disappointed.
They've come thousands of miles on a perilous trip, risked life, health and property, spent months of the most arduous labor a man can perform and at length with expectations raised to the highest pitch have reached the coveted goal only to discover the fact that there is nothing here for them."
And that was, of course, the very common story.
Because when you take out that last piece of gold -- and they did incredibly quickly.
I mean, if you look at the 1849 Gold Rush -- the entire American river region, within two years -- every stone had been turned.
And after that, only big companies who used more sophisticated mining technologies started to take gold out of there.
So there's a much better analogy that allows you to be incredibly optimistic and that analogy is the electric industry.
And there are a lot of similarities between the Internet and the electric industry.
With the electric industry you actually have to -- one of them is that they're both sort of thin, horizontal, enabling layers that go across lots of different industries.
It's not a specific thing.
But electricity is also very, very broad, so you have to sort of narrow it down.
You know, it can be used as an incredible means of transmitting power.
It's an incredible means of coordinating, in a very fine-grained way, information flows.
There's a bunch of things that are interesting about electricity.
And the part of the electric revolution that I want to focus on is sort of the golden age of appliances.
The killer app that got the world ready for appliances was the light bulb.
So the light bulb is what wired the world.
And they weren't thinking about appliances when they wired the world.
They were really thinking about -- they weren't putting electricity into the home; they were putting lighting into the home.
And, but it really -- it got the electricity.
It took a long time.
This was a huge -- as you would expect -- a huge capital build out.
All the streets had to be torn up.
This is work going on down in lower Manhattan where they built some of the first electric power generating stations.
And they're tearing up all the streets.
The Edison Electric Company, which became Edison General Electric, which became General Electric, paid for all of this digging up of the streets.
It was incredibly expensive.
But that is not the -- and that's not the part that's really most similar to the Web.
Because, remember, the Web got to stand on top of all this heavy infrastructure that had been put in place because of the long-distance phone network.
So all of the cabling and all of the heavy infrastructure -- I'm going back now to, sort of, the explosive part of the Web in 1994, when it was growing 2,300 percent a year.
How could it grow at 2,300 percent a year in 1994 when people weren't really investing in the Web?
Well, it was because that heavy infrastructure had already been laid down.
So the light bulb laid down the heavy infrastructure, and then home appliances started coming into being.
And this was huge.
The first one was the electric fan -- this was the 1890 electric fan.
And the appliances, the golden age of appliances really lasted -- it depends how you want to measure it -- but it's anywhere from 40 to 60 years.
It goes on a long time.
It starts about 1890.
And the electric fan was a big success.
The electric iron, also very big.
By the way, this is the beginning of the asbestos lawsuit.
(Laughter) There's asbestos under that handle there.
This is the first vacuum cleaner, the 1905 Skinner Vacuum, from the Hoover Company.
And this one weighed 92 pounds and took two people to operate and cost a quarter of a car.
So it wasn't a big seller.
This was truly, truly an early-adopter product -- (Laughter) the 1905 Skinner Vacuum.
But three years later, by 1908, it weighed 40 pounds.
Now, not all these things were highly successful.
(Laughter) This is the electric tie press, which never really did catch on.
People, I guess, decided that they would not wrinkle their ties.
These never really caught on either: the electric shoe warmer and drier.
Never a big seller.
This came in, like, six different colors.
(Laughter) I don't know why.
But I thought, you know, sometimes it's just not the right time for an invention; maybe it's time to give this one another shot.
So I thought we could build a Super Bowl ad for this.
We'd need the right partner.
And I thought that really -- (Laughter) I thought that would really work, to give that another shot.
Now, the toaster was huge because they used to make toast on open fires, and it took a lot of time and attention.
I want to point out one thing.
This is -- you guys know what this is.
They hadn't invented the electric socket yet.
So this was -- remember, they didn't wire the houses for electricity.
They wired them for lighting.
So your -- your appliances would plug in.
They would -- each room typically had a light bulb socket at the top.
And you'd plug it in there.
In fact, if you've seen the Carousel of Progress at Disney World, you've seen this.
Here are the cables coming up into this light fixture.
All the appliances plug in there.
And you would just unscrew your light bulb if you wanted to plug in an appliance.
The next thing that really was a big, big deal was the washing machine.
Now, this was an object of much envy and lust.
Everybody wanted one of these electric washing machines.
On the left-hand side, this was the soapy water.
And there's a rotor there -- that this motor is spinning.
And it would clean your clothes.
This is the clean rinse-water.
So you'd take the clothes out of here, put them in here, and then you'd run the clothes through this electric wringer.
And this was a big deal.
You'd keep this on your porch.
It was a little bit messy and kind of a pain.
And you'd run a long cord into the house where you could screw it into your light socket.
(Laughter) And that's actually kind of an important point in my presentation, because they hadn't invented the off switch.
That was to come much later -- the off switch on appliances -- because it didn't make any sense.
I mean, you didn't want this thing clogging up a light socket.
So you know, when you were done with it, you unscrewed it.
That's what you did.
You didn't turn it off.
And as I said before, they hadn't invented the electric outlet either, so the washing machine was a particularly dangerous device.
And there are -- when you research this, there are gruesome descriptions of people getting their hair and clothes caught in these devices.
And they couldn't yank the cord out because it was screwed into a light socket inside the house.
(Laughter) And there was no off switch, so it wasn't very good.
And you might think that that was incredibly stupid of our ancestors to be plugging things into a light socket like this.
But, you know, before I get too far into condemning our ancestors, I thought I'd show you: this is my conference room.
This is a total kludge, if you ask me.
First of all, this got installed upside down.
This light socket -- (Laughter) and so the cord keeps falling out, so I taped it in.
(Laughter) This is supposed -- don't even get me started.
But that's not the worst one.
This is what it looks like under my desk.
I took this picture just two days ago.
So we really haven't progressed that much since 1908.
(Laughter) It's a total, total mess.
And, you know, we think it's getting better, but have you tried to install 802.11 yourself?
(Laughter) I challenge you to try.
It's very hard.
I know Ph.D.s in Computer Science -- this process has brought them to tears, absolute tears.
(Laughter) And that's assuming you already have DSL in your house.
Try to get DSL installed in your house.
The engineers who do it everyday can't do it.
They have to -- typically, they come three times.
And one friend of mine was telling me a story: not only did they get there and have to wait, but then the engineers, when they finally did get there, for the third time, they had to call somebody.
And they were really happy that the guy had a speakerphone because then they had to wait on hold for an hour to talk to somebody to give them an access code after they got there.
So we're not -- we're pretty kludge-y ourselves.
By the way, DSL is a kludge.
I mean, this is a twisted pair of copper that was never designed for the purpose it's being put to -- you know it's the whole thing -- we're very, very primitive.
And that's kind of the point.
Because, you know, resilience -- if you think of it in terms of the Gold Rush, then you'd be pretty depressed right now because the last nugget of gold would be gone.
But the good thing is, with innovation, there isn't a last nugget.
Every new thing creates two new questions and two new opportunities.
And if you believe that, then you believe that where we are -- this is what I think -- I believe that where we are with the incredible kludge -- and I haven't even talked about user interfaces on the Web -- but there's so much kludge, so much terrible stuff -- we are at the 1908 Hurley washing machine stage with the Internet.
That's where we are.
We don't get our hair caught in it, but that's the level of primitiveness of where we are.
We're in 1908.
And if you believe that, then stuff like this doesn't bother you.
This is 1996: "All the negatives add up to making the online experience not worth the trouble."
1998: "Amazon.toast."
In 1999: "Amazon.bomb."
My mom hates this picture.
(Laughter) She -- but you know, if you really do believe that it's the very, very beginning, if you believe it's the 1908 Hurley washing machine, then you're incredibly optimistic.
And I do think that that's where we are.
And I do think there's more innovation ahead of us than there is behind us.
And in 1917, Sears -- I want to get this exactly right.
This was the advertisement that they ran in 1917.
It says: "Use your electricity for more than light."
And I think that's where we are.
We're very, very early.
Thank you very much.
Good evening, everyone.
I am from Japan, so I'd like to start with a story about Japanese fishing villages.
In the past, every fisherman was tempted to catch as many as fish as possible, but if everybody did that, the fish, common shared resource in the community, would disappear.
The result would be hardship and poverty for everyone.
This happened in some cases, but it did not happen in other cases.
In these communities, the fishermen developed a kind of social contract that told each one of them to hold back a bit to prevent overfishing.
The fisherman would keep an eye on each other.
There would be a penalty if you were caught cheating.
But once the benefit of a social contract became clear to everyone, the incentive to cheat dramatically dropped.
We find the same story around the world.
This is how villagers in medieval Europe managed pasture and forests.
This is how communities in Asia managed water, and this is how indigenous peoples in the Amazon managed wildlife.
These communities realized they relied on a finite, shared resource.
They developed rules and practices on how to manage those resources, and they changed their behavior so that they could continue to rely on those shared resources tomorrow by not overfishing, not overgrazing, not polluting or depleting water streams today.
This is a story of the commons, and also how to avoid the so-called tragedy of the commons.
But this is also a story of an economy that was mainly local, where everybody had a very strong sense of belonging.
Our economies are no longer local.
When we moved away from being local, we started to lose our connection to the commons.
We carried economic objectives, goals and systems beyond the local, but we did not carry the notion of taking care of the commons.
So our oceans, forests, once very close to us as our local commons, moved very far away from us.
So today, we pump millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air, we dump plastics, fertilizers and industrial waste into the rivers and oceans, and we cut down forests that absorb CO2.
We make the wild biodiversity much more fragile.
We seem to have totally forgotten that there is such a thing as global commons: air, water, forests and biodiversity.
Now, it is modern science that reminds us how vital the global commons are.
In 2009, a group of scientists proposed how to assess the health of the global commons.
They defined nine planetary boundaries vital to our survival, then they measured how far we could go before we cross over the tipping points or thresholds that would lead us to the irreversible or even catastrophic change.
This is where we were in the 1950s.
We broadly remained within safe operating space, marked by the green line.
But look at where we are now.
We have crossed four of those boundaries, and we will be crossing others in the future.
How did we end up in this situation?
Well, my personal story may tell us something.
Five years ago, I was appointed as CEO of the GEF, Global Environment Facility, but I am not a conservationist or an environmental activist.
I am an economist, and for the last 30 years, I had worked for public finance in my home country and around the world.
I can tell you one thing for sure: during these 30 years, the notion of the global commons never crossed my mind.
I didn't have a single conversation about the global commons with my colleagues.
This tells me that the notion of the global commons was not really entering into the big money decisions like state budgets or investment plans.
And I'm wondering, why do we have this sheer ignorance about the global commons, including me, myself?
One possible explanation might be that until recently, it didn't really matter too much.
Even if we mess up some part of the environment, we were not fundamentally changing the functions of the earth system.
The global commons had still enough capacity to take the punches we gave them.
In fact, the fish were still plentiful, the fields for grazing were still vast.
Our mistake was to assume that the capacity of the earth for self-repair had no limits.
It does have limits.
The message from the science is very clear: we humans have become an overwhelming force to determine the future living conditions on earth, and what's more, we are running out of time.
If we don't act on them, we will be losing the global commons.
It's only our generation who are able to preserve it -- preserve the commons as we know them.
Now is the time we start managing the global commons as our parents or our grandparents managed their local commons.
The first thing we need to do is to simply recognize that we do have the global commons and they are very, very important.
Then we need to build the stewardship of the global commons into all of our thinking, our business, our economy, our policy-making -- in all of our actions.
We need to recreate the social contract of the fishing villages on the global scale.
But what does it mean in practice?
Where to start with?
I see there are four key economic systems that fundamentally need to change.
First, we need to change our cities.
By 2050, two thirds of our population will live in cities.
We need green cities.
Second, we need to change our energy system.
The world economy must sharply decarbonize, essentially in one generation.
Third, we need to change our production-consumption system.
We need to break away from current take-make-waste consumption patterns.
And finally, we need to change our food system, what to eat and how to produce it.
And all of those four systems are putting enormous pressure on the global commons, and it's also very difficult to flip them.
They are extremely complex, with many decision-makers, actors involved.
Let's take the example of the food system.
Food production is currently responsible for one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions.
It is also a main user of the world's water resources.
In fact, 70 percent of today's water is used to grow crops.
Vast areas of tropical forest are used for agriculture.
This deforestation drives extinction.
In fact, we are losing species 1,000 times faster than the natural rate.
And on top of all of that bad news, one third of food produced today globally is not eaten.
It's wasted.
But there is the good news, good signs.
Coalitions of stakeholders are now coming together to try to transform the food system with one shared goal: how to produce enough healthy food for everyone, at the same time, to try to cut, to sharply reduce, the footprint from the food system on the global commons.
I had an opportunity to fly over the Indonesian island of Sumatra, and I saw with my own eyes the massive deforestation to make room for palm oil plantations.
By the way, palm oil is included in thousands of food products we eat every day.
The global demand for palm oil is just increasing.
In Sumatra, I met smallholder farmers who need to make a day-to-day living from growing oil palm.
I met global food companies, financial institutions and local government officials.
All of them told me that they can't make the change by themselves, and only by working together under a kind of new contract, or a new practice, do they have a chance to protect tropical forests.
So it's so encouraging to see, at least for the last few years, this new coalition among these committed actors along the supply chain come together to try to transform the food system.
In fact, what they are trying to do is to create a new kind of social contract to manage the global commons.
All changes start at home, at your place and at my place.
At GEF, Global Environment Facility, we have now a new strategy, and we put the global commons at its center.
I hope we won't be the only ones.
If everybody stays on the sidelines, waiting for others to step in, the global commons will continue to deteriorate, and everybody will be much worse off.
We need to save ourselves from the tragedy of the commons.
So, I invite all of you to embrace the global commons.
Please do remember that global commons do exist and are waiting for your stewardship.
We all share one planet in common.
We breathe the same air, we drink the same water, we depend on the same oceans, forests, and biodiversity.
There is no space left on earth for egoism.
The global commons must be kept within their safe operating space, and we can only do it together.
Thank you so much.
(Applause)