In the city of Alexandria in 415 CE, the bishop and the governor were in a fight.
It started with a disagreement over the behavior of a militia of monks, and ended with an accusation of witchcraft leveled against one of the most powerful figures in the city.
Hypatia of Alexandria was a prominent mathematician, philosopher, and advisor to the city’s leaders.
In the centuries since she lived, the details of her life have been the subject of much dispute and have taken on an almost mythical status.
But while none of Hypatia’s own writings survive, her contemporaries’ and students’ accounts of her work and life paint a picture of the qualities that made her renowned as a scholar, beloved as a teacher, and ultimately led to her downfall.
Hypatia was born around 355 in Alexandria, then part of the Egyptian province of the Eastern Roman Empire, and an intellectual center.
Her father Theon was an accomplished Greek mathematician and astronomer; her mother is unknown.
Hypatia was likely an only child, and Theon educated her himself.
By adulthood, she had surpassed her father in both mathematics and philosophy, becoming the city’s foremost scholar and taking over his position at the head of the Platonic school, similar to a modern university.
She refined scientific instruments, wrote math textbooks, and developed a more efficient method of long division.
But perhaps her most significant contributions to intellectual life in Alexandria came through her teaching.
The philosophy Hypatia taught drew from the legacy of Plato and Aristotle, as well as the mystical philosopher Plotinus and the mathematician Pythagoras.
The convergence of these influences merged to form a school called Neoplatonism.
For the Neoplatonists, mathematics had a spiritual aspect, divided among the four branches of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.
These subjects were not studied merely for the sake of curiosity or practical utility, but because they authenticated the belief that numbers were the sacred language of the universe.
In the repeated patterns of algebraic formulas and geometric shapes, the orbits of the planets, and the harmonious intervals of musical tones, the Neoplatonists saw a rational cosmic gwhite@example.com.
Students delved into this ordered mathematical world to achieve higher unity with this force, known as “the One.”
While Hypatia was considered pagan— a term for traditional Roman belief before Christianity— she worshipped no particular deity or deities, and her ideas could be applied alongside multiple religious viewpoints.
Jewish and Christian as well as pagan students travelled from the farthest reaches of the empire to study with her.
The nonpartisan environment Hypatia fostered, where all students could feel comfortable, was especially remarkable given the religious and political turmoil that was fracturing the city of Alexandria at the time.
Christianity had recently become the Empire’s state religion.
The local archbishop Cyril had steadily gained political power, commanding zealous militias of Christian monks to destroy pagan temples and harass the Jewish population.
In doing so, he encroached on the secular authority of the Roman governor Orestes, himself a moderate Christian, leading to a bitter public feud between the two men.
Because she was seen as a wise and impartial figure, governor Orestes consulted Hypatia, who advised him to act with fairness and restraint.
But when a group of Cyril’s monks incited a riot, badly injuring Orestes in the process, he had their leader tortured to death.
Cyril and his followers blamed Hypatia, accusing her of witchcraft to turn Orestes against Christianity.
In March 415, as Hypatia was traveling through the city, the bishop’s militia of monks dragged her from her carriage and brutally murdered and dismembered her.
Hypatia’s death was a turning point in the politics of Alexandria.
In the wake of her murder, other philosophers in the Greek and Roman tradition fled, and the city’s role as a center of learning declined.
In a very real way, the spirit of inquisition, openness, and fairness she fostered died with her.
I call myself a body architect.
I trained in classical ballet and have a background in architecture and fashion.
As a body architect, I fascinate with the human body and explore how I can transform it.
I worked at Philips Electronics in the far-future design research lab, looking 20 years into the future.
I explored the human skin, and how technology can transform the body.
I worked on concepts like an electronic tattoo, which is augmented by touch, or dresses that blushed and shivered with light.
I started my own experiments.
These were the low-tech approaches to the high-tech conversations I was having.
These are Q-tips stuck to my roommate with wig glue.
(Laughter) I started a collaboration with a friend of mine, Bart Hess -- he doesn't normally look like this -- and we used ourselves as models.
We transformed our apartments into our laboratories, and worked in a very spontaneous and immediate way.
We were creating visual imagery provoking human evolution.
Whilst I was at Philips, we discussed this idea of a maybe technology, something that wasn't either switched on or off, but in between.
A maybe that could take the form of a gas or a liquid.
And I became obsessed with this idea of blurring the perimeter of the body, so you couldn't see where the skin ended and the near environment started.
I set up my studio in the red-light district and obsessively wrapped myself in plumbing tubing, and found a way to redefine the skin and create this dynamic textile.
I was introduced to Robyn, the Swedish pop star, and she was also exploring how technology coexists with raw human emotion.
And she talked about how technology with these new feathers, this new face paint, this punk, the way that we identify with the world, and we made this music video.
I'm fascinated with the idea of what happens when you merge biology with technology, and I remember reading about this idea of being able to reprogram biology, in the future, away from disease and aging.
And I thought about this concept of, imagine if we could reprogram our own body odor, modify and biologically enhance it, and how would that change the way that we communicate with each other?
Or the way that we attract sexual partners?
And would we revert back to being more like animals, more primal modes of communication?
I worked with a synthetic biologist, and I created a swallowable perfume, which is a cosmetic pill that you eat and the fragrance comes out through the skin's surface when you perspire.
It completely blows apart the way that perfume is, and provides a whole new format.
It's perfume coming from the inside out.
It redefines the role of skin, and our bodies become an atomizer.
I've learned that there's no boundaries, and if I look at the evolution of my work i can see threads and connections that make sense.
But when I look towards the future, the next project is completely unknown and wide open.
I feel like I have all these ideas existing embedded inside of me, and it's these conversations and these experiences that connect these ideas, and they kind of instinctively come out.
As a body architect, I've created this limitless and boundless platform for me to discover whatever I want.
And I feel like I've just got started.
So here's to another day at the office.
(Laughter) (Applause) Thank you!
Thank you!
So two weeks ago, I searched the word "nationalist" on Twitter.
The results were quite colorful, with expressions like, "Emboldened Racist Moron," -- (Laughter) "White Supremacist Idiot," "Fascist Sock Puppets," -- (Laughter) "Orwellian, Hitlerian, Terrifying."
I then searched the word "globalist" and got things like, "Socialist Sell-Outs," "Disgusting Corporate Propaganda," "Elitist Financial Overlords," "Ruthless Cosmopolitan Rats."
(Laughter) Even by social media standards, the words are cruel and disgusting.
But they reflect the intensity of one of the most fundamental questions of our times: Nationalism or globalism -- what is the best path forward?
This question impacts everything we care about: our cultural identity, our prosperity, our political systems -- everything -- the health of our planet -- everything.
So on the one hand, we have nationalism.
Collins defines it as a "devotion to one's nation," but also, a "doctrine that puts national interests above international considerations."
For nationalists, our modern societies are built on national grounds: we share a land, a history, a culture, and we defend each other.
In a big and chaotic world, they see nationalism as the only sensible way to maintain social stability.
But alarmed globalists warn us: self-centered nationalism can easily turn ugly.
We've seen it with 20th-century fascisms: bloody wars, millions of deaths, immeasurable destruction.
On the other hand, we have globalism.
The Oxford Living Dictionary defines it as: "the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis."
For nationalists, globalism is rapidly deconstructing what our ancestors took decades to build.
It's like spitting on our soldiers' tombs; it's eroding our national solidarities and opening the doors to foreign invasions.
But globalists make the case that reinforcing our global governance is the only way to tackle big supernational problems, like nuclear proliferation, the global refugee crisis, climate change or terrorism or even the consequences of superhuman AI.
So we are at the crossroads, and we are asked to choose: nationalism or globalism?
Having lived in four continents, I've always been interested in this question.
But it took a whole new level when I saw this happening: the biggest surge in nationalist votes in Western democracies since World War II.
All of a sudden, this isn't theory anymore.
I mean, these political movements have built their success with ideas that could mean, down the road, losing my French citizenship because I'm North African or not being able to come back home to the US because I come from a Muslim-majority country.
You know, when you live in a democracy, you live with this idea that your government will always protect you, as long as you abide by the laws.
With the rise of national populism, despite being the best citizen I can, I now have to live with the idea that my government can hurt me for reasons I cannot control.
It's very unsettling.
But it forced me to rethink and rethink this question and try to think deeper.
And the more I thought about it, the more I started questioning the question.
Why would we have to choose between nationalism and globalism, between loving our country and caring for the world?
There's no reason for that.
We don't have to choose between family and country or region or religion and country.
We already have multiple identities, and we live with them very well.
Why would we have to choose between country and world?
What if, instead of accepting this absurd choice, we took it on ourselves to fight this dangerous, binary thinking?
So for all the globalists in the audience, I want to ask: When I say the word "nationalist," what image comes to your mind?
Something like this?
Believe me, I think of that, too.
But I'd like you to remember that for most people, nationalism feels more like this.
Or maybe like that.
You know, it's that thing inside you when you accidentally watch an obscure Olympic sport on TV -- (Laughter) wait -- and the mere sight of an unknown athlete wearing your national colors gets you all excited.
Your heartbeat goes up, your stress level goes up, and you're standing in front of the TV and screaming with passion for that athlete to win.
That's nationalism.
It's people happy to be together, happy to belong to a large national community.
Why would it be wrong?
You know, globalists, you may think of nationalism as an old, 19th-century idea that is destined to fade.
But I'm sorry to tell you that the facts are not on your side.
When the World Values Survey asked more than 89,000 people across 60 countries how proud they felt about their country, 88.5 percent said "very proud" or "quite proud" -- 88.5 percent.
Nationalism is not going away anytime soon.
It's a powerful feeling that, according to another study, is a strong predictor of individual happiness.
It's crazy, but your happiness is more correlated with national satisfaction than with things you would expect, like household income or your job satisfaction or your health satisfaction.
So if nationalism makes people happy, why would anybody take it away from them?
Fellow globalists, if you are like me, you may be attached to globalization for humanistic reasons.
And you may take great joy in some of its accomplishments since 1945.
After all, major regions of the world have been exceptionally peaceful; extreme poverty rates around the globe are trending down; and more than two billion people, most notably in Asia, show spectacular improvements in their standards of living.
But studies also show that globalization has a dark side.
And left on the side of the road are hundreds of millions of people in Western middle classes with anemic income growth for more than two decades, possibly three decades, according to some studies.
We cannot ignore this elephant in our room.
If anything, our collective energy would be better used finding ways to fix this aspect of globalization, instead of fighting this polarizing battle against nationalism.
So now, the nationalists in the audience, I have some crusty, nonbinary nuggets for you.
(Laughter) When I say the word "globalist," what comes to your mind?
Out-of-touch, one-percent plutocrats?
(Laughter) Or maybe the heartless, greedy Wall Street type, right?
Or maybe people like me, with multiple origins, living in a big, cosmopolitan metropolis.
Well, you remember that World Values Survey that I mentioned earlier?
It showed another fascinating finding: 71 percent of the world population agreed with the statement, "I am a citizen of the world."
Do you know what it means?
Most of us are simultaneously proud of our country and citizens of the world.
And it gets even better.
The citizens of the world in the survey show a higher level of national pride than the ones that rejected that label.
So once and for all, being a globalist doesn't mean betraying your country.
It just means that you have enough social empathy, and you project some of it outside your national borders.
Now, I know that when I dig into my own nationalist feelings, one of my anxieties versus the globalized world is national identity: How are we going to preserve what makes us special, what makes us different, what brings us together?
And as I started thinking about it, I realized something really strange, which is that a lot of the key ingredients of our national identities actually come from outside our national borders.
Like, think of the letters that we use every day.
I don't know if you realize, but the Latin script, the Latin alphabet that we use has its origins thousands of years ago, near the Nile River.
It all started with a cow just like this, that was captured by a scribe into an elegant hieroglyph.
That hieroglyph was transcribed by a Semite in the Sinai into the letter aleph.
Aleph traveled with Phoenicians and reached the European shores in Greece, where it became alpha, the mother of our letter A.
So that's how an Egyptian cow became our letter A.
(Laughter) And same thing with the Egyptian house that became bet, beta and B.
And the Egyptian fish that became daleth, delta and D.
Our most fundamental texts are full of Egyptian cows, houses and fish.
(Laughter) And there are so many other examples.
Take the United Kingdom and its monarchy.
Queen Elizabeth II?
German ancestry.
The mottos on the royal coat of arms?
All written in French, not a single word of English.
Take France and it's iconic Eiffel Tower.
The inspiration?
The United States of America -- and I don't mean Las Vegas, I mean 19th-century New York.
(Laughter) This was the tallest building in New York in the mid-19th century.
Does it remind you of something?
And you may think of China as a self-contained civilization, protected behind its Great Wall.
But think twice.
The Chinese official ideology?
Marxism, made in Germany.
One of China's biggest religions?
Buddhism, imported from India.
India's favorite pastime?
Cricket.
I really love this quote from Ashis Nandy, who said, "Cricket is an Indian game accidentally discovered by the British."
(Laughter) So these are good reminders that a lot of what we love in our national traditions actually come from previous waves of globalization.
And beyond individual symbols, there are whole national traditions that could not have existed without globalization.
And the example that comes to my mind is a world-beloved national tradition: Italian cuisine.
My friends, if you ever have a chance to go to a superauthentic Italian restaurant that only serves ancient Roman recipes, my advice for you is: don't go.
(Laughter) You'd get very, very disappointed.
No spaghetti, no pasta -- that really started in Sicily in the eighth century, when it was under Arabian rule.
No perfect espresso, no creamy cappuccino -- that came from Abyssinia via Yemen in the 17th century.
And of course, no perfect pizza Napoletana -- how would you make it without the tomatoes of the New World?
No, instead, you would be served probably a lot of porridge, some vegetable -- mostly cabbage -- some cheese, and maybe if you're lucky, the absolute delicacy of that time -- mmm, perfectly cooked fattened dormice.
(Laughter) Thankfully, it was not a close tradition preserved by fanatic watchdogs.
No, it was an open process, nourished by explorers, traders, street sellers and innovative home cooks.
And in many ways, globalization is a chance for our national traditions to be questioned, regenerated, reinterpreted, to attract new converts to stay vibrant and relevant over time.
So just remember this: most of us nationalists in the world are globalists, and most of us globalists in the world are nationalists.
A lot of what we like in our national traditions come from outside our national borders.
And the reason we venture outside our national borders is to discover these other national traditions.
So the real question should not be to choose between nationalism and globalism.
The real questions is: How can we do both better?
It's a complex question for a complex world that calls for creative, nonbinary solutions.
What are you waiting for?
Thank you.
(Applause)