TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Yannick Roudaut: How today's truths shape tomorrow's possibilities

Unscramble the Blue Letters

Indeed, for 20 years, I weorkd in finance. I knew everything about finance, for sure. I knew the global economy because it was my life. All the topics that you could bring up about ecology, the end of the world, etc., that I knew like the back of my hand I didn't really believe in them. In 2007, an extremely unusual event occurred, you may remember, the srmuibpe crisis, the collapse of big American banks. It was an electric shock. I had a fair few stormy conversations with my wife about the matter, about my job, on the limits of the model. Besides the crisis, I realized that I was completely wrong, that we were heading for disaster. The whole cpnieotcon I had of the world, all the canrititees that I had until then, were all fallen apart within a few months. That's why I'm here tonight, I've realized that, finally, it wasn't all so bad, and that it was an opportunity because we have the exceptional opportunity of living in an exceptional period of human history: we are going to canghe the world. But before changing the world, we have to do something, we have to do some grieving, we have to turn the page - turning the page of the world we live in today. To do so, I need some help from an aimrcean who goes by the name of Jared daomnid and who published "Collapse," and soon you will see that the 5 factors of the calpsloe of civilizations are reunited today. Jared Diamond has inedftiied 5 factors in which we find the collapse of the maays, the Vikings, and all of the great Mesopotamian civilizations. And every time, those 5 fartcos were reunited. The bad news is that the 5 factors are reunited only at the beginning of the 21st century, but this time not only a single civilization is threatened but the global village, humanity, all of us. It's extremely important to be aware of this. The first factor of the collapse is the environmental factor. For two centuries, especially the last 50 years, we have done environmental damage, sometimes irreversible. The second factor is climate change. All the great civilizations did face those changes in climate. This weakens the ecosystems, that weakening also results in shortage of resources, destabilization of a society economical, geopolitical, social cceunqesenos, you name it. Third factor, still reunited today, the revvail of military conflicts. These two first factors result in: when the esscemyots are destabilized and there is a shortage of resources, we continue having conflicts, we make war. And let me remind you, at the moment France is at war in Mali; let's not forget that. Fourth fatcor, equally important than the last one, the cancellation of diplomatic and cimocraeml alliances. Things look bad, and the alliances concluded yesterday are undermined. taody, we are all awrae of the fact that the future of Europe is unknown, we don't know what will come. And the fifth factor, not the least worrisome: the blindness of our eeitls. In this whole collapse of the civilization, the elites are not able to evaluate the fall of their world. They are incapable of changing their prism for the analysis. And the result? The result is simple: we will have a political caste system which emphasizes, which alctreeaces the collapse of a wlrod. After everything I just told you, you have to know that the end of a world is not the same as the end of the world. If I told you that we live in an extraordinary time, extraordinary in the sense of etymology, there is no doubt, we live in a transition period, between two worlds. In the world of today, we are about to turn the page. And the world of tomorrow, the world to come, the sustainable world, about which I am tiklnag today, starts to slighty assume its sphae but there is still nothing precise. How do we live? We live in a historical period inspiring enough that we have to reinvent things. The nearest time period, in which man reinvented everything, is the Renaissance. The question which comes up in the 21st century is, "Do we experience a new Renaissance?" Let's see if the factors of a rassenncaie are rineuted. First factor of a renaissance is a new understanding of the world. In the 15th ctrueny, Columbus discovered the Americas, man discovered the immensity of planet Earth, we discovered the iismntemy of the world. What happens at the moment, for some dcadees, for some years? We discover the finiteness of the world. The planet is very slmal in terms of reercuoss, capacity, if we look at the current economic model. New understanding. Second factor: The Renaissance is a period of very much creativity. We all know Leonardo da Vinci, the Flemish painters. 2012, 2013, what has happened? Very much creativity. 3D printing is only one example. There are lots of others. Third factor of the Renaissance: crntoary to common beliefs, the Renaissance was not only a poreid of creativity, but also of much violence: religious wars, civil wars, extermination of the ntaive Americans, slavery. And how is it in 2012, 2013? Violence on a daily baiss, and cdrheiln which get killed in school by automatic weapons. foutrh factor of a renaissance: The whole world knows Gutenberg the inventor of the prnitnig press who fundamentally cehnagd the distribution of knowledge in Europe, and later in the rest of the world. Imagine, today, there is a new technological tool which allows us to distribute knowledge in a whole new way. This tool, which we have in our hands, provides instantaneous information. We hold the kdlnogewe of the world in our hands. Soon, we will see how this is going to change. And falinly, a renaissance - that brings me to the subject of today - it's the fact that all the certainties of humanity have fallen apart. Let me remind you, from alsoetrteis through Ptolemy in the 2nd century to the Renaissance, the Earth was flat, man was the center of the world, and the stars turned around us. And those who dared to question this unique touhhgt, those who dared to dispute this reeevcid, non-negotiable truth, - you know what came next - had to deal with the Inquisition. At the satke, they had to answer the question. Copernicus and Galilee had nearly paid with their lives because they dared to say that the Earth was not flat and it was not the ceetnr of the universe. So today, the question presenting itself to us in the 21st century is: "Are we committing the same mistake as our ancestors? Are we, also in making the mistake, or in our certainties, the ones who will fall apart over the next few years?" The next question which follows is: "What are those certainties which are of received and non-negotiable value, which could fall apart in 10, 15, 20, or 50 years?" There are a lot of them. As a former economist, there are at least three certainties in economy. At first, there is the truth that growth is the only motor of the economy. Let me remind you what the word 'economy' means in gerek. Economy means resource management, dmaoin and household management. So it doesn't necessarily mean growth. It's not a synonym. Second trtuh which could fall apart is that growth is infinite. That's our consumption mdoel in a finite and iilernacsngy shrinking world as the population grows more and more but with less resources. And we don't question this dgmoa. Third dogma, third received truth is the necessary sacrifice of the living in favor of this growth. But still, we have aeztroihud the right to pollute, to right to poison, the right to ictnxitoae. Why? Because growth damdens it. The question that we are confronted with today is: If we continue like this, if we continue to srfaciy the living, do we challenge this, will we authorize this dialogue? The answer is also not that evident because we can ask ourselves if the plepoe who question these dogmas of growth as motor of the economy, and of the myth of infinite growth are today maybe still seen like yesterday's heretics. I must say that I am not sure, that at this time, in the 21st century, we show a gerat wisdom to those who dare to question a system which we all benefit from. It should be extremely important for us to keep an open mind. And yet, we become more and more people. All here, I think, are cenvconid of the fact that we know that the road we have taken for two centuries leads us directly to - how did the philosopher Jonas say? To a tragic issampe. The economic denlvmpeoet on which we base our model leads us to a tragic impasse. Hans Jonas adds a very beautiful expression: "Nature will eltnvlauey make its ultimate veto, anyway, and it will be over." After what I just said, another question aiesrs I am concerned with personally: "What will our children and descendants think of our behavior, our stubbornness of our obsession of a destructive economic model?" It is very likely that they will call us perhaps barbarians of the liivng world, and maybe they will feel the same ceoptmnt, the same indignation which we can feel today about those who developed slavery two or three centuries ago. Our behavior today is not any better than that of those we dssipee today. Why? Because three centuries ago, slavery was non-negotiable. The European and American eocmonic model was based on saverly. And today, in 2013, what happens? Our entire economic model, our entire society is based on what? On exploitation, on the sacrifice of the living. The question, which, of course, arises is, "What are we going to do?" But before we know what we will do we have to know why we got there in order not to commit the same mistake in tomorrow's world. And how did we get there? The asewnr is simple and can be said in a few words. The psoliohephr Descartes already said it four centuries ago: "Man is the only master and onwer of nature." Period. We dominate nature, we shape and form it. We do what we want. But what has happened since this Cartesian thought? We consider nature as a bottomless pit, as a mine where we draw from and throw things. And that's the problem. We consider this kind of nature as what? Finally, that puts man outside of nature. And this erxoirittey is our problem. In 1990, Michel Serres had an extremely truthful thought, like always, he said: "But finally, the notion of nature is a prelbom for us because naurte assumes that man is put into, sdrouenurd by a living world. We are disconnected from nature. As long as we haven't solved that problem, as long as we haven't reconciled with nature, it won't work. It's not about sacrnaizilg nature, or putting it on an altar like a sacred goddess, it's just about including nature and not acting against or without it." Well, how are we going to do that? The coicunslon of my talk is we'll have to organize it, really simple. It's etxmleery simple, we need a new controversy. What is a controversy? It's a dispute, a global debate. What happened in Valladolid in the 16th century, in 1550? A dispute took place in sipan as to whether Native Americans are living beings or not. Because if we exploited this tame workforce for free, we would develop the New World. If they were human beings we couldn't make them slaves. That would be illerbatone. So, we dicesussd about the humanity of Native Americans. In the 21st century, we need to organize a new controversy. But this time it will be about determining where are the tolerance limits towards nature compared to human activity. What can nature bear? What kind of economic model can it bear? Do we have the right to pollute, the right to destroy the future of our children and their cmoomn heritage? This new controversy allows us to draft the Universal Declaration on the Duties of Man towards Nature. Yes, I said duties. Why? The Declaration on Human Rights has been the corner stone of the modern world, of today's world. The Universal Declaration on the Duties of Man will be the ctrnnreoose of the new tomorrow. The doacrealitn will fix the limits of our activity. But how to launch this new controversy? It needs to be organized. But before organizing and lhiannucg it, you will tell me: "Roudaut has taken drugs. He's a utopian. He leivs in an ivory tower. it's all in his fantasy." Once more, I go back to history. Who would have thought before Constantin and Theodosius I that the Romans would see their empire destroyed by a handful of people from inside cleald Christians? Who would have thought before the French Revolution and the end of the monarchy that a hfdanul of men would write the Universal Declaration on Human Rights? Today, those who reelcft about another world, who strive for new values, are perhaps - perhaps you and I are - the first Christians of the Roman Empire. We may be about to change the things from inside through the only aspiration of our values to another world. How to oangzrie this new controversy? That's very simple because of an unprecedented celhlngae, we have a new tool in our hands, and that's connection. We are all cnetncoed, and that will change everything. The fact that we are connected allows us to launch a controversy to consider the world of tromoorw. I finish my talk with this connection, as from tonight on, I suggest to launch the first tweet about the new controversy. Here and now in Nantes, here we go, sent. I invite you to continue the debate without me, after or with me. Thank you. (Applause)

Open Cloze

Indeed, for 20 years, I ______ in finance. I knew everything about finance, for sure. I knew the global economy because it was my life. All the topics that you could bring up about ecology, the end of the world, etc., that I knew like the back of my hand I didn't really believe in them. In 2007, an extremely unusual event occurred, you may remember, the ________ crisis, the collapse of big American banks. It was an electric shock. I had a fair few stormy conversations with my wife about the matter, about my job, on the limits of the model. Besides the crisis, I realized that I was completely wrong, that we were heading for disaster. The whole __________ I had of the world, all the ___________ that I had until then, were all fallen apart within a few months. That's why I'm here tonight, I've realized that, finally, it wasn't all so bad, and that it was an opportunity because we have the exceptional opportunity of living in an exceptional period of human history: we are going to ______ the world. But before changing the world, we have to do something, we have to do some grieving, we have to turn the page - turning the page of the world we live in today. To do so, I need some help from an ________ who goes by the name of Jared _______ and who published "Collapse," and soon you will see that the 5 factors of the ________ of civilizations are reunited today. Jared Diamond has __________ 5 factors in which we find the collapse of the _____, the Vikings, and all of the great Mesopotamian civilizations. And every time, those 5 _______ were reunited. The bad news is that the 5 factors are reunited only at the beginning of the 21st century, but this time not only a single civilization is threatened but the global village, humanity, all of us. It's extremely important to be aware of this. The first factor of the collapse is the environmental factor. For two centuries, especially the last 50 years, we have done environmental damage, sometimes irreversible. The second factor is climate change. All the great civilizations did face those changes in climate. This weakens the ecosystems, that weakening also results in shortage of resources, destabilization of a society economical, geopolitical, social ____________, you name it. Third factor, still reunited today, the _______ of military conflicts. These two first factors result in: when the __________ are destabilized and there is a shortage of resources, we continue having conflicts, we make war. And let me remind you, at the moment France is at war in Mali; let's not forget that. Fourth ______, equally important than the last one, the cancellation of diplomatic and __________ alliances. Things look bad, and the alliances concluded yesterday are undermined. _____, we are all _____ of the fact that the future of Europe is unknown, we don't know what will come. And the fifth factor, not the least worrisome: the blindness of our ______. In this whole collapse of the civilization, the elites are not able to evaluate the fall of their world. They are incapable of changing their prism for the analysis. And the result? The result is simple: we will have a political caste system which emphasizes, which ___________ the collapse of a _____. After everything I just told you, you have to know that the end of a world is not the same as the end of the world. If I told you that we live in an extraordinary time, extraordinary in the sense of etymology, there is no doubt, we live in a transition period, between two worlds. In the world of today, we are about to turn the page. And the world of tomorrow, the world to come, the sustainable world, about which I am _______ today, starts to slighty assume its _____ but there is still nothing precise. How do we live? We live in a historical period inspiring enough that we have to reinvent things. The nearest time period, in which man reinvented everything, is the Renaissance. The question which comes up in the 21st century is, "Do we experience a new Renaissance?" Let's see if the factors of a ___________ are ________. First factor of a renaissance is a new understanding of the world. In the 15th _______, Columbus discovered the Americas, man discovered the immensity of planet Earth, we discovered the _________ of the world. What happens at the moment, for some _______, for some years? We discover the finiteness of the world. The planet is very _____ in terms of _________, capacity, if we look at the current economic model. New understanding. Second factor: The Renaissance is a period of very much creativity. We all know Leonardo da Vinci, the Flemish painters. 2012, 2013, what has happened? Very much creativity. 3D printing is only one example. There are lots of others. Third factor of the Renaissance: ________ to common beliefs, the Renaissance was not only a ______ of creativity, but also of much violence: religious wars, civil wars, extermination of the ______ Americans, slavery. And how is it in 2012, 2013? Violence on a daily _____, and ________ which get killed in school by automatic weapons. ______ factor of a renaissance: The whole world knows Gutenberg the inventor of the ________ press who fundamentally _______ the distribution of knowledge in Europe, and later in the rest of the world. Imagine, today, there is a new technological tool which allows us to distribute knowledge in a whole new way. This tool, which we have in our hands, provides instantaneous information. We hold the _________ of the world in our hands. Soon, we will see how this is going to change. And _______, a renaissance - that brings me to the subject of today - it's the fact that all the certainties of humanity have fallen apart. Let me remind you, from ___________ through Ptolemy in the 2nd century to the Renaissance, the Earth was flat, man was the center of the world, and the stars turned around us. And those who dared to question this unique _______, those who dared to dispute this ________, non-negotiable truth, - you know what came next - had to deal with the Inquisition. At the _____, they had to answer the question. Copernicus and Galilee had nearly paid with their lives because they dared to say that the Earth was not flat and it was not the ______ of the universe. So today, the question presenting itself to us in the 21st century is: "Are we committing the same mistake as our ancestors? Are we, also in making the mistake, or in our certainties, the ones who will fall apart over the next few years?" The next question which follows is: "What are those certainties which are of received and non-negotiable value, which could fall apart in 10, 15, 20, or 50 years?" There are a lot of them. As a former economist, there are at least three certainties in economy. At first, there is the truth that growth is the only motor of the economy. Let me remind you what the word 'economy' means in _____. Economy means resource management, ______ and household management. So it doesn't necessarily mean growth. It's not a synonym. Second _____ which could fall apart is that growth is infinite. That's our consumption _____ in a finite and ____________ shrinking world as the population grows more and more but with less resources. And we don't question this _____. Third dogma, third received truth is the necessary sacrifice of the living in favor of this growth. But still, we have __________ the right to pollute, to right to poison, the right to __________. Why? Because growth _______ it. The question that we are confronted with today is: If we continue like this, if we continue to _______ the living, do we challenge this, will we authorize this dialogue? The answer is also not that evident because we can ask ourselves if the ______ who question these dogmas of growth as motor of the economy, and of the myth of infinite growth are today maybe still seen like yesterday's heretics. I must say that I am not sure, that at this time, in the 21st century, we show a _____ wisdom to those who dare to question a system which we all benefit from. It should be extremely important for us to keep an open mind. And yet, we become more and more people. All here, I think, are _________ of the fact that we know that the road we have taken for two centuries leads us directly to - how did the philosopher Jonas say? To a tragic _______. The economic ___________ on which we base our model leads us to a tragic impasse. Hans Jonas adds a very beautiful expression: "Nature will __________ make its ultimate veto, anyway, and it will be over." After what I just said, another question ______ I am concerned with personally: "What will our children and descendants think of our behavior, our stubbornness of our obsession of a destructive economic model?" It is very likely that they will call us perhaps barbarians of the ______ world, and maybe they will feel the same ________, the same indignation which we can feel today about those who developed slavery two or three centuries ago. Our behavior today is not any better than that of those we _______ today. Why? Because three centuries ago, slavery was non-negotiable. The European and American ________ model was based on _______. And today, in 2013, what happens? Our entire economic model, our entire society is based on what? On exploitation, on the sacrifice of the living. The question, which, of course, arises is, "What are we going to do?" But before we know what we will do we have to know why we got there in order not to commit the same mistake in tomorrow's world. And how did we get there? The ______ is simple and can be said in a few words. The ___________ Descartes already said it four centuries ago: "Man is the only master and _____ of nature." Period. We dominate nature, we shape and form it. We do what we want. But what has happened since this Cartesian thought? We consider nature as a bottomless pit, as a mine where we draw from and throw things. And that's the problem. We consider this kind of nature as what? Finally, that puts man outside of nature. And this ___________ is our problem. In 1990, Michel Serres had an extremely truthful thought, like always, he said: "But finally, the notion of nature is a _______ for us because ______ assumes that man is put into, __________ by a living world. We are disconnected from nature. As long as we haven't solved that problem, as long as we haven't reconciled with nature, it won't work. It's not about ___________ nature, or putting it on an altar like a sacred goddess, it's just about including nature and not acting against or without it." Well, how are we going to do that? The __________ of my talk is we'll have to organize it, really simple. It's _________ simple, we need a new controversy. What is a controversy? It's a dispute, a global debate. What happened in Valladolid in the 16th century, in 1550? A dispute took place in _____ as to whether Native Americans are living beings or not. Because if we exploited this tame workforce for free, we would develop the New World. If they were human beings we couldn't make them slaves. That would be ___________. So, we _________ about the humanity of Native Americans. In the 21st century, we need to organize a new controversy. But this time it will be about determining where are the tolerance limits towards nature compared to human activity. What can nature bear? What kind of economic model can it bear? Do we have the right to pollute, the right to destroy the future of our children and their ______ heritage? This new controversy allows us to draft the Universal Declaration on the Duties of Man towards Nature. Yes, I said duties. Why? The Declaration on Human Rights has been the corner stone of the modern world, of today's world. The Universal Declaration on the Duties of Man will be the ___________ of the new tomorrow. The ___________ will fix the limits of our activity. But how to launch this new controversy? It needs to be organized. But before organizing and _________ it, you will tell me: "Roudaut has taken drugs. He's a utopian. He _____ in an ivory tower. it's all in his fantasy." Once more, I go back to history. Who would have thought before Constantin and Theodosius I that the Romans would see their empire destroyed by a handful of people from inside ______ Christians? Who would have thought before the French Revolution and the end of the monarchy that a _______ of men would write the Universal Declaration on Human Rights? Today, those who _______ about another world, who strive for new values, are perhaps - perhaps you and I are - the first Christians of the Roman Empire. We may be about to change the things from inside through the only aspiration of our values to another world. How to ________ this new controversy? That's very simple because of an unprecedented _________, we have a new tool in our hands, and that's connection. We are all _________, and that will change everything. The fact that we are connected allows us to launch a controversy to consider the world of ________. I finish my talk with this connection, as from tonight on, I suggest to launch the first tweet about the new controversy. Here and now in Nantes, here we go, sent. I invite you to continue the debate without me, after or with me. Thank you. (Applause)

Solution

century
changed
finally
elites
collapse
conclusion
stake
organize
certainties
accelerates
aristoteles
revival
talking
despise
tomorrow
truth
today
commercial
increasingly
arises
sacrify
aware
american
cornerstone
small
mayas
sacralizing
children
basis
subprime
philosopher
fourth
contrary
living
period
greek
demands
nature
development
surrounded
exteriority
challenge
identified
change
factor
intolerable
discussed
domain
launching
extremely
intoxicate
people
economic
received
called
worked
thought
contempt
reflect
native
common
world
connected
slavery
convinced
diamond
resources
spain
consequences
owner
knowledge
impasse
answer
problem
reunited
lives
declaration
printing
decades
renaissance
center
factors
model
ecosystems
immensity
authorized
conception
great
handful
eventually
dogma
shape

Original Text

Indeed, for 20 years, I worked in finance. I knew everything about finance, for sure. I knew the global economy because it was my life. All the topics that you could bring up about ecology, the end of the world, etc., that I knew like the back of my hand I didn't really believe in them. In 2007, an extremely unusual event occurred, you may remember, the subprime crisis, the collapse of big American banks. It was an electric shock. I had a fair few stormy conversations with my wife about the matter, about my job, on the limits of the model. Besides the crisis, I realized that I was completely wrong, that we were heading for disaster. The whole conception I had of the world, all the certainties that I had until then, were all fallen apart within a few months. That's why I'm here tonight, I've realized that, finally, it wasn't all so bad, and that it was an opportunity because we have the exceptional opportunity of living in an exceptional period of human history: we are going to change the world. But before changing the world, we have to do something, we have to do some grieving, we have to turn the page - turning the page of the world we live in today. To do so, I need some help from an American who goes by the name of Jared Diamond and who published "Collapse," and soon you will see that the 5 factors of the collapse of civilizations are reunited today. Jared Diamond has identified 5 factors in which we find the collapse of the Mayas, the Vikings, and all of the great Mesopotamian civilizations. And every time, those 5 factors were reunited. The bad news is that the 5 factors are reunited only at the beginning of the 21st century, but this time not only a single civilization is threatened but the global village, humanity, all of us. It's extremely important to be aware of this. The first factor of the collapse is the environmental factor. For two centuries, especially the last 50 years, we have done environmental damage, sometimes irreversible. The second factor is climate change. All the great civilizations did face those changes in climate. This weakens the ecosystems, that weakening also results in shortage of resources, destabilization of a society economical, geopolitical, social consequences, you name it. Third factor, still reunited today, the revival of military conflicts. These two first factors result in: when the ecosystems are destabilized and there is a shortage of resources, we continue having conflicts, we make war. And let me remind you, at the moment France is at war in Mali; let's not forget that. Fourth factor, equally important than the last one, the cancellation of diplomatic and commercial alliances. Things look bad, and the alliances concluded yesterday are undermined. Today, we are all aware of the fact that the future of Europe is unknown, we don't know what will come. And the fifth factor, not the least worrisome: the blindness of our elites. In this whole collapse of the civilization, the elites are not able to evaluate the fall of their world. They are incapable of changing their prism for the analysis. And the result? The result is simple: we will have a political caste system which emphasizes, which accelerates the collapse of a world. After everything I just told you, you have to know that the end of a world is not the same as the end of the world. If I told you that we live in an extraordinary time, extraordinary in the sense of etymology, there is no doubt, we live in a transition period, between two worlds. In the world of today, we are about to turn the page. And the world of tomorrow, the world to come, the sustainable world, about which I am talking today, starts to slighty assume its shape but there is still nothing precise. How do we live? We live in a historical period inspiring enough that we have to reinvent things. The nearest time period, in which man reinvented everything, is the Renaissance. The question which comes up in the 21st century is, "Do we experience a new Renaissance?" Let's see if the factors of a renaissance are reunited. First factor of a renaissance is a new understanding of the world. In the 15th century, Columbus discovered the Americas, man discovered the immensity of planet Earth, we discovered the immensity of the world. What happens at the moment, for some decades, for some years? We discover the finiteness of the world. The planet is very small in terms of resources, capacity, if we look at the current economic model. New understanding. Second factor: The Renaissance is a period of very much creativity. We all know Leonardo da Vinci, the Flemish painters. 2012, 2013, what has happened? Very much creativity. 3D printing is only one example. There are lots of others. Third factor of the Renaissance: Contrary to common beliefs, the Renaissance was not only a period of creativity, but also of much violence: religious wars, civil wars, extermination of the Native Americans, slavery. And how is it in 2012, 2013? Violence on a daily basis, and children which get killed in school by automatic weapons. Fourth factor of a renaissance: The whole world knows Gutenberg the inventor of the printing press who fundamentally changed the distribution of knowledge in Europe, and later in the rest of the world. Imagine, today, there is a new technological tool which allows us to distribute knowledge in a whole new way. This tool, which we have in our hands, provides instantaneous information. We hold the knowledge of the world in our hands. Soon, we will see how this is going to change. And finally, a renaissance - that brings me to the subject of today - it's the fact that all the certainties of humanity have fallen apart. Let me remind you, from Aristoteles through Ptolemy in the 2nd century to the Renaissance, the Earth was flat, man was the center of the world, and the stars turned around us. And those who dared to question this unique thought, those who dared to dispute this received, non-negotiable truth, - you know what came next - had to deal with the Inquisition. At the stake, they had to answer the question. Copernicus and Galilee had nearly paid with their lives because they dared to say that the Earth was not flat and it was not the center of the universe. So today, the question presenting itself to us in the 21st century is: "Are we committing the same mistake as our ancestors? Are we, also in making the mistake, or in our certainties, the ones who will fall apart over the next few years?" The next question which follows is: "What are those certainties which are of received and non-negotiable value, which could fall apart in 10, 15, 20, or 50 years?" There are a lot of them. As a former economist, there are at least three certainties in economy. At first, there is the truth that growth is the only motor of the economy. Let me remind you what the word 'economy' means in Greek. Economy means resource management, domain and household management. So it doesn't necessarily mean growth. It's not a synonym. Second truth which could fall apart is that growth is infinite. That's our consumption model in a finite and increasingly shrinking world as the population grows more and more but with less resources. And we don't question this dogma. Third dogma, third received truth is the necessary sacrifice of the living in favor of this growth. But still, we have authorized the right to pollute, to right to poison, the right to intoxicate. Why? Because growth demands it. The question that we are confronted with today is: If we continue like this, if we continue to sacrify the living, do we challenge this, will we authorize this dialogue? The answer is also not that evident because we can ask ourselves if the people who question these dogmas of growth as motor of the economy, and of the myth of infinite growth are today maybe still seen like yesterday's heretics. I must say that I am not sure, that at this time, in the 21st century, we show a great wisdom to those who dare to question a system which we all benefit from. It should be extremely important for us to keep an open mind. And yet, we become more and more people. All here, I think, are convinced of the fact that we know that the road we have taken for two centuries leads us directly to - how did the philosopher Jonas say? To a tragic impasse. The economic development on which we base our model leads us to a tragic impasse. Hans Jonas adds a very beautiful expression: "Nature will eventually make its ultimate veto, anyway, and it will be over." After what I just said, another question arises I am concerned with personally: "What will our children and descendants think of our behavior, our stubbornness of our obsession of a destructive economic model?" It is very likely that they will call us perhaps barbarians of the living world, and maybe they will feel the same contempt, the same indignation which we can feel today about those who developed slavery two or three centuries ago. Our behavior today is not any better than that of those we despise today. Why? Because three centuries ago, slavery was non-negotiable. The European and American economic model was based on slavery. And today, in 2013, what happens? Our entire economic model, our entire society is based on what? On exploitation, on the sacrifice of the living. The question, which, of course, arises is, "What are we going to do?" But before we know what we will do we have to know why we got there in order not to commit the same mistake in tomorrow's world. And how did we get there? The answer is simple and can be said in a few words. The philosopher Descartes already said it four centuries ago: "Man is the only master and owner of nature." Period. We dominate nature, we shape and form it. We do what we want. But what has happened since this Cartesian thought? We consider nature as a bottomless pit, as a mine where we draw from and throw things. And that's the problem. We consider this kind of nature as what? Finally, that puts man outside of nature. And this exteriority is our problem. In 1990, Michel Serres had an extremely truthful thought, like always, he said: "But finally, the notion of nature is a problem for us because nature assumes that man is put into, surrounded by a living world. We are disconnected from nature. As long as we haven't solved that problem, as long as we haven't reconciled with nature, it won't work. It's not about sacralizing nature, or putting it on an altar like a sacred goddess, it's just about including nature and not acting against or without it." Well, how are we going to do that? The conclusion of my talk is we'll have to organize it, really simple. It's extremely simple, we need a new controversy. What is a controversy? It's a dispute, a global debate. What happened in Valladolid in the 16th century, in 1550? A dispute took place in Spain as to whether Native Americans are living beings or not. Because if we exploited this tame workforce for free, we would develop the New World. If they were human beings we couldn't make them slaves. That would be intolerable. So, we discussed about the humanity of Native Americans. In the 21st century, we need to organize a new controversy. But this time it will be about determining where are the tolerance limits towards nature compared to human activity. What can nature bear? What kind of economic model can it bear? Do we have the right to pollute, the right to destroy the future of our children and their common heritage? This new controversy allows us to draft the Universal Declaration on the Duties of Man towards Nature. Yes, I said duties. Why? The Declaration on Human Rights has been the corner stone of the modern world, of today's world. The Universal Declaration on the Duties of Man will be the cornerstone of the new tomorrow. The declaration will fix the limits of our activity. But how to launch this new controversy? It needs to be organized. But before organizing and launching it, you will tell me: "Roudaut has taken drugs. He's a utopian. He lives in an ivory tower. it's all in his fantasy." Once more, I go back to history. Who would have thought before Constantin and Theodosius I that the Romans would see their empire destroyed by a handful of people from inside called Christians? Who would have thought before the French Revolution and the end of the monarchy that a handful of men would write the Universal Declaration on Human Rights? Today, those who reflect about another world, who strive for new values, are perhaps - perhaps you and I are - the first Christians of the Roman Empire. We may be about to change the things from inside through the only aspiration of our values to another world. How to organize this new controversy? That's very simple because of an unprecedented challenge, we have a new tool in our hands, and that's connection. We are all connected, and that will change everything. The fact that we are connected allows us to launch a controversy to consider the world of tomorrow. I finish my talk with this connection, as from tonight on, I suggest to launch the first tweet about the new controversy. Here and now in Nantes, here we go, sent. I invite you to continue the debate without me, after or with me. Thank you. (Applause)

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
economic model	3
universal declaration	3
jared diamond	2
extremely important	2
tragic impasse	2
native americans	2

Important Words

accelerates
acting
activity
adds
alliances
altar
american
americans
americas
analysis
ancestors
answer
applause
arises
aristoteles
aspiration
assume
assumes
authorize
authorized
automatic
aware
bad
banks
barbarians
base
based
basis
bear
beautiful
beginning
behavior
beings
beliefs
benefit
big
blindness
bottomless
bring
brings
call
called
cancellation
capacity
cartesian
caste
center
centuries
century
certainties
challenge
change
changed
changing
children
christians
civil
civilization
civilizations
climate
collapse
columbus
commercial
commit
committing
common
compared
completely
conception
concerned
concluded
conclusion
conflicts
confronted
connected
connection
consequences
constantin
consumption
contempt
continue
contrary
controversy
conversations
convinced
copernicus
corner
cornerstone
creativity
crisis
current
da
daily
damage
dared
deal
debate
decades
declaration
demands
descartes
descendants
despise
destabilization
destabilized
destroy
destroyed
destructive
determining
develop
developed
development
dialogue
diamond
diplomatic
disaster
disconnected
discover
discovered
discussed
dispute
distribute
distribution
dogma
dogmas
domain
dominate
doubt
draft
draw
drugs
duties
earth
ecology
economic
economical
economist
economy
ecosystems
electric
elites
emphasizes
empire
entire
environmental
equally
etymology
europe
european
evaluate
event
eventually
evident
exceptional
experience
exploitation
exploited
exteriority
extermination
extraordinary
extremely
face
fact
factor
factors
fair
fall
fallen
fantasy
favor
feel
finally
finance
find
finish
finite
finiteness
fix
flat
flemish
forget
form
fourth
france
free
french
fundamentally
future
galilee
geopolitical
global
goddess
great
greek
grieving
grows
growth
gutenberg
hand
handful
hands
hans
happened
heading
heretics
heritage
historical
history
hold
household
human
humanity
identified
imagine
immensity
impasse
important
incapable
including
increasingly
indignation
infinite
information
inquisition
inspiring
instantaneous
intolerable
intoxicate
inventor
invite
irreversible
ivory
jared
job
jonas
killed
kind
knew
knowledge
launch
launching
leads
leonardo
life
limits
live
lives
living
long
lot
lots
making
man
management
master
matter
mayas
means
men
mesopotamian
michel
military
mind
mistake
model
modern
moment
monarchy
months
motor
myth
nantes
native
nature
nearest
necessarily
news
notion
obsession
occurred
open
opportunity
order
organize
organized
organizing
owner
page
paid
painters
people
period
philosopher
pit
place
planet
poison
political
pollute
population
precise
presenting
press
printing
prism
problem
ptolemy
published
put
puts
putting
question
realized
received
reconciled
reflect
reinvent
reinvented
religious
remember
remind
renaissance
resource
resources
rest
result
results
reunited
revival
revolution
rights
road
roman
romans
sacralizing
sacred
sacrifice
sacrify
school
sense
serres
shape
shock
shortage
show
shrinking
simple
single
slavery
slaves
slighty
small
social
society
solved
spain
stake
stars
starts
stone
stormy
strive
stubbornness
subject
subprime
suggest
surrounded
sustainable
synonym
system
talk
talking
tame
technological
terms
theodosius
thought
threatened
throw
time
today
told
tolerance
tomorrow
tonight
tool
topics
tower
tragic
transition
truth
truthful
turn
turned
turning
tweet
ultimate
undermined
understanding
unique
universal
universe
unknown
unprecedented
unusual
utopian
valladolid
values
veto
vikings
village
vinci
violence
war
wars
weakening
weakens
weapons
wife
wisdom
word
words
work
worked
workforce
world
worlds
write
wrong
years
yesterday