第一篇：ted英文演講稿

ted英文演講稿：犯錯(cuò)的價(jià)值

每個(gè)人都會(huì)避免犯錯(cuò)，但或許避免犯錯(cuò)本身就是一種錯(cuò)誤?請(qǐng)看以下這篇“犯錯(cuò)家“凱瑟琳舒爾茨告訴我們，或許我們不只該承認(rèn)錯(cuò)誤，更應(yīng)該大力擁抱人性中“我錯(cuò)故我在“的本質(zhì)。

So it's 1995, I'm in college, and a friend and I go on a road trip from Providence, Rhode Island to Portland, Oregon.And you know, we're young and unemployed, so we do the whole thing on back roads through state parks and national forests--basically the longest route we can possibly take.當(dāng)時(shí)是95年 我在上大學(xué) 我和一個(gè)朋友開車去玩 從羅得島的普羅旺斯區(qū)出發(fā) 到奧勒岡州的波特蘭市。我們年輕、無(wú)業(yè)，于是整個(gè)旅程都在鄉(xiāng)間小道 經(jīng)過(guò)州立公園 和國(guó)家保護(hù)森林 我們盡可能繞著最長(zhǎng)的路徑

And somewhere in the middle of South Dakota, I turn to my friend and I ask her a question that's been bothering me for 2,000 miles.“What's up with the Chinese character I keep seeing by the side of the road?”My friend looks at me totally blankly.在南達(dá)科塔州之中某處 我轉(zhuǎn)向我的朋友 問(wèn)她一個(gè) 兩千英里路途上 一直煩惱我的問(wèn)題，“路邊那個(gè)一直出現(xiàn)的中文字到底是什么?”我的朋友露出疑惑的神情

There's actually a gentleman in the front row who's doing a perfect imitation of her look.(Laughter)And I'm like, “You know, all the signs we keep seeing with the Chinese character on them.”

正如現(xiàn)在坐在第一排的這三位男士 所露出的神情一樣，笑聲)我說(shuō)“你知道的 我們一直看到的那個(gè)路牌 寫著中文的那個(gè)啊”

She just stares at me for a few moments, and then she cracks up, because she figures out what I'm talking about.她瞪著我的臉一陣子 突然笑開了 因?yàn)樗偹阒牢宜笧楹?/p>

And what I'm talking about is this.我說(shuō)的是這個(gè)

(Laughter)Right, the famous Chinese character for picnic area.(笑聲)沒(méi)錯(cuò)，這就是代表野餐區(qū)的那個(gè)中文字

(Laughter)I've spent the last five years of my life thinking about situations exactly like this--why we sometimes misunderstand the signs around us，(笑聲)過(guò)去的五年 我一直在思考 剛剛我所描述的狀況 為什么我們會(huì)對(duì)身邊的征兆 產(chǎn)生誤解

and how we behave when that happens, and what all of this can tell us about human nature.當(dāng)誤解發(fā)生時(shí)我們作何反應(yīng) 以及這一切所告訴我們的人性

In other words, as you heard Chris say, I've spent the last five years thinking about being wrong.換句話說(shuō)，就像 Chris 剛才說(shuō)的 過(guò)去五年的時(shí)間 我都在思考錯(cuò)誤的價(jià)值

This might strike you as a strange career move, but it actually has one great advantage: no job competition.你可能覺(jué)得這是個(gè)奇異的專業(yè) 但有一項(xiàng)好處是不容置疑的： 沒(méi)有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者。

(Laughter)In fact, most of us do everything we can to avoid thinking about being wrong, or at least to avoid thinking about the possibility that we ourselves are wrong.(笑聲)事實(shí)上，我們大部分的人 都盡力不思考錯(cuò)誤的價(jià)值 或至少避免想到我們有可能犯錯(cuò)。

We get it in the abstract.我們都知道這個(gè)模糊的概念。

We all know everybody in this room makes mistakes.我們都知道這里的每個(gè)人都曾經(jīng)犯錯(cuò)

The human species, in general, is fallible--okay fine.人類本來(lái)就會(huì)犯錯(cuò)一只走鵑鳥 都會(huì)跳下懸崖

which is fine, he's a bird, he can fly.反正牠是鳥，牠可以飛

But the thing is, the coyote runs off the cliff right after him.但土狼也會(huì)跟著牠一起跳崖

And what's funny--at least if you're six years old--is that the coyote's totally fine too.那很好笑 如果你是個(gè)六歲兒童 土狼也很好

He just keeps running--right up until the moment that he looks down and realizes that he's in mid-air.牠就這么繼續(xù)跑 直到牠往下看 發(fā)現(xiàn)自己漫步在空中

That's when he falls.這時(shí)候他才會(huì)往下掉

When we're wrong about something--not when we realize it, but before that--we're like that coyote after he's gone off the cliff and before he looks down.在我們犯錯(cuò)時(shí) 在我們意識(shí)到我們犯錯(cuò)時(shí) 我們就像那只土狼 還沒(méi)意識(shí)到自己奔出懸崖

You know, we're already wrong, we're already in trouble, but we feel like we're on solid ground.我們已經(jīng)錯(cuò)了 已經(jīng)惹上麻煩了 但仍然感覺(jué)像走在地上

So I should actually correct something I said a moment ago.我應(yīng)該改變我之前的說(shuō)法

It does feel like something to be wrong;it feels like being right.犯錯(cuò)的感覺(jué)就和 正確的感覺(jué)一樣

(Laughter)So this is one reason, a structural reason, why we get stuck inside this feeling of rightness.(笑聲)事實(shí)上我們這種自以為對(duì)的感受 是有構(gòu)造性的原因的

I call this error blindness.我稱之為錯(cuò)誤盲點(diǎn)

Most of the time, we don't have any kind of internal cue to let us know that we're wrong about something, until it's too late.大部份的時(shí)間里 我們身體里沒(méi)有任何機(jī)制 提醒我們錯(cuò)了 直到木已成舟

But there's a second reason that we get stuck inside this feeling as well--and this one is cultural.但還有第二個(gè)理由 文化性的理由

Think back for a moment to elementary school.回想小學(xué)時(shí)代

You're sitting there in class, and your teacher is handing back quiz papers, and one of them looks like this.你坐在課堂里 你的老師發(fā)回小考考卷 像這樣的小考考卷

This is not mine, by the way.雖然這張不是我的

(Laughter)So there you are in grade school, and you know exactly what to think about the kid who got this paper.(笑聲)你從小學(xué)時(shí)代 就知道該對(duì)拿這張考卷的同學(xué) 下甚么評(píng)語(yǔ)

It's the dumb kid, the troublemaker, the one who never does his homework.笨蛋，搗蛋鬼 從不做功課的壞學(xué)生

So by the time you are nine years old, you've already learned, first of all, that people who get stuff wrong are lazy, irresponsible dimwits--

你不過(guò)才九歲 你已經(jīng)懂得，首先 那些犯錯(cuò)的人 都是懶惰、不負(fù)責(zé)任的傻瓜

and second of all, that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes.第二 想要在人生中成功 就不要犯錯(cuò)

We learn these really bad lessons really well.我們很早就得到這些錯(cuò)誤訊息

And a lot of us--and I suspect, especially a lot of us in this room--deal with them by just becoming perfect little A students，而我們 尤其是這個(gè)大廳里的許多人 都因此成為好學(xué)生 拿全A perfectionists, over-achievers.完美主義、永不滿意

Right, Mr.CFO, astrophysicist, ultra-marathoner? 不是嗎? 財(cái)務(wù)長(zhǎng)、天體物理學(xué)家、超級(jí)馬拉松先生們?

us.(Laughter)You're all CFO, astrophysicists, ultra-marathoners, it turns out.(笑聲)結(jié)果是你們?nèi)闪素?cái)務(wù)長(zhǎng)、天體物理學(xué)家、跑超級(jí)馬拉松 Okay, so fine.那很好

Except that then we freak out at the possibility that we've gotten something wrong.但一旦我們發(fā)現(xiàn)有可能犯錯(cuò) 就開始手足無(wú)措

Because according to this, getting something wrong means there's something wrong with

因?yàn)橐勒找?guī)定 犯錯(cuò) 代表我們一定也有甚么不對(duì)勁

So we just insist that we're right, because it makes us feel smart and responsible and virtuous and safe.于是我們堅(jiān)持己見(jiàn) 因?yàn)槟亲屛覀兏杏X(jué)聰明、得體 安全和可靠

So let me tell you a story.讓我告訴你們一個(gè)故事

A couple of years ago, a woman comes into Beth Israel Deaconess medical center for a surgery.幾年前 一個(gè)女人到 Beth Israel Deaconess 診所做手術(shù)

Beth Israel's in Boston.Beth Israel 在波士頓

It's the teaching hospital for Harvard--one of the best hospitals in the country.是哈佛大學(xué)的教學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院 全國(guó)數(shù)一數(shù)二的醫(yī)療中心

So this woman comes in and she's taken into the operating room.這個(gè)女人被送進(jìn)開刀房

She's anesthetized, the surgeon does his thing--stitches her back up, sends her out to the recovery room.麻醉，外科醫(yī)生做完手術(shù) 縫合，將她送進(jìn)恢復(fù)室

Everything seems to have gone fine.一切看上去都很好

And she wakes up, and she looks down at herself, and she says, “Why is the wrong side of my body in bandages?”

她醒來(lái)，往自己身上一看 說(shuō)“為甚么我的左腿綁著繃帶?”

Well the wrong side of her body is in bandages because the surgeon has performed a major operation on her left leg instead of her right one.她應(yīng)該接受治療的是右腿 但為他做手術(shù)的外科醫(yī)生 卻把刀開在左腿

When the vice president for health care quality at Beth Israel spoke about this incident, he said something very interesting.當(dāng)副院長(zhǎng)出來(lái)為醫(yī)院的醫(yī)療質(zhì)量 和這次意外做出解釋時(shí) 他說(shuō)了句很有趣的話

He said, “For whatever reason, the surgeon simply felt that he was on the correct side of the patient.”

他說(shuō)“無(wú)論如何 這位外科醫(yī)生感覺(jué) 他開下的刀是在正確的一側(cè)”

(Laughter)The point of this story is that trusting too much in the feeling of being on the correct side of anything can be very dangerous.(笑聲)故事的重點(diǎn)是 相信自己的判斷力 相信自己站在對(duì)的一邊 是非常危險(xiǎn)的

This internal sense of rightness that we all experience so often is not a reliable guide to what is actually going on in the external world.我們心中時(shí)常感覺(jué)到的 理直氣壯的感覺(jué) 在真實(shí)世界中 并不是個(gè)可靠的向?qū)А?/p>

And when we act like it is, and we stop entertaining the possibility that we could be wrong, well that's when we end up doing things

當(dāng)我們依此行事 不再思考我們是否犯錯(cuò) 我們就有可能

88.like dumping 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or torpedoing the global economy.把兩百灣加侖的石油倒進(jìn)墨西哥灣 或是顛覆世界經(jīng)濟(jì)

So this is a huge practical problem.這是個(gè)很實(shí)際的問(wèn)題

But it's also a huge social problem.這也是個(gè)很大的社會(huì)問(wèn)題

Think for a moment about what it means to feel right.“感覺(jué)對(duì)”究竟是什么意思

It means that you think that your beliefs just perfectly reflect reality.這代表著你認(rèn)為你的信念 和真實(shí)是一致的

And when you feel that way, you've got a problem to solve, which is, how are you going to explain all of those people who disagree with you?

當(dāng)你有這種感覺(jué)的時(shí)候 你的問(wèn)題就大了 因?yàn)槿绻闶菍?duì)的 為甚么還有人和你持不同意見(jiàn)?

It turns out, most of us explain those people the same way, by resorting to a series of unfortunate assumptions.于是我們往往用同一種 思考方式去解釋這些異議

The first thing we usually do when someone disagrees with us is we just assume they're ignorant.第一是當(dāng)他人不同意我們的說(shuō)法 我們便覺(jué)得他們無(wú)知

They don't have access to the same information that we do, and when we generously share that information with them, they're going to see the light and come on over to our team.他們不像我們懂得這么多 當(dāng)我們慷慨地和他們分享我們的知識(shí) 他們便會(huì)理解，并加入我們的行列

When that doesn't work, when it turns out those people have all the same facts that we do and they still disagree with us, then we move on to a second assumption，如果不是這樣 如果這些人和我們獲得的信息一樣多 卻仍然不認(rèn)同我們 我們便有了下一個(gè)定論

which is that they're idiots.那就是他們是白癡

(Laughter)They have all the right pieces of the puzzle, and they are too moronic to put them together correctly.(笑聲)他們已經(jīng)有了所有的信息 卻笨到無(wú)法拼湊出正確的圖像

And when that doesn't work, when it turns out that people who disagree with us have all the same facts we do and are actually pretty smart，一旦第二個(gè)定論也不成立 當(dāng)這些反對(duì)我們的人 和我們有一樣的信息 又聰明

then we move on to a third assumption: they know the truth, and they are deliberately distorting it for their own malevolent purposes.我們便有了第三個(gè)結(jié)論 他們知道事實(shí)是甚么 但卻為了自己的好處 故意曲解真實(shí)。

So this is a catastrophe.這真是個(gè)大災(zāi)難

This attachment to our own rightness keeps us from preventing mistakes when we absolutely need to and causes us to treat each other terribly.我們的自以為是 讓我們?cè)谧钚枰臅r(shí)候 無(wú)法預(yù)防犯錯(cuò) 更讓我們互相仇視

104.But to me, what's most baffling and most tragic about this is that it misses the whole point of being human.對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō) 最大的悲劇是 它讓我們錯(cuò)失了身為人的珍貴意義

It's like we want to imagine that our minds are just these perfectly translucent windows and we just gaze out of them and describe the world as it unfolds.那就像是想象 我們的心靈之窗完全透明 我們向外觀看 描述在我們之前展開的世界

And we want everybody else to gaze out of the same window and see the exact same thing.我們想要每個(gè)人和我們有一樣的窗子 對(duì)世界做出一樣的觀察

That is not true, and if it were, life would be incredibly boring.那不是真的 如果是，人生將會(huì)多么無(wú)聊

The miracle of your mind isn't that you can see the world as it is.心靈的神奇之處 不在你懂得這個(gè)世界是甚么樣子

It's that you can see the world as it isn't.而是去理解那些你不懂的地方

We can remember the past, and we can think about the future, and we can imagine what it's like to be some other person in some other place.我們記得過(guò)去 思考未來(lái) 我們想象 自己成為他人，在他方

And we all do this a little differently, which is why we can all look up at the same night sky and see this and also this and also this.我們的想象都有些不同 于是當(dāng)我們抬頭看同一個(gè)夜空 我們看到這個(gè) 這個(gè) 和這個(gè)

And yeah, it is also why we get things wrong.這也是我們搞錯(cuò)事情的原因

1,200 years before Descartes said his famous thing about “I think therefore I am,”

在笛卡兒說(shuō)出那句有名的”我思故我在“ 的一千兩百年前

this guy, St.Augustine, sat down and wrote “Fallor ergo sum”--“I err therefore I am.”

圣奧古斯丁，坐下來(lái) 寫下“Fallor ergo sum”“我錯(cuò)故我在”

Augustine understood that our capacity to screw up, it's not some kind of embarrassing defect in the human system, something we can eradicate or overcome.奧古斯丁懂得 我們犯錯(cuò)的能力 這并不是人性中 一個(gè)令人難堪的缺陷 不是我們可以克服或消滅的

It's totally fundamental to who we are.這是我們的本質(zhì)

Because, unlike God, we don't really know what's going on out there.因?yàn)槲覀儾皇巧系?我們不知道我們之外究竟發(fā)生了甚么

And unlike all of the other animals, we are obsessed with trying to figure it out.而不同于其它動(dòng)物的是 我們都瘋狂地想找出解答

To me, this obsession is the source and root of all of our productivity and creativity.對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō) 這種尋找的沖動(dòng) 就是我們生產(chǎn)力和創(chuàng)造力的來(lái)源

Last year, for various reasons, I found myself listening to a lot of episodes of the Public Radio show This American Life.因?yàn)橐恍┚壒?去年我在廣播上 聽(tīng)了很多集的“我們的美國(guó)人生”

And so I'm listening and I'm listening, and at some point, I start feeling like all the stories are about being wrong.我聽(tīng)著聽(tīng)著 突然發(fā)現(xiàn) 這些故事全和犯錯(cuò)有關(guān)

And my first thought was, “I've lost it.我的第一個(gè)念頭是 “我完了

I've become the crazy wrongness lady.我寫書寫瘋了

I just imagined it everywhere,”

四處都看到有關(guān)犯錯(cuò)的幻覺(jué)”

which has happened.說(shuō)真的是這樣

But a couple of months later, I actually had a chance to interview Ira Glass, who's the host of the show.但幾個(gè)月后 我訪問(wèn)了那個(gè)廣播節(jié)目的主持人 Ira Glass

And I mentioned this to him, and he was like, “No actually, that's true.我向他提到這件事 他回答我“事實(shí)上

In fact,” he says, “as a staff, we joke that every single episode of our show has the same crypto-theme.你是對(duì)的”他說(shuō) “我們這些工作人員總是 開玩笑說(shuō)每集節(jié)目之中的 秘密主題都是一樣的

And the crypto-theme is: 'I thought this one thing was going to happen and something else happened instead.' And thing is,” says Ira Glass, “we need this.這個(gè)秘密主題就是 ”我以為這件事會(huì)這樣發(fā)生 結(jié)果其它事情發(fā)生了“ 他說(shuō)”但是，這就是我們需要的

We need these moments of surprise and reversal and wrongness to make these stories work.“

我們需要這些意外 這些顛倒和錯(cuò)誤 這些故事才能成立?！?/p>

And for the rest of us, audience members, as listeners, as readers, we eat this stuff up.而我們身為觀眾 聽(tīng)眾、讀者 我們吸收這些故事

We love things like plot twists and red herrings and surprise endings.我們喜歡故事轉(zhuǎn)折 令人驚訝的結(jié)局

When it comes to our stories, we love being wrong.我們喜歡在故事里 看到犯錯(cuò)

But, you know, our stories are like this because our lives are like this.但，故事會(huì)這樣寫 是因?yàn)槿松褪沁@樣

We think this one thing is going to happen and something else happens instead.我們以為某些事情會(huì)這樣發(fā)生 發(fā)生的卻是其它事

George Bush thought he was going to invade Iraq, find a bunch of weapons of mass destruction, liberate the people and bring democracy to the Middle East.小布什以為他入侵伊拉克 會(huì)找到大規(guī)模毀滅性武器 解放中東百姓，為他們帶來(lái)民主自由

And something else happened instead.但卻不是這樣

And Hosni Mubarak thought he was going to be dictator of Egypt for the rest of his life, until he got too old or too sick and could pass the reigns of power onto his son.穆巴拉克以為 他到死都會(huì)是埃及的獨(dú)裁者 一直到他年老或臥病 再把他的權(quán)力交給下一代

And something else happened instead.但卻不是這樣

And maybe you thought you were going to grow up and marry your high school sweetheart and move back to your home town and raise a bunch of kids together.或許你想過(guò) 你會(huì)長(zhǎng)大、嫁給你的初戀情人 搬回老家，生一群孩子

And something else happened instead.但卻不是這樣

And I have to tell you that I thought I was writing an incredibly nerdy book about a subject everybody hates for an audience that would never materialize.我必須說(shuō) 我以為我寫的是一本很冷僻的書 有關(guān)一個(gè)人人討厭的主題 為一些從不存在的讀者

And something else happened instead.但卻不是這樣

(Laughter)I mean, this is life.(笑聲)我們的人生

For good and for ill, we generate these incredible stories about the world around us, and then the world turns around and astonishes us.無(wú)論好壞 我們創(chuàng)造了啦 那包圍我們的世界 而世界轉(zhuǎn)過(guò)頭來(lái)，令我們大吃一驚

No offense, but this entire conference is an unbelievable monument to our capacity to get stuff wrong.說(shuō)真的，這整個(gè)會(huì)議 充斥著這樣難以置信的時(shí)刻 我們一次又一次地意識(shí)到自己的錯(cuò)誤

We just spent and entire week talking about innovations and advancements and improvements, but you know why we need all of those innovations

我們花了整整一周 討論創(chuàng)新，進(jìn)步 和改善 你知道我們?yōu)樯趺葱枰@些創(chuàng)新

and advancements and improvements?

進(jìn)步和改善嗎?

Because half the stuff that's the most mind-boggling and world altering--TED 1998--eh.因?yàn)槠渲杏幸话?來(lái)自最應(yīng)該改變世界的 98年的TED 呃

(Laughter)Didn't really work out that way, did it.(笑聲)真是出人意料之外啊，不是嗎

(Laughter)Where's my jet pack, Chris?

(笑聲)我的逃生火箭在哪，Chris?

(Laughter)(Applause)So here we are again.(笑聲)(掌聲)于是我們又在這里

And that's how it goes.事情就是這樣

We come up with another idea.我們重新想出其它點(diǎn)子

We tell another story.我們有了新的故事

We hold another conference.我們開了另一個(gè)會(huì)議

The theme of this one, as you guys have now heard seven million times, is the rediscovery of wonder.這次的主題是 如果你還沒(méi)有聽(tīng)到耳朵出油的話 是重新找到想象的力量

And to me, if you really want to rediscover wonder, you need to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness and look around at each other

對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō) 如果你真的想重新找到想象的力量 你需要離開 那個(gè)小小的、自我感覺(jué)良好的小圈圈 看看彼此

and look out at the vastness and complexity and mystery of the universe and be able to say, “Wow, I don't know.看看宇宙的 廣大無(wú)垠 復(fù)雜神秘 然后真正地說(shuō) “哇，我不知道

Maybe I'm wrong.”

或許我錯(cuò)了。”

Thank you.謝謝各位

(Applause)Thank you guys.

第二篇：ted演講稿 英文

ted演講稿 英文

歡迎來(lái)到聘才網(wǎng)，以下是聘才小編為大家搜索整理的ted演講稿 英文，歡迎大家閱讀。萊溫斯基ted演講稿(英文版)

You're looking at a woman who was publicly silent for a decade.Obviously, that's changed, but only recently.It was several months ago that I gave my very first major public talk at the Forbes 30 Under 30 summit:1,500 brilliant people, all under the age of 30.That meant that in 1998, the oldest among the group were only 14, and the youngest, just four.I joked with them that some might only have heard of me from rap songs.Yes, I'm in rap songs.Almost 40 rap songs.But the night of my speech, a surprising thing happened.At the age of 41, I was hit on by a 27-year-old guy.I know, right? He was charming and I was flattered, and I declined.You know what his unsuccessful pickup line was? He could make me feel 22 again.I realized later that night, I'm probably the only person over 40 who does not want to be 22 again.At the age of 22, I fell in love with my boss, and at the age of 24, I learned the devastating consequences.Can I see a show of hands of anyone here who didn't make a mistake or do something they regretted at 22? Yep.That's what I thought.So like me, at 22, a few of you may have also taken wrong turns and fallen in love with the wrong person, maybe even your boss.Unlike me, though, your boss probably wasn't the president of the United States of America.Of course, life is full of surprises.Not a day goes by that I'm not reminded of my mistake, and I regret that mistake deeply.In 1998, after having been swept up into an improbable romance, I was then swept up into the eye of a political, legal and media maelstrom like we had never seen before.Remember, just a few years earlier,news was consumed from just three places: reading a newspaper or magazine, listening to the radio, or watching television.That was it.But that wasn't my fate.Instead, this scandal was brought to you by the digital revolution.That meant we could access all the information we wanted, when we wanted it, anytime, anywhere, and when the story broke in January 1998, it broke online.It was the first time the traditional news was usurped by the Internet for a major news story, a click that reverberated around the world.What that meant for me personally was that overnight I went from being a completely private figure to a publicly humiliated one worldwide.I was patient zero of losing a personal reputation on a global scale almost instantaneously.This rush to judgment, enabled by technology, led to mobs of virtual stone-throwers.Granted, it was before social media, but people could still comment online, email stories, and, of course, email cruel jokes.News sources plastered photos of me all over to sell newspapers, banner ads online, and to keep people tuned to the TV.Do you recall a particular image of me, say, wearing a beret?

Now, I admit I made mistakes, especially wearing that beret.But the attention and judgment that I received, not the story, but that I personally received, was unprecedented.I was branded as a tramp, tart, slut, whore, bimbo, and, of course, that woman.I was seen by many but actually known by few.And I get it: it was easy to forget that that woman was dimensional, had a soul, and was once unbroken.When this happened to me 17 years ago, there was no name for it.Now we call it cyberbullying(網(wǎng)絡(luò)欺凌)andonline harassment(網(wǎng)絡(luò)騷擾).Today, I want to share some of my experience with you, talk about how that experience has helped shape my cultural observations, and how I hope my past experience can lead to a change that results in less suffering for others.In 1998, I lost my reputation and my dignity.I lost almost everything, and I almost lost my life.Let me paint a picture for you.It is September of 1998.I'm sitting in a windowless office room inside the Office of the Independent Counsel underneath humming fluorescent lights.I'm listening to the sound of my voice, my voice on surreptitiously taped phone calls that a supposed friend had made the year before.I'm here because I've been legally required to personally authenticate all 20 hours of taped conversation.For the past eight months, the mysterious content of these tapes has hung like the Sword of Damocles over my head.I mean, who can remember what they said a year ago? Scared and mortified, I listen, listen as I prattle on about the flotsam and jetsam of the day;listen as I confess my love for the president, and, of course, my heartbreak;listen to my sometimes catty, sometimes churlish, sometimes silly self being cruel, unforgiving, uncouth;listen, deeply, deeply ashamed, to the worst version of myself,a self I don't even recognize.A few days later, the Starr Report is released to Congress, and all of those tapes and trans, those stolen words, form a part of it.That people can read the trans is horrific enough, but a few weeks later, the audio tapes are aired on TV, and significant portions made available online.The public humiliation was excruciating.Life was almost unbearable.This was not something that happened with regularity back then in 1998, and by this, I mean the stealing of people's private words, actions, conversations or photos, and then making them public--public without consent, public without context, and public without compassion.Fast forward 12 years to XX, and now social media has been born.The landscape has sadly become much more populated with instances like mine, whether or not someone actually make a mistake, and now it's for both public and private people.The consequences for some have become dire, very dire.I was on the phone with my mom in September of XX, and we were talking about the news of a young college freshman from Rutgers University named Tyler Clementi.Sweet, sensitive, creative Tyler was secretly webcammed by his roommate while being intimate with another man.When the online world learned of this incident, the ridicule and cyberbullying ignited.A few days later, Tyler jumped from the George Washington Bridge to his death.He was 18.My mom was beside herself about what happened to Tyler and his family, and she was gutted with painin a way that I just couldn't quite understand, and then eventually I realized she was reliving 1998, reliving a time when she sat by my bed every night, reliving a time when she made me shower with the bathroom door open, and reliving a time when both of my parents feared that I would be humiliated to death,literally.Today, too many parents haven't had the chance to step in and rescue their loved ones.Too many have learned of their child's suffering and humiliation after it was too late.Tyler's tragic, senseless death was a turning point for me.It served to recontextualize my experiences, and I then began to look at the world of humiliation and bullying around me and see something different.In 1998, we had no way of knowing where this brave new technology called the Internet would take us.Since then, it has connected people in unimaginable ways, joining lost siblings, saving lives, launching revolutions, but the darkness, cyberbullying, and slut-shaming that I experienced had mushroomed.Every day online, people, especially young people who are not developmentally equipped to handle this, are so abused and humiliated that they can't imagine living to the next day, and some, tragically, don't, and there's nothing virtual about that.ChildLine, a nonprofit that's focused on helping young people on various issues,released a staggering statistic late last year: From XX to XX, there was an 87 percent increase in calls and emails related to cyberbullying.A meta-analysis done out of the Netherlands showed that for the first time, cyberbullying was leading to suicidal ideations more significantly than offline bullying.And you know what shocked me, although it shouldn't have, was other research last year that determined humiliation was a more intensely felt emotion than either happiness or even anger.Cruelty to others is nothing new, but online, technologically enhanced shaming is amplified, uncontained, and permanently accessible.The echo of embarrassment used to extend only as far as your family, village, school or community, but now it's the online community too.Millions of people, often anonymously, can stab you with their words, and that's a lot of pain, and there are no perimeters around how many people can publicly observe you and put you in a public stockade.There is a very personal price to public humiliation, and the growth of the Internet has jacked up that price.For nearly two decades now, we have slowly been sowing the seeds of shame and public humiliation in our cultural soil, both on-and offline.Gossip websites, paparazzi, reality programming, politics, news outlets and sometimes hackers all traffic in shame.It's led to desensitization and a permissive environment online which lends itself to trolling, invasion of privacy, and cyberbullying.This shift has created what Professor Nicolaus Mills calls a culture of humiliation.Consider a few prominent examples just from the past six months alone.Snapchat, the service which is used mainly by younger generationsand claims that its messages only have the lifespan of a few seconds.You can imagine the range of content that that gets.A third-party app which Snapchatters use to preserve the lifespan of the messages was hacked, and 100,000 personal conversations, photos, and videos were leaked online to now have a lifespan of forever.Jennifer Lawrence and several other actors had their iCloud accounts hacked, and private, intimate, nude photos were plastered across the Internet without their gossip website had over five million hits for this one story.And what about the Sony Pictures cyberhacking? The documents which received the most attention were private emails that had maximum public embarrassment value.But in this culture of humiliation, there is another kind of price tag attached to public shaming.The price does not measure the cost to the victim, which Tyler and too many others, notably women, minorities,and members of the LGBTQ community have paid, but the price measures the profit of those who prey on them.This invasion of others is a raw material, efficiently and ruthlessly mined, packaged and sold at a profit.A marketplace has emerged where public humiliation is a commodity and shame is an is the money made? Clicks.The more shame, the more clicks.The more clicks, the more advertising dollars.We're in a dangerous cycle.The more we click on this kind of gossip, the more numb we get to the human lives behind it, and the more numb we get, the more we click.All the while, someone is making money off of the back of someone else's suffering.With every click, we make a choice.The more we saturate our culture with public shaming, the more accepted it is, the more we will see behavior like cyberbullying, trolling, some forms of hacking, and online harassment.Why? Because they all have humiliation at their cores.This behavior is a symptom of the culture we've created.Just think about it.Changing behavior begins with evolving beliefs.We've seen that to be true with racism, homophobia, and plenty of other biases, today and in the past.As we've changed beliefs about same-sex marriage, more people have been offered equal freedoms.When we began valuing sustainability, more people began to recycle.So as far as our culture of humiliation goes, what we need is a cultural revolution.Public shaming as a blood sport has to stop, and it's time for an intervention on the Internet and in our culture.The shift begins with something simple, but it's not easy.We need to return to a long-held value of compassion--compassion and empathy.Online, we've got a compassion deficit, an empathy crisis.Researcher Brené Brown said, and I quote, “Shame can't survive empathy.” Shame cannot survive empathy.I've seen some very dark days in my life, and it was the compassion and empathy from my family, friends, professionals, and sometimes even strangers that saved me.Even empathy from one person can make a difference.The theory of minority influence, proposed by social psychologist Serge Moscovici, says that even in small numbers, when there's consistency over time, change can happen.In the online world, we can foster minority influence by becoming upstanders.To become an upstander means instead of bystander apathy, we can post a positive comment for someone or report a bullying situation.Trust me, compassionate comments help abate the negativity.We can also counteract the culture by supporting organizations that deal with these kinds of issues, like the Tyler Clementi Foundation in the , In the , there's Anti-Bullying Pro, and in Australia, there's Project Rockit.We talk a lot about our right to freedom of expression, but we need to talk more about our responsibility to freedom of expression.We all want to be heard, but let's acknowledge the difference between speaking up with intention and speaking up for attention.The Internet is the superhighway for the id, but online, showing empathy to others benefits us all and helps create a safer and better world.We need to communicate online with compassion, consume news with compassion, and click with compassion.Just imagine walking a mile in someone else's headline.I'd like to end on a personal note.In the past nine months, the question I've been asked the most is why.Why now? Why was I sticking my head above the parapet? You can read between the lines in those questions, and the answer has nothing to do with politics.The top note answer was and is because it's time: time to stop tip-toeing around my past;time to stop living a life of opprobrium;and time to take back my narrative.It's also not just about saving myself.Anyone who is suffering from shame and public humiliation needs to know one thing: You can survive it.I know it's hard.It may not be painless, quick or easy, but you can insist on a different ending to your story.Have compassion for yourself.We all deserve compassion, and to live both online and off in a more compassionate world.Thank you for listening.

第三篇：TED演講稿英文

當(dāng)工作越來(lái)越復(fù)雜，給你6個(gè)簡(jiǎn)化守則

Ihave spent the last years, trying to resolve two enigmas: why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies.Despite all the technological advance

–

computers，IT，communications, telecommunications, the internet.Enigma number two: why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaged their colleagues.Acting against the interest of their company.Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams.At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: because people are less engaged, they are less productive.Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged.But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management.The way we organize is based on two pillars.The hard—structure, processes, systems.The soft—feeling, sentiments, interpersonal relationship, traits, personality.And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars.Now we try to refine them, we try to combine them.The real issue is – and this is the answer to the two enigmas – these pillar are obsolete.Everything you read in business books is based either two of the other or their combine.They are obsolete.How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirement, structure, processes，systems，KPIs，scorecards，committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it.I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces.What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business.We need quality, cost, reliability, speed.And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach.We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business.The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization.Let’s take an example.An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix.If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix.You have Mr.Noise, Mr.Petrol Consumption, Mr.Anti-Collision Propertise.For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement.What happens when the new requirement emerges? Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period.So therefore the requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair.Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode.So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the rew requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr.Repairability.And Mr.Repairability creates the repairability process.With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive.That came on top of 25 other KPIs.What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent.What difference did it make in their action, their choices to simplify? Zero.But what occurs for zero impact? Mr.Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact.Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing box es with reporting lines.It is basically the interplay.How the parts work together.The connection, the interaction, the synapse.It is not skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence.You know, you could call it cooperation, basically.Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources.In everything.You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem.When you design cars, please take into account the need of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garage.When we don’t cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more system, more teams.We need – when procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don’t cooperate we need more stock, more investories, more working capital.Who will pay for that? Shareholder? Customers? No, they will refuse.So who is left? The employees, who have tocompensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation.Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents.No wonder they disengage.How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation?

The hard: in banks, when there is problem between the back office and the front office, they don’t cooperate.What is the solution? They create a middle office.What happens one years later? Instead of one problem between the back and front, now have to problems.Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front.Plus I have to pay for the middle office.The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation.It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton.The soft approach: to make people cooperate, we need to make then like each other.Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people laike each other, the more they will cooperate.It is totally worng.It even counterproductive.Look, at home I have two TVs.Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife.Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife.And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife.If I didn’t love my wife, one TV would be enough: you will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door? The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs.And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration.Definitely, these approaches are obsolete.To deal with complexity, to enhance nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules.Simple rule number one: understand what others do.What is their real work? We need go beyond the boxes, the job description, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content.Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights.Second, you need to reinforce integrators.Integrators are not middle office, they are managers, existing managers that you reinforce so that they have power and interest to make others cooperate.How can you reinforce your managers as integrators? By removing layers.When there are too many layers people are too far from the action.Therefore they need KPIs, metrics, they need poor proxies for reality.They don’t understand reality and they add the complicatedness of metrics, KPIs.By removing rules—the bigger we are, the more we need integrators, therefore the less rules we must have, to give discretionary power to managers.And we do the opposite – the bigger we are, the more rules we create.And we end up with the Encyclopedia Britannica of rules.You need to increase the quanitity of power so that you can empower everybody to use their judgment, their intelligence.You must give more cards to people so that they have the critical mass of cards to take the risk to cooperate, to move out of insulation.Otherwise, they will withdraw.They will disengage.These rules, they come from game theory and organizational sociology.You can increase the shadow of the future.Create feedback loops that expose people to the consequences of their actions.This is what the automotive company did when they saw that Mr.Repairability had no impact.They said the design engineers: now, in the three years, when the new car is launched on the market, you will move to the after sales network, and become in charge of the warranty budget, and if the warranty budget explodes, it will explode in your face.Much more powerful than 0.8 percent variable compensation.You need also to increase reciprocity, by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient.When you remove these buffers, you hold me by the nose, I hold you by the ear.We will cooperate.Remove the second TV.There are many second TVs at work that don’t create value, they just provide dysfunctional self-sufficiency.You need to reward those who cooperate and blame those who don’t cooperate.The CEO of The Lego Group, JK, has a great way to use it.He say, blame is not for failure, it is for failing to help or ask for help.It changes everything.Suddenly it becomes in my interest to be transparent on my real weakness, my real forecast, because I know I will not be blamed if I fail, but if I fail to help or ask for help.When you do this, it has a lot of implications on organizational design.You stop drawing boxes, dotted lines, full lines;you look at their interplay.It has a lot of implication on financial policies that we use.On human resource management practices.When you do that, you can manage complexity, the new complexity of business, without getting complicated.You create more value with lower cost.You simultaneously improve performance and satisfaction at work because you have remove the common root cause that hinders both.Complicatedness: this is your battle, business leader.The real battle is not against competitors.This is rubbish, very abstract.When do we meet competitors to fight them? The real battle is against ourselves, against our bureaucracy, our complicatedness.Only you can fight, can do it.Thank you!

第四篇：TED勵(lì)志英文演講稿

我知道你們?cè)谙胧裁?，你們覺(jué)得我迷路了，馬上就會(huì)有人走上臺(tái)溫和地把我?guī)Щ匚业淖簧?。（掌聲）。我在迪拜總?huì)遇上這種事?！皝?lái)這里度假的嗎，親愛(ài)的？”（笑聲）“來(lái)探望孩子的嗎？這次要待多久呢？ 恩，事實(shí)上，我希望能再待久一點(diǎn)。我在波斯灣這邊生活和教書已經(jīng)超過(guò)30年了。（掌聲）這段時(shí)間里，我看到了很多變化?，F(xiàn)在這份數(shù)據(jù)是挺嚇人的，而我今天要和你們說(shuō)的是有關(guān)語(yǔ)言的消失和英語(yǔ)的全球化。我想和你們談?wù)勎业呐笥?，她在阿布達(dá)比教成人英語(yǔ)。在一個(gè)晴朗的日子里，她決定帶她的學(xué)生到花園去教他們一些大自然的詞匯。但最后卻變成是她在學(xué)習(xí)所有當(dāng)?shù)刂参镌诎⒗Z(yǔ)中是怎么說(shuō)的。還有這些植物是如何被用作藥材，化妝品，烹飪，香草。這些學(xué)生是怎么得到這些知識(shí)的呢？當(dāng)然是從他們的祖父母，甚至曾祖父母那里得來(lái)的。不需要我來(lái)告訴你們能夠跨代溝通是多么重要。but sadly, today, languages are dying at an unprecedented rate.a language dies every 14 days.now, at the same time, english is the undisputed global language.could there be a connection? well i dont know.but i do know that ive seen a lot of changes.when i first came out to the gulf, i came to kuwait in the days when it was still a hardship post.actually, not that long ago.that is a little bit too early.but nevertheless, i was recruited by the british council along with about 25 other teachers.and we were the first non-muslims to teach in the state schools there in kuwait.we were brought to teach english because the government wanted to modernize the country and empower the citizens through education.and of course, the u.k.benefited from some of that lovely oil wealth.但遺憾的是，今天很多語(yǔ)言正在以前所未有的速度消失。每14天就有一種語(yǔ)言消失，而與此同時(shí)，英語(yǔ)卻無(wú)庸置疑地成為全球性的語(yǔ)言。這其中有關(guān)聯(lián)嗎？我不知道。但我知道的是，我見(jiàn)證過(guò)許多改變。初次來(lái)到海灣地區(qū)時(shí)，我去了科威特。當(dāng)時(shí)教英文仍然是個(gè)困難的工作。其實(shí)，沒(méi)有那么久啦，這有點(diǎn)太久以前了?？傊?，我和其他25位老師一起被英國(guó)文化協(xié)會(huì)聘用。我們是第一批非穆斯林的老師，在科威特的國(guó)立學(xué)校任教。我們被派到那里教英語(yǔ)，是因?yàn)楫?dāng)?shù)卣Ｍ麌?guó)家可以現(xiàn)代化并透過(guò)教育提升公民的水平。當(dāng)然，英國(guó)也能得到些好處，產(chǎn)油國(guó)可是很有錢的。okay.now this is the major change that ive seen--how teaching english has morphed from being a mutually english-speaking nation on earth.and why not? after all, the best education--according to the latest world university rankings--is to be found in the universities of the u.k.and the u.s.so everybody wants to have an english education, naturally.but if youre not a native speaker, you have to pass a test.言歸正傳，我見(jiàn)過(guò)最大的改變，就是英語(yǔ)教學(xué)的蛻變?nèi)绾螐囊粋€(gè)互惠互利的行為變成今天這種大規(guī)模的國(guó)際產(chǎn)業(yè)。英語(yǔ)不再是學(xué)校課程里的外語(yǔ)學(xué)科，也不再只是英國(guó)的專利。英語(yǔ)（教學(xué)）已經(jīng)成為所有英語(yǔ)系國(guó)家追逐的潮流。何樂(lè)而不為呢？畢竟，最好的教育來(lái)自于最好的大學(xué)，而根據(jù)最新的世界大學(xué)排名，那些名列前茅的都是英國(guó)和美國(guó)的大學(xué)。所以自然每個(gè)人都想接受英語(yǔ)教育，但如果你不是以英文為母語(yǔ)，你就要通過(guò)考試。now can it be right to reject a student on linguistic ability well, i dont think so.we english teachers reject them all the time.we put a stop sign, and we stop them in their tracks.they cant pursue their dream any longer, till they get english.now let me put it this way, if i met a dutch speaker who had the cure for cancer, would i stop him from entering my british university? i dont think so.but indeed, that is exactly what we do.we english teachers are the gatekeepers.and you have to satisfy us first that your english is good enough.now it can be dangerous to give too much power to a narrow segment of society.maybe the barrier would be too universal.但僅憑語(yǔ)言能力就拒絕學(xué)生這樣對(duì)嗎？譬如如果你碰到一位天才計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)家，但他會(huì)需要有和律師一樣的語(yǔ)言能力嗎？我不這么認(rèn)為。但身為英語(yǔ)老師的我們，卻總是拒絕他們。我們處處設(shè)限，將學(xué)生擋在路上，使他們無(wú)法再追求自己的夢(mèng)想，直到他們通過(guò)考試。現(xiàn)在容我換一個(gè)方式說(shuō)，如果我遇到了一位只會(huì)說(shuō)荷蘭話的人，而這個(gè)人能治愈癌癥，我會(huì)阻止他進(jìn)入我的英國(guó)大學(xué)嗎？我想不會(huì)。但事實(shí)上，我們的確在做這種事。我們這些英語(yǔ)老師就是把關(guān)的。你必須先讓我們滿意，使我們認(rèn)定你的英文夠好。但這可能是危險(xiǎn)的。把太多的權(quán)力交由這么小的一群人把持，也許會(huì)令這種障礙太過(guò)普及。okay.but, i hear you say, what about the research? its all in english.so the books are in english, the journals are done in english, but that is a self-fulfilling.it feeds the english requirement.and so it goes on.i ask you, what happened to translation? if you think about the islamic golden age, there was lots of translation then.they translated from latin and greek into arabic, into persian, and then it was translated on into the germanic languages of europe and the romance languages.and so light shone upon the dark ages of europe.now dont get me wrong;i am not against teaching english, all you english teachers out there.i love it that we have a global language.we need one today more than ever.but i am against using it as a barrier.do we really want to end up with 600 languages and the main one being english, or chinese? we need more than that.where do we draw the line? this system equates intelligence with a knowledge of english which is quite.于是，我聽(tīng)到你們問(wèn)但是研究呢?研究報(bào)告都要用英文。”的確，研究論著和期刊都要用英文發(fā)表，但這只是一種理所當(dāng)然的現(xiàn)象。有英語(yǔ)要求，自然就有英語(yǔ)供給，然后就這么循環(huán)下去。我倒想問(wèn)問(wèn)大家，為什么不用翻譯呢？想想伊斯蘭的黃金時(shí)代，當(dāng)時(shí)翻譯盛行，人們把拉丁文和希臘文翻譯成阿拉伯文或波斯文，然后再由拉伯文或波斯文翻譯為歐洲的日耳曼語(yǔ)言以及羅曼語(yǔ)言。于是文明照亮了歐洲的黑暗時(shí)代。但不要誤會(huì)我的意思，我不是反對(duì)英語(yǔ)教學(xué)或是在座所有的英語(yǔ)老師。我很高興我們有一個(gè)全球性的語(yǔ)言，這在今日尤為重要。但我反對(duì)用英語(yǔ)設(shè)立障礙。難道我們真希望世界上只剩下600種語(yǔ)言，其中又以英文或中文為主流嗎？我們需要的不只如此。那么我們?cè)撊绾文媚竽?？這個(gè)體制把智能和英語(yǔ)能力畫上等號(hào)這是相當(dāng)武斷的。

and i want to remind you that the giants upon whose shoulders todays stand did not have to have english, they didnt have to pass an english test.case in point, einstein.he, by the way, was considered remedial at school because he was, in fact, dyslexic.but fortunately for the world, he did not have to pass an english test.because they didnt start until 1964 with toefl, the american test of english.now its exploded.there are lots and lots of tests of english.and millions and millions of students take these tests every year.now you might think, you and me, those fees arent bad, theyre okay, but they are prohibitive to so many millions of poor people.so immediately, were rejecting them.我想要提醒你們，扶持當(dāng)代知識(shí)分子的這些“巨人肩膀不必非得具有英文能力，他們不需要通過(guò)英語(yǔ)考試。愛(ài)因斯坦就是典型的例子。順便說(shuō)一下，他在學(xué)校還曾被認(rèn)為需要課外補(bǔ)習(xí)，因?yàn)樗鋵?shí)有閱讀障礙。但對(duì)整個(gè)世界來(lái)說(shuō),很幸運(yùn)的當(dāng)時(shí)他不需要通過(guò)英語(yǔ)考試，因?yàn)樗麄冎钡?964年才開始使用托福?，F(xiàn)在英語(yǔ)測(cè)驗(yàn)太泛濫了，有太多太多的英語(yǔ)測(cè)驗(yàn)，以及成千上萬(wàn)的學(xué)生每年都在參加這些考試?，F(xiàn)在你會(huì)認(rèn)為，你和我都這么想，這些費(fèi)用不貴，價(jià)錢滿合理的。但是對(duì)數(shù)百萬(wàn)的窮人來(lái)說(shuō)，這些費(fèi)用高不可攀。所以，當(dāng)下我們又拒絕了他們。it brings to mind a headline i saw recently: education: the great divide.now i get it, i understand why people would focus on english.they want to give their children the best chance in life.and to do that, they need a western education.because, of course, the best jobs go to people out of the western universities, that i put on earlier.its a circular thing.這使我想起最近看到的一個(gè)新聞標(biāo)題：“教育：大鴻溝”現(xiàn)在我懂了。我了解為什么大家都重視英語(yǔ)，因?yàn)樗麄兿Ｍo孩子最好的人生機(jī)會(huì)。為了達(dá)成這目的，他們需要西方教育。畢竟，不可否認(rèn)，最好的工作都留給那些西方大學(xué)畢業(yè)出來(lái)的人。就像我之前說(shuō)的，這是一種循環(huán)。

okay.let me tell you a story about two scientists, two english scientists.they were doing an experiment to do with genetics and the forelimbs and the hind limbs of animals.but they couldnt get the results they wanted.they really didnt know what to do, until along came a german scientist who realized that they were using two words for forelimb and hind limb, whereas genetics does not differentiate and neither does german.so bingo, problem solved.if you cant think a thought, you are stuck.but if another language can think that thought, then, by cooperating, we can achieve and learn so much more.好，我跟你們說(shuō)一個(gè)關(guān)于兩位科學(xué)家的故事：有兩位英國(guó)科學(xué)家在做一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)，是關(guān)于遺傳學(xué)的，以及動(dòng)物的前、后肢。但他們無(wú)法得到他們想要的結(jié)果。他們真的不知道該怎么辦，直到來(lái)了一位德國(guó)的科學(xué)家。他發(fā)現(xiàn)在英文里前肢和后肢是不同的二個(gè)字，但在遺傳學(xué)上沒(méi)有區(qū)別。在德語(yǔ)也是同一個(gè)字。所以，叮！問(wèn)題解決了。如果你不能想到一個(gè)念頭，你會(huì)卡在那里。但如果另一個(gè)語(yǔ)言能想到那念頭，然后通過(guò)合作我們可以達(dá)成目的，也學(xué)到更多。我的女兒從科威特來(lái)到英格蘭，她在阿拉伯的學(xué)校學(xué)習(xí)科學(xué)和數(shù)學(xué)。那是所阿拉伯中學(xué)。在學(xué)校里，她得把這些知識(shí)翻譯成英文，而她在班上卻能在這些學(xué)科上拿到最好的成績(jī)。這告訴我們，當(dāng)外籍學(xué)生來(lái)找我們，我們可能無(wú)法針對(duì)他們所知道的給予贊賞，因?yàn)槟鞘莵?lái)自于他們母語(yǔ)的知識(shí)。當(dāng)一個(gè)語(yǔ)言消失時(shí)，我們不知道還有什么也會(huì)一并失去。this is--i dont know if you saw it on cnn recently--they gave the heroes award to a young kenyan shepherd boy who couldnt study at night in his village like all the village children,篇二：楊瀾ted演講稿中英文 yang lan: the generation thats remaking china the night before i was heading for scotland, i was invited to host the final of chinas got talent show in shanghai with the 80,000 live audience in the stadium.guess who was the performing guest?susan boyle.and i told her, im going to scotland the next day.she sang beautifully, and she even managed to say a few words in chinese.[chinese]so its not like hello or thank you, that ordinary stuff.it means green onion for free.why did she say that? because it was a line from our chinese parallel susan boyle--a 50-some year-old woman, a vegetable vendor in shanghai, who loves singing western opera, but she didnt understand any english or french or italian, so she managed to fill in the lyrics with vegetable names in chinese.(laughter)and the last sentence of nessun dorma that she was singing in the stadium was green onion for free.so [as] susan boyle was saying that, 80,000 live audience sang together.that was hilarious.so i guess both susan boyle and this vegetable vendor in shanghai belonged to otherness.they were the least expected to be successful in the business called entertainment, yet their courage and talent brought them through.and a show and a platform gave them the stage to realize their dreams.well, being different is not that difficult.we are all different from different perspectives.but i think being different is good, because you present a different point of view.you may have the chance to make a difference.my generation has been very fortunate to witness and participate in the historic transformation of china that has made so many changes in the past 20, 30 years.i remember that in the year of 1990,when i was graduating from college, i was applying for a job in the sales department of the first five-star hotel in beijing, great wall sheraton--its still there.so after being interrogated by this japanese manager for a half an hour, he finally said, so, miss yang, do you have any questions to ask me?i summoned my courage and poise and said,yes, but could you let me know, what actually do you sell? i didnt have a clue what a sales department was about in a five-star hotel.that was the first day i set my foot in a five-star hotel.my life, and i feel proud of that.but then we are also so fortunate to witness the transformation of the whole country.i was in beijings bidding for the olympic games.i was representing the shanghai expo.i saw china embracing the world and vice versa.but then sometimes im thinking, what are todays young generation up to? how are they different, and what are the differences they are going to make to shape the future of china, or at large, the world? so making a living is not that easy for young people.college graduates are not in short supply.in urban areas, college graduates find the starting salary is about 400 u.s.dollars a month, while the average rent is above $500.so what do they do? they have to share space--squeezed in very limited space to save money--and they call themselves tribe of ants.and for those who are ready to get married and buy their apartment, they figured out they have to work for 30 to 40 years to afford their first apartment.that ratio in americawould only cost a couple five years to earn, but in china its 30 to 40 years with the skyrocketing real estate price.so through some of the hottest topics on microblogging, we can see what young people care most about.social justice and government accountability runs the first in what they demand.for the past decade or so, a massive urbanization and development have let us witness a lot of reports on the forced demolition of private property.and it has aroused huge anger and frustrationamong our young generation.sometimes people get killed, and sometimes people set themselves on fire to protest.so when these incidents are reported more and more frequently on the internet,people cry for the government to take actions to stop this.so the good news is that earlier this year, the state council passed a new regulation on house requisition and demolition and passed the right to order forced demolition from local governments to the court.similarly, many other issues concerning public safety is a hot topic on the internet.we heard about polluted air, polluted water, poisoned food.and guess what, we have faked beef.they have sorts of ingredients that you brush on a piece of chicken or fish, and it turns it to look like beef.and then lately, people are very concerned about cooking oil, because thousands of people have been found [refining] cooking oil from restaurant slop.so all these things have aroused a huge outcry from the internet.and fortunately, we have seen the government responding more timely and also more frequently to the public concerns.while young people seem to be very sure about their participation in public policy-making, but sometimes theyre a little bit lost in terms of what they want for their personal life.china is soon to pass the u.s.as the number one market for luxury brands--thats not including the chinese expenditures in europe and elsewhere.but you know what, half of those consumers are earning a salary below 2,000 u.s.dollars.theyre not rich at all.theyre taking those bags and clothes as a sense of identity and social status.and this is a girl explicitly saying on a tv dating show that she would rather cry in a bmw than smile on a bicycle.but of course, we do have young people who would still prefer to smile, whether in a bmw or [on] a bicycle.so happiness is the most popular word we have heard through the past two years.happiness is not only related to personal experiences and personal values, but also, its about the environment.people are thinking about the following questions: are we going to sacrifice our environment further to produce higher gdp? how are we going to perform our social and political reform to keep pace with economic growth, to keep sustainability and stability? and also, how capable is the systemof self-correctness to keep more people contentwith all sorts of friction going on at the same time?i guess these are the questions people are going to answer.and our younger generation are going to transform this country while at the same time being transformed themselves.thank you very much.楊瀾ted演講：重塑中國(guó)的一代 中文演講稿

在來(lái)愛(ài)爾蘭的前一晚，我應(yīng)邀主持了中國(guó)達(dá)人秀在上海的體育場(chǎng)和八萬(wàn)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)觀眾。猜猜誰(shuí)是表演嘉賓？——蘇珊大媽。我告訴她，“我明天要去愛(ài)爾蘭了?！?她歌聲猶如天籟。而且她還可以說(shuō)點(diǎn)中文。

“送你蔥?！?這不是“你好、謝謝”之類的日常用語(yǔ)。這組詞翻譯過(guò)來(lái)是免費(fèi)給你青蔥，為什么她要說(shuō)這個(gè)呢？因?yàn)檫@是我們中國(guó)版的蘇珊大媽很有名的一句歌詞。

這位五十幾歲的大媽在上海以販賣蔬菜為生。她喜歡西方的歌劇，但是她不懂任何外語(yǔ)，所以她就把中文蔬菜名填做歌詞。當(dāng)她在體育場(chǎng)里 唱到今夜無(wú)人入眠的最后一句時(shí)，她唱的是“送你蔥”。蘇珊大媽和全場(chǎng)八萬(wàn)觀眾一起唱“送你蔥”，多有意思的場(chǎng)面。我想蘇珊大媽和這位在上海做蔬菜買賣的都屬于不同尋常的人。在業(yè)界所謂的娛樂(lè)圈，他們最不可能取得成功，但是他們的勇氣和才華讓他們成功了。一場(chǎng)秀，一個(gè)平臺(tái)給了他們實(shí)現(xiàn)夢(mèng)想的舞臺(tái)。與眾不同不難，從不同的角度看我們都是不一樣的。我認(rèn)為與眾不同是好的，因?yàn)槟阌胁煌目捶ǎ@給你機(jī)會(huì)去產(chǎn)生不同的影響。我們這代人有幸見(jiàn)證和參與了過(guò)去二三十年中國(guó)的歷史性的轉(zhuǎn)型。

我記得在九十年代，剛從大學(xué)畢業(yè)的我申請(qǐng)了一份在北京五星級(jí)酒店銷售部的工作。在日本經(jīng)理一個(gè)半小時(shí)的面試后，他最后說(shuō)：“楊小姐，你有什么問(wèn)題要問(wèn)我嗎？”我鼓起勇氣，定定神然后問(wèn)道：“您能告訴我銷售部到底銷售什么？”我對(duì)于五星級(jí)酒店的銷售部的職責(zé)一點(diǎn)都摸不著頭腦。那是我在五星級(jí)酒店的第一天。

同時(shí)，我和上千名大學(xué)女生參加了一場(chǎng)由中國(guó)中央電視臺(tái)舉辦的史無(wú)前例的公開選拔。制作人告訴我們他們想找一位可愛(ài)，天真，美麗的新面孔。當(dāng)輪到我時(shí)，我站起來(lái)說(shuō)道，“為什么女孩在電視上必須是漂亮，甜美，無(wú)邪的，像個(gè)花瓶？為什么她們不能有她們的想法，她們自己的聲音？”

我想我一定得罪了評(píng)委。但是事實(shí)上，我的發(fā)言給他們留下了深刻的印象。接下來(lái)我進(jìn)入了第二輪的選拔，然后是第三輪，第四輪。在經(jīng)過(guò)七輪的選拔后，我勝出了。成為了一個(gè)國(guó)家電視臺(tái)黃金時(shí)段節(jié)目的主持人。

不管你們相不相信，那是中國(guó)電視上第一個(gè)節(jié)目可以允許主持人自由發(fā)揮而不是去讀審查后的稿子。這個(gè)節(jié)目的觀眾人數(shù)高達(dá)兩到三千萬(wàn)。

幾年后，我決定去美國(guó)哥倫比亞大學(xué)進(jìn)修。之后我有了自己的傳媒公司，這是在我剛畢業(yè)的時(shí)候想都不敢想的。

我和我的團(tuán)隊(duì)做了很多事情。在過(guò)去的這些年，我采訪了上千人。有時(shí)候有年輕人走過(guò)來(lái)對(duì)我說(shuō)：“楊瀾，你改變了我的生活。”我也為此而自豪。

今天我想講講在社交媒體這個(gè)大舞臺(tái)上的年輕人 matt cutts ted中英文對(duì)照雙語(yǔ)演講稿 try something new for 30 days 小計(jì)劃幫你實(shí)現(xiàn)大目標(biāo)

——google工程師matt cutts在ted的勵(lì)志演講稿 a few years ago, i felt like i was stuck in a rut, so i decided to follow in the footsteps of the great american philosopher, morgan spurlock, and try something new for 30 days.the idea is actually pretty simple.think about something you’ve always wanted to add to your life and try it for the next 30 days.it turns out, 30 days is just about the right amount of time to add a new habit or subtract a habit — like watching the news — from your life.幾年前，我感覺(jué)對(duì)老一套感到枯燥乏味，所以我決定追隨偉大的美國(guó)哲學(xué)家摩根·斯普爾洛克的腳步，嘗試做新事情30天。這個(gè)想法的確是非常簡(jiǎn)單。考慮下，你常想在你生命中做的一些事情 接下來(lái)30天嘗試做這些。這就是，30天剛好是這么一段合適的時(shí)間 去養(yǎng)成一個(gè)新的習(xí)慣或者改掉一個(gè)習(xí)慣——例如看新聞——在你生活中。當(dāng)我在30天做這些挑戰(zhàn)性事情時(shí)，我學(xué)到以下一些事。第一件事是，取代了飛逝而過(guò)易被遺忘的歲月的是 這段時(shí)間非常的更加令人難忘。挑戰(zhàn)的一部分是要一個(gè)月內(nèi)每天我要去拍攝一張照片。我清楚地記得那一天我所處的位置我都在干什么。我也注意到隨著我開始做更多的，更難的30天里具有挑戰(zhàn)性的事時(shí)，我自信心也增強(qiáng)了。我從一個(gè)臺(tái)式計(jì)算機(jī)宅男極客變成了一個(gè)愛(ài)騎自行車去工作的人——為了玩樂(lè)。甚至去年，我完成了在非洲最高山峰乞力馬扎羅山的遠(yuǎn)足。在我開始這30天做挑戰(zhàn)性的事之前我從來(lái)沒(méi)有這樣熱愛(ài)冒險(xiǎn)過(guò)。

我也認(rèn)識(shí)到如果你真想一些槽糕透頂?shù)氖?，你可以?0天里做這些事。你曾想寫小說(shuō)嗎？每年11月，數(shù)以萬(wàn)計(jì)的人們?cè)?0天里，從零起點(diǎn)嘗試寫他們自己的5萬(wàn)字小說(shuō)。這結(jié)果就是，你所要去做的事就是每天寫1667個(gè)字要寫一個(gè)月。所以我做到了。順便說(shuō)一下，秘密在于除非在一天里你已經(jīng)寫完了1667個(gè)字，要不你就甭想睡覺(jué)。你可能被剝奪睡眠，但你將會(huì)完成你的小說(shuō)。那么我寫的書會(huì)是下一部偉大的美國(guó)小說(shuō)嗎？不是的。我在一個(gè)月內(nèi)寫完它。它看上去太可怕了。但在我的余生，如果我在一個(gè)ted聚會(huì)上遇見(jiàn)約翰·霍奇曼，我不必開口說(shuō)，“我是一個(gè)電腦科學(xué)家。”不，不會(huì)的，如果我愿意我可以說(shuō)，“我是一個(gè)小說(shuō)家?！? so here’s one last thing i’d like to mention.i learned that when i made small, sustainable changes, things i could keep doing, they were more likely to stick.there’s nothing wrong with big, crazy challenges.in fact, they’re a ton of fun.but they’re less likely to stick.when i gave up sugar for 30 days, day 31 looked like this.我這兒想提的最后一件事。當(dāng)我做些小的、持續(xù)性的變化，我可以不斷嘗試做的事時(shí)，我學(xué)到我可以把它們更容易地堅(jiān)持做下來(lái)。這和又大又瘋狂的具有挑戰(zhàn)性的事情無(wú)關(guān)。事實(shí)上，它們的樂(lè)趣無(wú)窮。但是，它們就不太可能堅(jiān)持做下來(lái)。當(dāng)我在30天里拒絕吃糖果，31天后看上去就像這樣。so here’s my question to you: what are you waiting for? i guarantee you the next 30 days are going to pass whether you like it or not, so why not think about something you have always wanted to try and give it a shot for the next 30 days.所以我給大家提的問(wèn)題是：大家還在等什么呀？我保準(zhǔn)大家在未來(lái)的30天定會(huì)經(jīng)歷你喜歡或者不喜歡的事，那么為什么不考慮一些你常想做的嘗試并在未來(lái)30天里試試給自己一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)。thanks.謝謝。matt cutts簡(jiǎn)介： matt cutts是google所有工程師中最廣為人知的一個(gè)，因?yàn)樗麕缀趺刻於荚谧约旱腷log上面和讀者們分享與google相關(guān)的一切信息，包括技術(shù)與非技術(shù)類。matt寫的文章深入淺出，簡(jiǎn)明易懂，實(shí)用價(jià)值很高，因此他在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上具有相當(dāng)高的名氣。簡(jiǎn)言之，matt cutts是google的anti-spam之王。

第五篇：李世默TED演講稿(英文)

Good morning.My name is Eric Li, and I was born here.But no, I wasn’t born there.This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity.It went like this.All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught that grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative.Then, the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows.All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth, again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.Now.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it.Fool me once… The rest is history.In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy.Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty.Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions.So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here are the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is, political reforms have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context.Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program.The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels.There, they enter high, officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels.After the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career took 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion U.S.dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone.It’s just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, Westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of Legitimacy?” I said, “How about competency?”: We all know the facts.In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old.Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%.Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future.Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling.Pollution is one.Food safety.Population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy.But most analysts mis-diagnose the disease.They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system.But a more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s been moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping.For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the U.S.and become the largest economy in the world.Income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated, and China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in T.I.ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will hold firm.We live in the dusk of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now, I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many Western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is at the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong.It is irresponsible.And worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it?