So we humans have an extraordinary
potential for goodness,

but also an immense power to do harm.

Any tool can be used to build
or to destroy.

That all depends on our motivation.

Therefore, it is all the more important

to foster an altruistic motivation
rather than a selfish one.

So now, we indeed are facing many
challenges in our times.

Those could be personal challenges.

Our own mind can be our best friend
or our worst enemy.

There's also societal challenges:

poverty in the midst of plenty,

inequalities, conflict, injustice.

And then there are the new challenges,
which we don't expect.

Ten thousand years ago, there was
about five million human beings on Earth.

Whatever they could do,
the Earth's resilience

will soon heal human activities.

After the Industrial
and Technological Revolutions,

that's not the same anymore.

We are now the major agent
of impact on our Earth.

We've entered the Anthropocene,
the era of human beings.

So in a way, if we were to say,

"we need to continue this endless growth,

endless use of material resources",

it's like saying if this man was saying,

and I heard the former heads of state,
I won't mention who, saying,

"Five years ago, we were at
the edge of the precipice.

Today we made a big step forward."

So this edge is the same

which have been defined by scientists

as the planetary boundaries,

and within those boundaries,
they can carry a number of factors.

We can still prosper, humanity can still
prosper for 150,000 years

if we keep the same stability of climate

as in the Holocene
for the last 10,000 years.

But this depends on choosing
a voluntary simplicity,

growing qualitatively, not quantitatively.

So in 1900, as you can see,

we were well within the limits of safety.

Now, in 1950 came the great acceleration.

Now hold your breath, not too long,

to imagine what comes next.

Now we have vastly overrun

some of the planetary boundaries.

Just to take biodiversity,

at the current rate, in 2050,

30 percent of all species on Earth

will have disappeared.

Even if we keep their DNA in some fridge,
that's not going to be reversible.

So here I am sitting in front

of a 7,000 meters high,
21,000 feet glacier in Bhutan.

At the third pole, two thousand glaciers
are melting fast, faster than the Arctic.

So what can we do in that situation?

Well, however complex,

politically, economically, scientifically

the question of the environment is,

it simply boils down to a question
of altruism versus selfishness.

I'm a Marxist of the Groucho tendency.

(Laughter)

Groucho Marx said, "Why should I care
for future generations?

What did they do for me?"

(Laughter)

Unfortunately, I heard
the billionaire Steven Forbes,

on Fox News, saying exactly the same 
thing, but seriously.

He was told about the rise of the ocean,

and he said, "I find it absurd
to change my behavior today

for something that will happen
in a hundred years."

So if you don't care
for future generations,

just go for it.

So one of the main challenges of our times

is to reconcile three time scales.

The short term of the economy,

the ups and downs of the stock market,
the end of the year accounts.

The midterm of the quality of life:

what is the quality every moment of
our life and over 10 years and 20 years?

And the long term of the environment.

When the environmentalists
speak with economists,

it's like a schizophrenic dialogue,
completely incoherent.

They don't speak the same language.

Now for the last 10 years,
I went around the world

meeting economists, scientists,
neuroscientists, environmentalists,

philosophers, thinkers in the Himalayas,

all over the place.

It seems to be, there's only one concept

that can reconcile
those three time scales.

It is simply having more
consideration for others.

If you have more consideration for others,

you will be having a caring economics,

where finances are the service of society

and not society
at the service of finances.

You will not play at the casino
with the resources that people

have entrusted you with.

If you have more consideration for others,

you will make sure
that you remedy inequality,

that you bring some kind of well being
within the society,

in education, at the workplace.

Otherwise, a nation that is
the most powerful and the richest,

everyone is miserable.

What's the point?

And if you have more
consideration for others,

you are not going to ransack
that planet that we have

and that at the current rate, we don't
have three planets to continue that way.

So the question is,

okay, altruism is the answer,
it's not just a novel ideal,

but can it be a real, pragmatic solution?

And first of all, does it exist,

true altruism, or are we so selfish?

So some philosophers thought
we were irredeemably selfish.

You know, but are we really
all just like rascals?

That's good news, isn't it?

Many philosophers like Hobbes have said so.

But not everyone looks like a rascal,

or is man a wolf for man?

But this guy doesn't seem too bad.

He's one of my friends in Tibet.

He's very kind.

So now, we love cooperation.

There's no better joy than work together.

Isn't it?

And then not only humans.

Then, of course, there's
the struggle for life,

the survival of the fittest,
Social Darwinism.

But in evolution, cooperation,
though competition exists, of course.

Cooperation is much more creative

to go to increased level of complexity.

We are super cooperators and we 
should even go further.

So now, on top of that,

the quality of human relationships.

You know, the OECD did a survey

among 10 factors,
including income, everything,

the first one that people said
that's the main thing for my happiness

is quality of social relationships.

Not only in humans.

And look at those great grandmothers.

So now,

this idea that we go deep within,

we are irredeemably selfish,

this is armchair science.

There is not a single sociological study,

psychological study,
that's ever shown that.

Rather, the opposite.

My friend, Daniel Batson, 
spent a whole life

putting people in the lab
in very complex situations,

and of course we are sometimes selfish

and some people more than others.

But he found that systematically,
no matter what,

there's a significant number of people

who do behave altruistically,
no matter what.

Now if you see someone
deeply wounded, great suffering,

you might just help
out of empathic distress.

You can't stand it,
so it's better to help

than keep on looking at that person.

So we tested all that, and in the end,

he said, "clearly people
can be altruistic." So that's good news.

And even further, we should look
at the banality of goodness.

Now look at here.

When we come out, we are going to say,
"That's so nice, there was no fistfight

while this mob
was thinking about altruism."

No, we expect that, isn't it?

If there was a fistfight,
we would speak of that for months.

So the banality of goodness is something
that doesn't attract your attention,

but it exists.

Now, look at this. Look at this.

Okay.

So some psychologists said,

when I tell them I run
140 humanitarian projects

in the Himalayas
that give me so much joy,

they said, "oh, I see,
you work for the warm glow.

That is not altruistic.
You just feel good."

You think this guy,
when he jumped in front of the train,

he thought, "I'm going to feel
so good when this is over?"

(Laughter).

But that's not the end of it.

They say, well, but when
you interviewed him, he said,

"I had no choice,
I had to jump, of course."

He has no choice. Automatic behavior.

It's neither selfish nor altruistic.

No choice.

Well, of course, this guy's
not going to think for half an hour,

"should I give my hand, not give my hand?"

He does it. There is a choice,
but it's obvious, it's immediate.

And then, also, here they have a choice.

(Laughter).

So now, there are people who had choice,

like Pastor André Trocmé and his wife,

and the whole village
of Chambon-sur-Lignon in France.

For the whole Second World War,
they saved 3,500 Jews,

gave them shelter,
brought them to Switzerland,

against all odds, at the risk
of their lives and that of their family.

So altruism does exist.

So what is altruism?

It is the wish "may others be happy
and find the cause of happiness."

Now empathy is the effective resonance
or cognitive resonance that tells you,

this personality is joyful,
this person suffers.

But empathy enough is not sufficient.

If you keep on being
confronted with suffering,

you might have empathic distress, burnout,

so you need the greater sphere
of loving kindness.

With Daniel Singer at the
Max Planck Institute of Leipzig,

we showed that the brain network

for empathy and loving kindness
are different.

Now, that's all well done,

so we got that from evolution,
from maternal care, parental love,

but we need to extend that.

Can we extend it to other species?

Now, if we want a more altruistic society,
we need two things:

individual change and societal change.

So is individual change possible?

Two thousand years
of contemplative study said yes, it is.

Now, 15 years of collaboration
with neuroscience and epigeneticists

said yes, our brains change
when you train in altruism.

So I spent 120 hours in an MRI machine.

This is the first time I went
after two and a half hours.

And then, the result

-- I've been published
in many scientific papers --

it shows without ambiguity
that there are structural change

and functional change in the brain

when you train the altruistic love.

Just to give you an idea:

this is the meditator at rest on the left,

meditation in compassion meditation,
you see all the activity,

and then the control group at rest,

nothing happened,
in meditation, nothing happened.

They have not been trained.

So, do you need 50,000
hours of meditation?

No, you don't.

Four weeks, 20 minutes a day,

of caring, mindfulness meditation

already brings a structural change
in the brain compared to a control group.

That's only 20 minutes a day
for four weeks.

Even with preschoolers,
we showed in Madison,

eight weeks program: gratitude,
loving kindness, cooperation,

mindful breathing, you would say,

"Oh, they're just preschoolers."

Look after eight weeks.

The pro-social behavior,
that's the blue line,

and then comes the ultimate
scientific test, the stickers test.

Before, you determine for each child
who is their best friend in the class,

their least favorite child,
the unknown child, and the sick child,

and they have to give stickers away.

So before the intervention,
they give most of it to their best friend.

Four, five years old, 20 minutes,
three times a week.

After the intervention,
no more discrimination.

The same amount of stickers
to their best friend

and the least favorite child.

You know, that's something we should do
in all the schools in the world.

Now where do we go from there?

(Applause)

When the Dalai Lama heard that,
his solution, he said,

"You go to 10 schools, 100 schools,
the U.N., the whole world."

So now where do we go from there?

Individual change is possible.

Now do we have to wait
for an altruistic gene

to be in the human race?

That will take 50,000 years,
too much for the environment.

Fortunately, there is
the evolution of culture.

Cultures, as specialists have shown,

change faster than genes.

That's the good news.

Look at attitudes towards war
has dramatically changed over the years.

So now, individual change
and cultural change

mutually fashion each other,

and yes, we can achieve
a more altruistic society.

So where do we go from there?

Myself, I will go back to the East.

Now, we treat 100,000 patients
a year in our projects.

We have 25,000 kids in school,

four percent overhead.

Some people say, "Well,
your stuff works in practice,

but does it work in theory?"

So there's always the positive deviance.

So I will also go back to my hermitage
to find the inner resources

to better serve others.

But on the more global level,
what can we do?

We need three things.

Enhancing cooperation:

cooperative learning in the school
instead of competitive learning,

Unconditional cooperation
within corporations.

There can be some competition
between corporations, but not within.

We need sustainable harmony.

I love this term.

Not sustainable growth anymore.

Sustainable harmony means now
we will reduce inequality.

In the future, we do more with less,

and we continue to grow qualitatively,

not quantitatively.

We need caring economics.

The old economics cannot deal
with poverty in the midst of plenty,

cannot deal with the problem
of the common goods

of the atmosphere, of the oceans.

We need a caring economics.

If you say economics
should be compassionate,

they say, "That's not our job."

But if you say they don't care,
that looks bad.

We need local commitment,
global responsibility.

We need to extend altruism
to the other 1.6 million other species.

Sentient beings who are
co-citizens in this world.

and we need to dare altruism.

So long life to the altruistic revolution.

Viva la revolucion de altruismo.

(Applause)

Thank you.

(Applause)