I am a historian,

and I want to talk about the future.

I know that's a little bit strange because
historians usually speak about the past,

right?

They talk about the 19th century
and the British Empire, for instance.

But I think now is the time, 
when we all are interested

in this this crucial question of:

Will there be more peace 
in the 21st century?

Because that is exactly the century
where we live, where our kids live,

and that's why we are interested 
in this question.

Right now, we know that we have 
both war and peace at the same time,

but in different countries.

As we gather here, we have a war
in Syria right now, going on.

About 400,000 people killed.

And we realize that we can
only have this gathering,

have these very interesting speeches
that I much enjoy,

because we have peace in Budapest.

This picture to the left is a picture
that shows that we can coexist peacefully

among different religions,
and among different nations,

also among genders.

The picture to the right shows
that at times, we find ourselves in wars.

This picture was taken in the Iraq war.

One million Muslims
were killed in that war.

To me, it is a war
for resources: an oil war.

So some researchers have suggested
that technology should save us.

Green growth, solar cells,

should take us out of these wars
that we fight for oil and gas.

You know, I have this hope.

I really hope that 100% renewable
is something that we together can do

in the 21st century.

In fact, I live in Switzerland.

On my house, I put these solar cells.

In fact not these, that's not my house,
I don't have a house that big.

But the solar cells,
I put them on my house

and they create electricity.

It works, trust me.

I even bought the car.

It's an American car,
I'm not allowed to say the brand.

But it's very fast and I really like it.

So I use the energy from the sun
to drive around with my car

and I did 40,000 km with the car,
and I tell you, it works.

But at the same time,

I advise you not to believe 
that this transition

from oil, coal, gas, and nuclear energy

to the renewable energies
will be fast and easy.

I don't think it will be fast
and I don't think it will be easy.

Why? We have old forces,
they keep us captive.

This is a picture
of the coal industry in Germany.

I don't want to say

that the coal industry in Germany is evil,

or that coal industry in China is evil.

It's not about nations, OK?

But these are business models 
and people make money.

So they're not going to say,
"OK, then we stop with this business,"

because it is great idea of 100% 
renewable energies, OK?

They are not going to do that.

In fact, if we look in detail 
at our dependency on fossil fuels,

we realize that we need 
90 million barrels of oil every day.

That's such a big number
that we can't relate to it.

But is means that we need 
45 of these ships every day.

That's a supertanker, OK?

45 of these ships every day 
is what we need

otherwise the world,
as we know it, doesn't work.

In 1945, at the end
of the second World War,

we only used six million barrels.

Now it's 90 million barrels.

Every barrel has 159 liters,
so trust me, it's a lot of oil.

And what we really experience
then during the last 70 years,

that's, you know, 
the period that we all shared,

some of you are not 70, others are 70,

but just generally speaking,

our life is a life in which
our dependency on oil has grown.

And that's why we take 
greater risks to get at the oil.

In some cases we take oil 
that is not liquid.

We go to Canada, we cut down the wood,

and that's how it looks.

So really, I think we behave 
very much like a drug addict.

You know drug addicts?

Not in your vicinity, but just generally, 
from newspapers or so.

(Laughter)

A drug addict, OK?

He does whatever 
it takes to get at his drug.

He doesn't care about the damage he does

to his environment and to himself.

So really I think this transition
will be difficult.

I think energy is a key issue
in the 21st century.

If we think about war and we think 
about peace in the 21st century

we must try to go towards

100% renewable energy.

That is challenging, I know.

There is another thing
which is even more challenging:

That is the military.

The military in every country
- we have 200 countries in the world -

in every single country,

the military is convinced
that they are a force for peace.

In Switzerland it is like that 
and in Hungary it is like that, I'll bet.

But historical data of the last 100 years

prove that that's not true.

I'm not going into the specifics.

Generally speaking, I think, we also 
have to reduce military spending.

And we have to ask ourselves,

what is the strongest,
the biggest military?

It's the American military.

That's why us historians,
we use the term "US Empire."

Some people find this term offensive.

I assure you, it's not offensive.

2000 years ago we had the Roman Empire,

100 years ago we had the British Empire.

Now we have the American Empire.

United States is the most
powerful country in the world

and that's why it plays 
a key issue, a key role

when it comes to war and peace
in the 21st century.

They have more then 700 
military bases across the globe.

No other country
has so many military bases.

If you look at defense spending,

US defense spending is almost 600 billion.

that's 2 billion dollars a day.

That's bigger than the TED budget, OK?

2 billion dollars a day.

If you look at defensive spending 
in China around 200 billion,

then Russia and Saudi Arabia
and the rest of the world.

So my idea is that in all countries 
we should reduce military spending.

It's difficult.

Whether we can make it or not
depends a lot on the media.

Because the media
puts a lot of stories in our head.

Sometimes these stories
help to promote peace,

and other times the media
presents war propaganda.

So then media is not the solution, 
but more of the problem.

We heard the weapon of mass destruction
story before the Iraq war.

I think, that's an example 
of how the media has misled us.

It's very critical that we learn 
to deal with media in the 21st century.

As historians, we research
what US soldiers

who fight in Iraq are thinking.

There are interviews being done
with those soldiers.

And trust me, they don't say,
"We are here in Iraq to grab the oil.

This is a resource war, 
a war of conquest."

That's not what they say.

US soldiers in Iraq say, "We are here
to retaliate for Saddam Hussein's role

in the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, 2001."

On their helmet they paint
the twin towers on the Pentagon.

Now the problem is - 
and I can tell you as historian -

there was no role
of Saddam Hussein in 9/11.

Nothing, OK?

These soldiers are terribly mistaken.

They are suffering from war propaganda.

What we then do is we go back to 9/11.

It's been 15 years
since these attacks shocked the word.

Most of you in the room even remember 
where you were on that day

whether they were at the office,

or whether they were at home
playing with the kids.

You know, wherever you were,

you probably remember,
and that's very, very rare, OK?

What we research right now
is we try to find out

what's the picture in our mind

that the media constructed 
with this event.

The picture is - this is a picture
of New York, downtown Manhattan -

that one plane flew in the North Tower

and the other plane 
flew into the South Tower,

and than the towers collapsed.

That's basically 9/11 for most of us.

Plane, plane, tower, tower.

Now the problem is that in the background,
you have a third tower.

It's called World Trade Center Number 7 
and this tower also collapsed.

So we have three towers, 
but only two planes.

This is the third tower 
and it collapsed on 9/11.

Let me just very quickly check
your knowledge on terrorism.

Who in the room was fully aware
that three towers collapsed on that day?

Maybe a show of hands.

That's not the majority.

Let me ask you the other way.

Who did not know
that three towers went down?

That's 80%.

Now keep in mind, that you are amongst
the most clever people

that exist because that's, you know,
because you come to TED that shows.

(Laughter)

I just urge you to,
if you don't know that,

then this means, that we are not 
very well informed about terrorism at all.

At that time I was teaching history 
at Zurich University in Switzerland

and my students had to read
the 9/11 commission report.

That's a 600-page thick document.

I wanted my students to find out
why did the third tower collapsed, OK?

It was not hit by plane,
why did it collapse?

We found that the third tower 
is not mentioned in that report.

You know, no mentioning that three towers 
collapsed, that's quite a big mistake.

You can't say, "Well three
or four towers, let's not be picky."

(Laughter)

It is important, it matters.

All I learnt about 9/11, 
I learnt from my American friends.

I have researchers in the United States
who told me there's a group:

It's called "Architects
and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"

who says there's something wrong
with this building.

And what this group says is

this building was brought down
through controlled demolition.

In 2008, the US Government 
published a new report.

- the National Institute for Standards
and Technology published that report -

which said: column 79 of the building 
was destroyed through office fires

and that led to the free fall 
of the building.

Think again.

The building has 81 columns,
and the architects say,

in order for the building
to fall symmetrically,

all 81 columns have to vanish 
at the same second.

For that you need controlled demolition.

The NIST says: no, fire destroyed 
one column and brought the building down.

Now I can't solve this riddle for you.

It's either fire or controlled demolition,
and you have to think for yourself.

As historians we observe that politicians
- very powerful politicians -

tell us not to ask these questions.

President Bush said,
"Osama bin Laden did it."

Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia.

We look very closely at the relationship
between Bush and the Saudi royal family.

I took an interesting picture recently.

It's Bush and Abdullah in Crawford
in Texas, hand in hand.

You know, it would be interesting
to talk with Saudi Arabia

about 9/11, or with Bush.

But obviously we can't.

I'm just a small Swiss historian,
I have no access to these people.

I can't talk with them about column 79.

What Bush said is, "Let us never tolerate 
outrageous conspiracy theories

concerning the attacks of September 11."

He said that immediately
after the attacks.

And this word "conspiracy theories"

has blocked the entire 9/11 debate 
now for 15 years.

And I can only tell you
that's total nonsense.

That doesn't tell us whether it's fire
or controlled demolition.

It's not a scientific concept.

What I urge you to do is to go beyond
this word "conspiracy theories",

and I urge you to question 
all power brokers

that we see, and their narratives.

Because now we have Putin 
and his war in Syria.

Ask yourself whether the story 
that Putin presents is true or wrong,

or look at IS: their story is
that if you blow yourself up,

you're going to have 
virgins in heaven, OK?

Do you believe that?

Ask yourself.

I think within war and peace,

we always have to look
at this crucial issue in the end:

how the media tells us stories.

In this case, ABC News in America 
said after 9/11:

"FBI investigators discovered 
the passport of Satam al Suqami."

- is not Saddam it's Satam al Suqami -

one of the terrorists aboard
American Airlines Flight 11,

the first plane to hit 
the World Trade Center.

Where did they find that passport?

Here.

This passport was found here

and linked the Muslim world to terrorism.

Had it been a Hindu passport,
too bad for the Hindus.

I tell you it is very important 
what we have in our head.

Because what we have
in our head is our thoughts.

Our thoughts shape our actions,

they influence our feelings.

So ultimately, I think
that is the story in your head

will decide whether we have more peace
or more war in the 21st century.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)