Sometimes, the most important thing is to keep going. To get through the dip, as Seth Godin would say. I’ve recently struggled writing speeches for my Toastmasters Club. But what the heck, I thought at one point: The most important thing is to keep going. Accepting the dip was the first step to what in the end was a pretty good speech:
[Read more →]

What do you do when the democratic decision making process in your country is broken? You can move to a different country – or you can try to fix it. If you choose the latter, states might use their means to protect the status quo and criminalize you. But every state – however despotic – relies its people. A campaign of civil disobedience speaks truth to power, and revokes the consent to be governed through an unjust system.

At the beginning of the last century, the democratic process in most countries excluded women – half the population. At the last meeting of my Toastmaster club, I revisited the campaign of civil disobedience that changed this situation in Britain:

Today, I would like to take you back in time by about 100 years. It’s the year 1905, and we are in London at a meeting of the Liberal Party. Winston Churchill is here, and Edward Grey, the Foreign Minister, is giving a speech when he is interrupted by a group of women heckling from the stands: “Will the Liberal Government give votes to women?” Again and again they shout: “Will the Liberal Government give votes to women?” Finally, the police overpowers the women and charges them with assault. When they refuse to pay the fine, they are sent to prison. We have just witnessed the first act of civil disobedience by the British suffragette movement.

One of the women was Christabel Pankhurst, the eldest daughter of Emmeline Pankhurst, one of the most powerful figures in the struggle for women’s votes. Emmeline’s husband Richard had been an active advocate of women’s rights. He had written the first bill for women’s votes – but failed to secure its approval. After his death, Emmeline had taken on the cause on her own. She was convinced that women would never get the vote through a parliamentary process they had no say in. They would have to make more noise than anybody else, fill the papers more than anybody else. In short: They needed deeds, not words.

‘Deeds, not words’ was the motto of the Women’s Political and Social Union – or suffragettes, as they were known. They were beautiful in their action: Proud and full of grace, in their victorian dresses all white and green and purple, holding their banners, claiming: “Give votes to women”. They did not stop with banners: What use was it to respect laws of an unjust government that you can’t even vote out of office? Was not the broken pane of glass the most powerful argument in modern politics?

The government reacted with its own means to the disobedience of these women, and threw them into prison – hoping that this would silence them. How wrong they were! The women started to hungerstrike, and the public interest was with them: How were they doing? What would happen next? They were forcefed. Was it torture?

The more the government reacted with repression, the more public interest grew. And the more public interest there was, the more the movement grew. And the more the government refused to listen, the more militant the movement became. Emmeline Pankhurst and other leaders went constantly in and out of prison. Suffragettes set buildings on fire. One woman died when she threw herself in front of the king’s horse at the Epsom derby. Still, the liberal government did not move. They would not give votes to women.

In 1914, war broke out, and the situation changed. The government realized that it needed the support of women at home while the men were fighting abroad. The women realized that if they wanted a vote, they also needed a country to vote in. Emmeline Pankhurst called a halt to all militant activities and mobilized in support of the war. This was a time for deeds, not words.

When the war came to an end, the liberal government finally gave votes to women – if they were over 30 and owned property. But it wasn’t until 1928 that women gained the same electoral rights than men. Today, 80 years later, women’s suffrage is nearly universal. It was deeds, not words, that brought this about.

The Guardian has published one of Ms Pankhurst speeches together with an analysis by Germaine Greer. An excellent introduction into the thinking of the suffragette movement.

Image via Wikipedia: “Women’s suffrage in the United Kingdom”, used under a Creative Commons license.

Everybody is talking about climate change, and still I’m always deeply moved when I’m reading the actual figures of how serious climate change really is. This speech – given at the Brussels based Black Forest Toastmasters Club – builds on figures from the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It’s very easy these days to catch a cold, and I’m sure some of you already had this misfortune this winter. Is there anyone who even had to stay home because of high temperature? Someone had his temperature over 39°C? How did that feel?

Two degrees more have a huge impact on our wellbeing, and our quality of life. That not only applies to the human body. Two degrees more also mean a big problem for our planet. A couple of month ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report where they summarized all known science on climate change and its implications. This is what they say will happen if planet Earth warms by two degrees:

• Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress
• Up to 30% of species at increased risk of extinction
• Most corals bleached
• Lower agricultural yields close to the equator
• Increased damage from floods and storms, heat waves and droughts
• Millions more affected by coastal flooding each year
• and an increasing burden from malnutrition and infectious diseases

Not a pleasant outlook, I can assure you. This is also one of the reasons why the European Union says that we have to ensure that under no circumstances global warming exceeds two degrees.

The bad news is: Even if we breathing now – and stop all other activities with it, we have already committed ourselves to about 1.3°C global warming. That is because of the greenhouse gases we’ve blown already into the atmosphere.

But I don’t want you to stop breathing. Actually, I want you to take a deep breath. What you’ve just taken in has about 0.038% carbon dioxide, that is 380 ppm. In the last 400.000 years that figure never exceeded 300 ppm, and if we continue emitting the way we do at the moment, we’ll soon be at 500, 600, 700 ppm. The Intergovernmental Panel tells us where we have to stabilize emissions in order to stay under two degrees: That is at 450ppm. They also calculate how much we have to reduce our emissions to reach this target. For us Europeans, we have to reduce emissions by 80%.

80%. Can you imagine how Europe looks like with 80% less carbon emissions than at the moment? 80% is not going to be easy, so let’s have a look at where our emissions come from at the moment.

• 25% of global emissions come from energy supply: Can you imagine a world where our energy comes from renewable sources, from wind, sun and waves? Where energy is produced where and when we need it?
• 20% of emissions come from industry. Can you imagine a world that does not produce the cheapest possible things, but the most efficient, in the most efficient way? And that designs them so that we don’t have to throw them away after a day of use?
• 17% come from forests, and especially deforestation. Can you imagine a world where we let our rainforests grow, in peace?
• 13% of emissions come from agriculture. Can you imagine a world that grows crops to feed people, and not millions of animals in cages?
• The last 13% of emissions go to transport. Can you imagine a world where we don’t have to run around from A to B to C to D, but where we take the time to be where we want to be, where we need to be?

Two very different worlds we can leave to our children: A planet that has a serious temperature problem with climate change, or a planet that has managed to rid itself of its carbon addiction.

It is your choice.

If you don’t want to read through the dry science of the IPCC reports, I highly recommend the following books that develop scenarios on how to overcome the ecological crisis:

• George Monbiot (2007): Heat – How We Can Stop the Planet Burning
• Lester Brown (2006): Plan B 2.0 – Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble

To take action, join Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution, or the Climate Action Network.

Can you remember where you were when the World Trade Center fell in 2001? What did the event change for you?

Ani DiFranco expressed her consternation, her fear and her anger in the poem ‘Self Evident’, one of the most powerful descriptions of the event I know.

and the shock was subsonic
and the smoke was deafening
between the setup and the punch line
cuz we were all on time for work that day
we all boarded that plane for to fly
and then while the fires were raging
we all climbed up on the windowsill
and then we all held hands
and jumped into the sky

I used this poem as material for my fifth Toastmasters speech “Your body speaks”. To read it in its entirety, and listen to Ani DiFranco’s excellent performance see righteous babe records.

Image by Noam Galai via flickr, used under a Creative Commons license.

As someone who’s major was Artificial Intelligence, I have great admiration for Turings seminal essay “Computing machinery and intelligence”. More than fifty years after its publication, it remains surprisingly relevant for such a fast-changing field as computer science. Here’s how I tried to explain this fascination of mine to my Toastmasters club:

Können Maschinen denken?

Es ist schon erstaunlich, was Computer heutzutage können.
Sie übersetzen Texte und staubsaugen den Boden, sie spielen Schach und finden Außerirdische, sie schreiben Gedichte und führen Krieg. Eine gewisse Intelligenz ist ihnen nicht abzusprechen.

Aber denken? Das wäre wohl zu weit gegriffen.
Denn wer sagt denn, dass eine Maschine zwischen Recht und Unrecht unterscheidet? Dass sie manchmal traurig ist? Dass sie kreativ ist und dass sie Erdbeeren mit Sahne mag?

Doch Moment – woran merken wir eigentlich, dass jemand, dass etwas denkt? Woher weiß ich, dass Monique, dass Agnes ein denkendes Wesen ist? Woran können wir eine intelligente Maschine erkennen? Im Endeffekt ist das äußere Verhalten unser einziger Anhaltspunkt.

Der britische Mathematiker Alan Turing hat sich diese Fragen bereits vor sechzig Jahren gestellt und damit noch heute maßgeblichen Test für künstliche Intelligenz entwickelt. Sein Turing-Test versucht festzustellen, ob das Verhalten eines Computers von dem eines Menschen unterscheidbar ist.

Der Aufbau: Ein Fragesteller interviewt das Untersuchungsobjekt schriftlich. Er weiß nicht, ob es sich dabei um Mensch oder Maschine handelt, und soll dies durch geschicktes Fragen herausfinden. Was meint Ihr – können heutige Computer Menschen in einer schriftlichen Befragung von ihrer Intelligenz überzeugen?

Die Antwort ist ‘Nein’. Und selbst wenn sie es könnten – wäre dies Nachweis des Denkens? Schließlich ist ja alles was sie tun, vorgegebene Regeln auszuführen. Ein Gedankenexperiment: Eine Person, nennen wir sie Anna, erhält Anweisungen auf Chinesisch, spricht aber selbst kein Wort. Sie hat aber Zugriff auf einen Stapel Regelbücher, die auf Englisch genau ausführen, was bei welchem Symbol wie zu antworten sei. Anna’s Antworten sind daher stets korrekt und können von außen nicht von denen eines Muttersprachlers unterschieden werden. Versteht Anna Chinesisch?

Die Erforschung der künstlichen Intelligenz hat sich über diese Frage in zwei Richtungen gespalten. Die eine davon setzt sich mit der Frage auseinander, wie Maschinen intelligenter werden können, komplexere Probleme lösen und aus Fehlern lernen. Die andere versucht sich an der Untersuchung des menschlichen Geistes. Wenn das Gehirn im Endeffekt auch nur als Millionen Neuronen besteht, die miteinander kommunizieren: Lässt sich dieses Verhalten abbilden?

Denn eins ist klar: Was auch immer Denken ausmacht, und ob Maschinen es jemals können werden – Denken hilft.

The assignment for this speech was ‘say it clearly’. The particular challenge I set for myself: Explain complicated things in a complicated language – German. I finally paid tribute to the bilingual nature of my Toastmasters club.